Why Black People Get Paid Less – And What We Can Do About It

Have you ever wondered how media companies work out how much to pay you?

It is an important issue for everyone, but has become a pressing issue for BAME (Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic) people right now due to the issue of ethnicity pay-gaps.

This week the think tank, the Resolution Foundation, published their findings on the UK ethnicity pay-gap and they make for bleak reading. Black male graduates are paid 17% less than their white counterparts on average. British BAME people (Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic) in general lose £3.2bn a year in pay gap differences compared to their white counterparts.

In July 2018 ITN revealed an ethnicity pay gap of 20.8%.

PUT SIMPLY THE CONVERSATION THAT NEEDS TO CHANGE

  

Well here is an example of a typical conversation I used to have as a BBC exec with Production Managers (PM) that may have inadvertently perpetuated ethnicity pay-gaps.

Me: I want to employ a new Assistant Producer I’ve just interviewed – I think they will be great for the new Panorama we have just been commissioned to make.  

PM: Great what is their name?

Me: Joan Smith, she has done some great work, she has never done a network program before but has worked for the BBC before and she will be great.

PM: OK let me look up the BBC payroll records and see what they were paid last time she had a contract at the BBC. And then that is what we will offer her.

Me: Great – let me know how it goes and when you chat to them.

A few days later Joan Smith (not a real name) would turn up and usually be paid the same, or just slightly more, than the last time she worked at the BBC.

If the person had not worked at the BBC previously the Production Manager would simply call them up and ask them “what was your salary for your last job?”

TWO BASIC ECONOMIC CONCEPTS

Economists have two terms for what is happening in these conversations: “Anchoring” and “Asymmetric Information”.

Let’s start with the concept of “anchoring”.

“Anchoring” was first described by two psychologists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky in 1974 to explain the idea that an initial number (regardless of how large or small) can act as a reference point and influences subsequent judgments about something’s value.

Behavioral economists have recognized its particular importance in pay negotiations. Even though there may be subsequent adjustments on the initial number the first number will heavily influence the final outcome. If the initial number is high the final salary will be high, if the initial number is low the final salary will be low.

The concept of “asymmetric information” is also an important concept in economics and it is where one party has a lot more information than another party. Unsurprisingly economists have found that the people with more information have a massive advantage in any pay negotiations.

As the old saying goes; “knowledge is power”

WHY ANCHORING IS BAD FOR BAME PEOPLE

Anchoring your current pay negotiations on past pay is particularly bad for BAME people for a number of reasons. Statistically in the UK BAME people find it particularly hard to land their first job, this is true even for recent graduates who are more than twice as likely to be unemployed compared to their white counterparts

The high unemployment level often leads BAME people to take lower paid work. This initial low pay can then follow them throughout their careers as subsequent pay negotiations are then based on it.

WHY ASYMMETRIC INFORMATION IS BAD FOR PAY-GAPS

Asymmetric information gives the employer the upper hand. While they know exactly how much you earn the chances are you do not have a clue how much other people in the organization in your same position earn. This means the employer has a good idea how much you will settle for while you have next to no idea how high you can bargain for

According to David Burkus, a professor in management studies, this means that “during initial hiring or annual raise or promotion discussions, that information asymmetry gives an employer the advantage—and they can use that advantage to save a lot of money. Imagine how much better you could negotiate for a raise with all that information.”

WHAT IS THE SOLUTION?

The combination of anchoring and asymmetric information massively increases ethnicity pay gaps. So what can we do to try and solve the problem?

One possible solution is to change the law. Across the US from; New York City to San Francisco, it is now illegal to ask a prospective employee “What’s your current salary”.

The idea is to make sure that people who may have accepted a lower salary previously are not penalized throughout the rest of their careers.

For the policy to work in the media industry, where a few large organizations dominate the market, (see my previous post on monopsony) you would have to build Chinese Walls that would prohibit Production Managers and execs from just calling up pay roll records to see how much prospective employees earned previously.  

While this would combat the problem of anchoring, some people have gone one step further and think pay-gaps will only be eliminated once you get rid of the problem of asymmetric information.

David Burkus, who I quoted earlier, thinks there should be complete transparency of everyone’s salary in a company from the CEO to the office junior. This would force managers to be fair and transparent about how they decide people’s pay. It would also empower employees in salary negotiations

Other people have argued that companies may not need complete transparency but should publish the average salaries and range of certain positions so people can have discussions as to whether they should be paid more or less than the average. This would level the playing field in negotiations and would also act as a fairer anchor in pay negotiations.

WHAT CAN I DO AS AN INDIVIDUAL?

While we wait for that glorious day when new laws are implemented so employers can’t ask about your previous salary. Or enlightened HR departments decide to give up their asymmetric advantage in salary negotiations by creating more transparent salary information about their workforce, is there anything individuals can do now?

One suggestion is to simply ask a new employer what the average salary of the position is they are offering you to try and address the information asymmetry.

Another idea is to simply ask them why they need to know your current salary to offer you a new one and ask them to come up with a figure so they set the anchor.

However the most important thing is to recognize the importance of asymmetric information and the power of anchors. As a BBC exec I often didn’t fully appreciate the powerful position I was in and how simple conversations I had with Production Managers could have long lasting consequences  

Good luck and happy pay negotiations!

  

Additional note: 

I mentioned my time at the BBC at the beginning of the piece and so I thought I should briefly talk about its ethnicity pay gap. The BBC revealed a ethnicity pay-gap of -1.1%. The idea that the BBC actually has a negative ethnicity pay gap and pays BAME people more than white people is thought of as “strange”, to put it politely, by most people I have spoken to who work in the organization. Please read my blog post on why this figure is highly unreliable.  

Black Journalists Collective UK - 4 Point Representation Manifesto

On the 22nd December 2018 over 100 black jouranlists signed an open letter by the the Black Journalists' Collective UK ( @BJCUK1 ) calling on newsrooms across the UK to adopt their "4 Point Representation Manifesto" to increase diversity, inclusion and representation in journalism.

I am proud to have been involved in its drafting and a signatory.

Please find the letter in full below:

Dear news editors

The poor and misleading quality of reporting related to people of colour in the UK has been brought into sharp focus in recent days by Raheem Sterling and Jamelia Davis. These are only the latest in a long litany of inadequacies in newsroom coverage of race and how stories of non-white people are covered.

We, as members of the Black Journalists’ Collective UK (BJCUK), believe that there is a direct correlation between the ethnic makeup of the staff in a newsroom and how issues are covered.

There is a chronic underrepresentation of black journalists across British newsrooms. The December 2015 survey of 700 journalists, conducted by the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism revealed that only 0.4% of British journalists are Muslim. The same survey also revealed only 0.2% of working journalists are black.

The evidence shows this is not due to a lack of available graduates from ethnic minority backgrounds. 2017 research by the NCTJ revealed that only 8% of black journalism graduates were able to obtain jobs in journalism, compared with 26% of white journalism graduates.

We need journalism that better serves all communities in the UK and therefore we need newsrooms that reflect the society they serve. We do acknowledge that news providers like ITN and the BBC have already published their intentions to improve recruitment and close the ethnicity pay gap. However, there are some who have not been so forthcoming.

It is clear there is much more progress to be made, therefore the BJCUK is calling on all newsrooms to urgently show their commitment to improving their reporting of racial issues and subjects, and to increasing the diversity of their staff by signing up to the points outlined in the manifesto below.

THE REPRESENTATION MANIFESTO

Based on four guiding principles, the BJCUK believes newsrooms should commit to undertake the following essential actions:

1. REPRESENT SOCIETY

Newsrooms should commit to the long-term goal of their staff at every level, accurately reflecting the society in which they operate. They should also commit to short-term goals set against specific deadlines by which progress can be measured.  

To this end, newsrooms should openly commit to measurable and easily understood goals and implement and publish methods by which they intend to recruit, retain and advance diverse journalists and editors.

2. TRANSPARENCY

Openness and transparency are essential to measure progress and for people - both within the and outside any organisation – to be able to trust the actions of the newsroom.

To this end,
newsrooms should publish detailed diversity figures within their organisation – both in functional areas and seniority levels.

3. FINANCE

Finances are a clear signal indication of the priorities of an organisation. Financial commitments build credibility and - if no organisation wants to waste money - helps to focus the actions of the organisation.

To this end, organisations should make clear financial commitments to increase diversity within their organisation and output by publishing percentage total salary spend on different diverse groups to training budgets.

Organisations should also commit to delivering and providing more robust unconscious bias training amongst its senior decision-makers and management.

4. EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY

We can only ensure that people are promoted on talent if everyone is given an equal opportunity to compete for jobs. Therefore, ensuring that as wide a pool of people have access to important information is one of the best methods to ensure equality in an organisation.

To this end,
as many employment opportunities as possible should be open to as many people as possible with information about job opportunities advertised as widely as possible.

Annually the number of job opportunities which were advertised (externally and internally) compared to the number of actual new jobs, moves and promotions made should be published.

We want any news organisation that believes it is serious about improving representation within the British journalism industry, and is serious about halting the steady stream of careless reporting of stories around race and diversity, join us to formulate plans for ensuring this industry is fit for right now and fit for Britain’s future.

The quality of journalism depends on reporters and commentators who have access to a comprehensive and varied set of sources and perspectives.

Freedom of Speech dies

if only the powerful and majority culture is given a platform to be heard

Democracy dies if

only the powerful and majority culture is given the means to voice their reality and experiences

Society is poorer

if we are deprived of the creativity, stories and vision of any one section of that society

Diversity and Inclusion are not luxuries

but essential elements of a functioning, free and equal society

Equal representation across newsrooms is key

to achieving better journalism and a better society

=========================================================================

Note to Editors:

Direct all BJCUK Media enquiries to

Marverine Cole, Journalist, Broadcast & Academic

marverine@marverinecole.co.uk

Black Journalists’ Collective (UK) – BJCUK - is a newly-established, and fast-growing, support network which represents the views of over 100 black and minority ethnic journalists and broadcasters, working in newsrooms across the United Kingdom.

OK Computer? Artificial Intelligence and TV Diversity

Being in China, I’m constantly discussing and covering news about Artificial Intelligence (AI) . And although “Alexa” doesn’t work so well in China because of the great firewall, I still love the fact that because of AI I can just shout and Alexa will pick a playlist that perfectly fits my mood. Somehow, I feel like my standard of life is improved. A few months ago, however, In October 2018 a small story broke about Amazon’s use of AI technology in hiring staff.

Don’t feel bad if you didn’t hear about it, most people didn’t.

But the story potentially has huge consequences and should send shivers down the spines of everyone who cares about diversity in television.

In 2014 a team at Amazon.com started developing a computer programme to review job applicants’ applications with the aim of mechanizing the search for top talent. The Artificial Intelligence (AI) employed in the computer programme would be devoid of human emotions and prejudices and objectively evaluate potential candidates.

In many ways you would think this is exactly what people who campaign for employment for people of more diverse backgrounds have been clamoring for. No more bosses just emplooying their friends and employing in their own image.

But by 2015 the bosses at Amazon started to realize that something was going wrong.

The AI programme was weeding out all the women.

The computer programmers had given the AI system over ten years’ worth of successful employees' CV’s and so the AI programme had “learnt” that one of the biggest indicators of whether a candidate would be successful in the future was whether the candidate was male. Hence all women were got rid of straight away. Far from getting rid of prejudice the computer programme only amplified the prejudice of previous employment practices combined with the possible subconscious innate prejudices of the programmers (who happened to be predominantly men).

For people interested in diversity in television this case potentially has far wider consequences than just employment practices at the online retailer.

In May 2018 Broadcast magazine published a piece explaining how AI could be used in the television industry to analyse scripts and decide which ones get green-lit or not, or at the very least which ones commissioners get to see from the mass of scripts which are submitted.  

AI could also be used to tweak scripts changing the gender or race for example of a particular character if its machine learning has taught it that a woman or white man are viewed more favourably by an audience.

In 2017 the BBC announced it was partnering with eight British universities to use AI to "better understand what audiences want from the BBC."

The publication Engadget reported that “The BBC hopes machine learning can help it build ‘a more personal BBC’ with tools that could allow employees to make informed editorial and commissioning decisions.”

Looking at the example of Amazon the potential pitfalls of using AI to decide who to employ and what programmes to commission are obvious and scary. But more importantly the problems might be far harder to spot than the Amazon example.

In America right now people are so worried about the potential prejudices being imbedded into AI models that journalists and lawyers are arguing that AI programmes should be open to be reviewed and challenged for prejudice. That means people should be able to independently analyse the computer codes that are used to teach the AI programme and make sure there aren’t any assumptions baked into the programme that might discriminate against certain groups. Just as any human decisions can be challenged in court if someone is suspected of sexism or racism for example computer programme should also be subject to the same type of challenges if prejudice is suspected.

I love AI – it improves my life in so many ways and I am not arguing for a return to a world where it doesn’t exist. Nor am I arguing for a return to a world where scripts are green lit and people are employed just on a nod and a wink. However, I personally side with the US lawyers and journalists who are making sure that we subject all decisions to scrutiny. Whether those decisions areat is made by a humans or ca computers.

Now after writing this blog post I need to relax. - Alexa play me some 90’s R&B

Lies, Damned Lies and Diversity Statistics

On Wednesday the Creative Diversity Network (CDN) published the diversity figures for the UK television industry collected by Diamond and my Twitter feed went into melt down.

Here is a sample of the Twitter reaction:

"the publication of this diabolical @tweetCDN report proves why we need far better Diversity reporting & data analysis because this is not fooling anyone.” @ScreenNation

"The whole thing is a ridiculous farce.” @BlaakRichardson

"This is a blatant lie” @Shabir1

"Failing us. One report at a time.” @courttianewland

The outrage extended beyond the “usual suspects” of people interested in TV diversity.

Uzma Mir-Young a board member of Glasgow Film tweeted “Wow. I thought Diamond was a good idea, but this is NOT my experience at all.” @Uzma MY

Respected BBC journalist and presenter, Rajan Datar, responded to the report by saying: “That is very worrying indeed. This cannot be allowed to give the impression that things are going swimmingly” @rajandatar

And the actor and senior member of Equity Daniel York tweeted; “This is misleading at best, mendacious at worst.” @danielfyork

So what is all the fuss about?

First a little background.

The Creative Diversity Network (CDN) is an organization supported by all 5 major British broadcasters, BBC, ITV, Channel 4, Viacom/C5 and Sky, with the task of coordinating efforts to increase diversity in the industry and to “share, discuss and profile the work that the UK broadcasters are doing around the diversity agenda. Both independently and collectively”.

Key to this is Diamond, (formerly called Project Diamond).

Diamond is an online system where television productions can report their diversity figures, both on-screen and behind the camera, of every programme they make for one of the five major broadcasters.

If you believe the old adage that “sunlight is the best disinfectant” Diamond should be a game changer for TV diversity as it should reveal what is happening on TV productions and enable appropriate action to be taken.

But the recently published report seems to be far from the “sunlight” that most people have been hoping for.

For example the report said 16.4% of senior TV commissioners are from a Black, Asian or Minority Ethnic background (BAME). Anyone who works in UK television knows that reporting such a figure is laughable, and that is putting it politely.

The report also said 12.8% of people working behind the camera are BAME. And that BAMEs are over-represented behind the camera in News & Current Affairs, Entertainment, Music, Education and Factual Entertainment programmes. Again anyone who works in television knows this is simply ridiculous.

To put these figures in context the number of BAME commissioners at the BBC is so low that in their annual diversity report they have replaced the number with an asterisks because in the words of the BBC “Data has been replaced with an asterisk where figures are below sample size”. For BBC Studios, the department that makes TV programmes, only 9.6% of its staff are BAME and 7.7% of its freelancers are BAME. If the Diamond report is right that would mean the rest of the industry are roughly twice as good at employing BAME people than the BBC. Even the harshest BBC critic doesn’t believe that.

So how did Diamond arrive at these figures?

The report acknowledges that only 25.2% of productions actually reported their diversity figures to Diamond.

Therefore in the words of the National Centre for Social Research, the body who reviewed the report,"there is the inevitable possibility of reporting bias due to sample self-selection as a consequence of the low response rate, and this caveat must be included in the methodology, and results interpreted with a degree of caution."

For the non-statisticians and social scientists amongst us that one sentence basically means; “these figures are meaningless as in all likelihood only the best students bothered to hand in their homework”.

So it is a bad report and the figures are terrible – but why are so many people angry?

People are angry because that one sentence admitting that the figures need to be “interpreted with a degree of caution” is buried on page 24 of the 28 page report (not counting the appendix).

Most politicians, journalists and even industry figures just read the executive summary and won’t read the important sentence 4 pages from the end.

There is the very real risk that people will read the report by the major industry body and supported by all five major UK broadcasters and think that TV does not have a diversity problem. And if they think that they definitely won’t commit resources & institute policies to address it.

Far from helping to address diversity problems in the industry this report this report could set things back – and that is enough to make a lot of people angry.

TV has a diversity problem and CDN publishing the Diamond data in its current form does not help. Diamond is a great idea and the truth is the response rate of TV productions of reporting their diversity data was marginally better this year than last. Eventually I hope it will be a useful tool in tackling diversity.

But we are not there yet.

Last Thing We Need Are More Training Schemes - A Simple Economics Lesson

Most people who know me – even those who just follow me on Twitter – know that I am a running nerd. I have run over 15 marathons and run at least one marathon on every continent on earth (except Antarctica).

What most people do not know however is I am also an economics geek.

I studied economics at university and I am married to one of the leading economists in China Africa relations.

Just the other day I was talking to her about Neo-paleo-Keynesian Phillips Curves. And bedroom pillow talk can sometimes stray into subjects such as Friedrich List’s theories on infant industry protection.

So it should not surprise anyone that when I look at the issue of diversity in the film and television industry, I often do so through the lens of economic theory.

With all that said I am now going to write what is my most wonkish blog post to date but possibly the most important.

And it is all about “Monopsony theory”

WHAT IS A MONOPOLY

I firmly believe that if we do not understand the market and economic models that cause low diversity representation, no number of diversity schemes will solve the problem of low numbers of BAME, disabled people and women in the industry. 

Most people have heard of a monopoly. A monopoly is when you have a large number of buyers of a certain product or service but only one seller of the product or service.

The examples that most people come across are railway companies or electricity companies. A few companies can dictate how much people pay for the product, provide a bad service and have other negative effects for the consumer, but still increase their profits. The negatives of monopolies are well know and governments often have to intervene to try and either break them up or legislate against their worst actions.

MONOPOLY VERSUS MONOPSONY

A monopsony has similarly negative consequences but it is like a monopoly in reverse.

A monopsony is when you have lots of sellers of a product but only one or two buyers.

In these circumstances it is the buyers who can dictate the price and how the market works.

It is classic case of market failure.

And increasingly that is precisely what many economists think we have in the television industry.

Most freelancers and independent companies might not have heard of monopsony theory but whenever I talk to friends in the industry they quickly recognize the situation of competing with hundreds of other companies (sellers) but only having a handful of broadcasters (buyers) they can pitch their ideas to or sell their programmes to.

Increasingly monopsony theory is being used by economists to explain why diversity problems exists in various industries – it is no coincidence that both the tech and television industries seem to suffer from a lack of diversity and both have the problem of a few large companies dominating their industries.

MONOPSONY THEORY EXPLAINS PAY GAPS

Now concentrate here comes the science bit (as L’Oreal used to say):

All companies, in every market, want to increase their profits and a major way of doing this is to minimize their wage bill.

The simple theory is that the first person they can employ is willing to come into work for a low amount – say  £8.00 per hour. However the next person they can attract to their company requires a bit more money so they have to pay him £8.50 an hour. And then the third person requires a little bit more still to get them out of bed, say £9.00.

Now here is the problem for the company. Instead of being able to pay everybody the least money that they are willing to come into work, the company has to set a wage that is high enough to attract the third worker (if they are only employing three people). Which means the first worker will actually get paid £9.00 per hour, even though they are willing to come into work for £8.00.

The company would like to be able to pay everybody the least they can – so what some companies do (consciously or subconsciously) is divide people into sub-groups, as they know those sub-groups will have different thresholds as to how much money they are willing to work for. This is called “price differentiation”.

Therefore imagine a company employing 20 people - ten men and ten women. The wages required to attract the 10th male worker might be £12 dollars an hour but the amount required to attract the 10th woman might only be £10. That means it is in the interests of the company to split the payments to men and women so all the men get roughly £12 and all the women get only about £10.

(If they don’t do this then they would pay all the men and women $12 and their wage bill would go up. They may consciously or subconsciously do this for other groups including BAME and disabled people).

In a perfect world however the gender pay gap should not exist because a woman would see that their male colleagues are getting paid more, and even if they are willing to work for less she could just leave the company that is paying her less and go to another company that would pay her more equitably.

But this is where monopsony theory kicks in. The woman being underpaid can’t do that if there are just a few buyers she can sell her labour to. Those companies can keep paying her low wages safe in the knowledge that there are few options of where she can go. This might explain why the tech sector, a classic example of a monopsony, is thought to have the worst gender pay gap in the US. And why the BBC and other British media organisations have been embroiled in pay gap controversies recently.

MONOPSONY THEORY EXPLAINS OTHER FORMS OF DISCRIMINATION

So if monopsony theory can explain pay gaps can they explain some of the entrenched diversity problems in the UK TV and film industry, such as only 3 percent of people working behind the camera in the film industry being from a BAME background or that number falling to 0.3 percent when it comes to disabled people?

While there will always be competition for the very best talent, say the top 1 percent, the vast majority of us are in somewhere in the middle. What monopsony theory tells us is that while the companies might fight over a very few people (actually inflating their wages) there is less competition by companies to battle it out for the other workers. 

The market failures associated with monopsonies mean that companies will more likely hire their friends, promote people that look like them and retain people that they like rather than people who might be the best person for the job. 

In a free market if you did this you would quickly be punished.

In a monopsony you will hardly feel the consequences of your actions - at least in the short to medium term.

DIVERSITY NEEDS MARKET SOLUTIONS NOT TRAINING SCHEMES

So what does mean for those of us who want to increase diversity in the film and television industry? Should we all just give up because we are working in a monopsony?

We definitely should not give up.

But monopsony theory does teach us that we need to look at different types of solutions as opposed to the usual ones people in the industry often try.

Market failures, like monopolies and monopsonies, require market interventions. This is precisely what regulators like Ofcom exist to do. Market failures mean television broadcasters left to their own devices will not produce enough quality news and current affairs programmes, they will not produce enough quality children’s programmes and will definitely not produce enough programmes outside of London. To solve these types of market failures the regulators have to step in and actually shape the market setting quotas and issuing license requirements. For example Ofcom insists that broadcasters produce a set number of news and current affairs programmes, children’s programmes and programmes outside of London.

Importantly what Ofcom does not do is insist that producers of children’s programmes receive more training in the hope that they will be able to compete with cheaper light entertainment programmes. Ofcom does not insist there are more entry level schemes for people working outside of London to get them into the industry. Ofcom does not ask broadcasters to implement “unconscious bias training” for senior managers to commission more news programmes. They realise that they needed to focus on the market failures inherent in how the industry operates, not on the individuals working in the market.

MARKET INTERVENTIONS THAT WILL WORK FOR DIVERSITY

Similarly monopsony theory teaches us that market failures can be addressed. These include solutions such as tax breaks for diversity, as advocated by Lenny Henry and the Film Diversity Action Group. And it would also include ring-fenced funding for diversity programmes, as argued for in an open letter to broadcasters by influential industry figures in 2014.

So next time someone advocates another training scheme to solve the problem of diversity in the film and television industry just ask them, “how do you think this will solve the monopsony problem?”. Although take it from me, a self-confessed economics geek, it might mean you get invited to fewer dinner parties. 

Standing on the Shoulders of Giants

When I was 15 I saw an advert in the Voice newspaper for a week long film and video course for young black people.

You had to apply and even attend an interview to be accepted on to the course, held during the Easter holidays.

I applied and was successful.

Every day a different person would come and teach us the basics of film production. I didn’t realize it then but each one of them was a legend of black British cinema

Menelik Shabazz, the director of the seminal film “Burning an Illusion”, taught about a "directors eye". Glenn Ujebe Masokoane, who directed “We Are The Elephant”, one of the best films ever made about the struggle against apartheid by South African students, taught us how to write commentary for documentaries. Denis Davis who later went on to direct “Omega Rising – Women In Rastafari” taught us how to use a camera – and the fact that the first camera person I ever met was a woman had a lasting effect on me on how I viewed the profession and breaking down stereotypes before they are even formed.

On the last day of the course, when we were cutting our self-shot little films, Denis Davis approached me and asked me if I would like to spend the summer helping the Ceddo Film Collective work on their new film “Time and Judgement”. I would only be making coffee and at best syncing rushes but in my spare time I could mess around on their VT tape editing machines.

It ended up being a summer that would change my life. It gave me a love for film and shaped my career to this day.

I tell this story because I recognize that I owe these people a massive debt.

I am not describing the normal narrative that you often hear of the mentor who inspires you and guides you to greatness – a la “Dead Poets Society”. I am talking about debt far more important and so large that I will never be able to repay it.

Every black person working in TV and film today owes these people, and others  like them, a debt. These men and women paved the way to make everything we do possible. They were role-models, they were mould-breakers, diversity champions and revolutionaries.

All our careers are in some form or other, whether we know it or not, built on the barriers they broke down and the paths they cleared.

They are the giants whose shoulders we all stand on.

A few days ago I started a Twitter thread where I named some of these “giants” and asked other people to add to the list naming the people who built the foundation for Black and Asian people in UK film and TV.

The response was overwhelming, educational and slightly emotional.

So these names are not lost I have decided to create a wiki-document: 

"BAME FILM AND TV GIANTS"

Anyone can access the document and update it - in the spirit of BAME people in TV and film this must be a team effort. You can edit the existing entries and add "giants” you feel are missing. I hope the page will eventually be hosted by a more established organization so it can get as wide an audience as possible.
 

But for now read about some of the greats of British Asian and Minority Ethnic film and television.

Enjoy