How Diversity Could Have Solved Media Bias in the General Election

There is a story that in the 1980’s Alcoa, now the world’s largest aluminium company, was in trouble. 

The work culture was broken, riven with industrial disputes; profits were falling and they were producing bad aluminium with lots of flaws.

It was thought the company was beyond repair and in a downward spiral.

In desperation they appointed a new CEO, Paul O’Neill. 

Everyone expected O’Neill to be like the previous CEOs and announce how he was going to concentrate on profits and increase worker efficiency. After all, that is what shareholders wanted.

Instead he said he would make factory safety his number one priority, and set a goal to achieve zero injuries.

He not only reached that goal, but today, Alcoa is one of the most profitable and efficient companies in the world.

The secret? O’Neill realised that worker safety was an indication of how everything was operating. Injuries are actually a real issue in aluminium production as you have hot molten and heavy machinery everywhere.

In O’Neill’s eyes, accidents were a sign of workers not following standard procedures every time. Accidents were a sign that machinery was not being updated and repaired when it was meant to be. Accidents were a sign managers were not concentrating on getting the best out of their team but taking shortcuts.  The high number of accidents were a warning sign of far deeper problems.

The secret was to get safety right - and everything would, and did, fall into place.

So why am I telling you this story about aluminium and safety on a blog about diversity in the media?

Well as I am sure you may have noticed last week the UK had a General Election. And the BBC, and other broadcasters, are currently defending themselves against charges of media bias and poor editorial judgement throughout the election campaign.

In my view, the issue of diversity in the newsroom is analogous to safety in the aluminium factory.

If you are getting diversity wrong it is a warning signals that there are deeper issues. If you get diversity right everything else falls into line.

Before the UK’s General Election the diversity warning signals were going off loud and clear.

In the weeks and months leading up to the General Election, broadcasters made a raft of editorial mistakes around diversity - from ignoring important stories by marginalised communities such as Grenfell tower until it was literally burning down, to the Naga Munchetty affair in which it is widely acknowledged the BBC made a terrible editorial mistake in judging her in breach of their editorial guidelines.

But instead of seeing these issues as foreshadowing far deeper editorial problems, the BBC and others, brushed them aside as “diversity” problems, marginal to the main news.

But they are not. Diversity problems are indicative of deeper problems. Why?

Recognising and aiming for diversity is understanding that that there can be multiple perspectives on a single issue and if you can’t recognise those perspectives, let alone balance them, chances are you will make mistakes under the heat and scrutiny of a General Election.

Reporting a General Election requires making extremely difficult editorial judgement calls. Similarly reporting diversity also requires making hard difficult judgement calls. The inability of some media organisations to call racism what it is - racism, and instead always put the word in quotation marks is an indication that the media organisation is uncomfortable in making difficult judgement calls.

The brilliant work of Raheem Sterling and Jamelia in highlighting how journalists often take lazy approaches when reporting race and and stories involving black protagonists doesn’t just shine a light on prejudices it also shines a light on how journalists are prone to group think.

I could go on but suffice to say I believe these examples illustrate how news organisations must get diversity right if they want to keep their journalistic standards high.

Diversity and inclusion is not about simply wanting to get a few more ethnic minorities and disabled people in the newsroom.  It is about fundamentally shifting a whole newsrooms’ approach to how it covers the news.

Get it right, and just like getting safety right at Alcoa, British broadcasters could become the best and most profitable in the world. 

Award Ceremonies Hold the Secret to Diversity - But Don't Look At The Stage

On Sunday 1st December Sir Lenny Henry delivered a speech at the Rose d'Or, an international award ceremony, celebrating the best television from around the world. I worked with him to draft the speech, which outlines how award ceremonies not only reveal the true diversity of the industry but also how they can be used to increase diversity and inclusion. The speech is published in full below...   

Good evening ladies, gentlemen, producers, directors, writers and actors.

And a heartfelt welcome to everyone here who contributes in all the different ways to make the magic of television.

It is truly an honour to be here tonight.

I love the Rose d’Or, it combines two of my personal passions; great television and great diversity.

We all know the Rose d’Or for celebrating brilliant television but sometimes we overlook its other purpose - showcasing international diversity. 

It has been celebrating this movement, long before it became the popular rallying call that it is today.

For me the Rose d’Or is the perfect living and breathing illustration of why inclusion is so important.

I believe society is built on story telling - the stories we tell about ourselves and to each other. We understand our neighbours, our past, our present, and where we are going by the stories we tell.

More importantly when we limit who is given a platform to tell their stories we are all the poorer. We understand each others’ lived experience less and it can lead to misunderstanding, xenophobia and create the kind of environment where prejudice can easily flourish.

Being an international award ceremony the Rose d’Or understands the universal importance of celebrating stories from different parts of the world and puts our own reality and experience in a broader context. 

But I still want us to think about how we can make our industry better.

And so I want to talk about diversity - whether it’s by country, gender, religion or ethnicity. 

I want you to imagine a world where people from Spain were not allowed to tell their stories and instead the British decided what we should know about Spain and directed, wrote and produced ninety percent of their television. 

I don’t think Spain would be particularly happy with this imaginary scenario. 

However this is how it can feel for far too many people when we talk about ethnic diversity, or disability or gender within our respective countries. When it comes to television, it can feel as if other people are telling our stories.

For example:

If we look at the UK only 13.6% of working directors are women.

That means women’s stories are either being ignored or being directed disproportionately by men.

The same applies to black and Asian people. Only 2.3% of UK television is made by directors of colour.

And only 0.3% of people working in the film industry are disabled.

Now i’m quoting British figures, but there are similar excluded groups in every country and we are all the poorer for it.

So why am I telling you this tonight?

Well I believe award ceremonies can play a crucial role in addressing the situation. 

The fact is award ceremonies cast a light on the industry. But i am not talking about the nominees and the winners.

If you want to know what our industry really looks like take your eyes off the stage and just look around the room. 

This stage where the awards are being given out and the handful of nominees is merely the tip of an iceberg.

The other eighty percent of that iceberg are sat in the audience. 

The channel controllers, commissioners, television executives, even the media regulators are all here at award ceremonies like this one.

They may not receive any awards, but they are crucial to our industry. not a single winner would be possible without them tonight. 

Everybody might focus on the stars who go home with the gongs, but if we want to change things, we can’t do it by concentrating just on the tip of the iceberg. We do it by looking at the eighty percent whose contribution is rarely acknowledged at these ceremonies.

This is definitely not a criticism of anyone here today. He said hurriedly. I don’t want my next role to be Lenny Henry: unblocking the toilets at Nandos. 

But we need to make sure the decision makers, the people behind the camera are as diverse as possible. 

So what can award ceremonies like the Rose d’Or do to improve the industry?

Well here are just two ideas i want everyone to think about .

Award ceremonies are not just about celebrating achievements. they are also about business. 

They are about making connections. 

Meeting potential business partners.

Award ceremonies are the fuel that keeps our industry running.

To put it simply they are the biggest networking events of the year.

So if we want diversity to flourish we need to make sure that our networking is more inclusive. 

How do we do that?

Here’s idea number 1.

If you are one of the media execs who bought tickets today how diverse was the group of people you brought with you? 

A good rule of thumb is; less like Downton Abbey and more like Narcos. Have you seen it? That show is so diverse the whitest thing in it is the cocaine. 

Make a commitment to ensure your guests reflect the society you are working in. Have you invited people of colour? What is your mix of male, female and non binary guests? And are there any disabled people in your group? All things to think about.

Now that’s the easy job.

Here’s the second thing i want us all to do:

Tonight is an international celebration. 

This idea of representation is a tough nut to crack and no one country has all the answers. But internationally I believe we do.

So while we are toasting the winners and networking, let’s also talk about diversity and what does and doesn’t work in our respective countries. Let’s learn from each other.

For example the French film council has brought in new funding rules to try and help increase the number of women directors and writers.

Parts of the US are giving film and television tax breaks to productions meeting diversity criteria.

This should be an international race to the top.

I want people to be boasting that their country is the best country for female directors and tell us how they did it.

I want people bragging that their country has the most screenwriters of colour and what was the most effective means to make it happen.

I know you think we’ve been here before and we have – isn’t it bloody tedious? So to stop us having the same conversation year after year, let’s start seeing true diversity, not as a problem to be solved, but as an ambition to be realized. 

Together we can make our industry the most inclusive in the world.

Beautiful, distinguished ladies and gentlemen, producers, directors, actors even the writers - let us all celebrate our great industry tonight, both onscreen and, crucially, behind the camera. 

Carl Jung said "you are what you do, not what you say you do." Let's stop talking and start doing. 

Thank you for listening.

(The speech is printed by kind permission of Sir Lenny Henry)

 

TV's dirty little diversity secret revealed by crew pictures

Pictures of television production crews are trending on my Twitter and Facebook feeds, most with the hashtag #DiversityFail.

I am sure most people have seen the type of photographs I am talking about. A successful production has come to an end and one of the crew members has decided to gather everyone who has worked on the production and take a picture of their happy smiling faces. Then they post the picture on social media for the world to see.

Invariably, despite the official stats that the BBC has 15% BAME workforce diversity or Channel 4 has over 20% BAME workforce diversity, the pictures expose the real diversity of the people actually making the programmes. BAME and people with a visible disability are thin on the ground to put it politely.

The former CEO of the Royal Television Society, Simon Albury, has a habit of collecting these pictures and posting one every couple of months on social media to expose what diversity behind the camera looks like in the UK despite official statistics. 

IGNORING THE EVIDENCE

If I am truthful I usually look at these pictures and simply ignore them. 

First, I know from first hand experience what diversity behind the camera looks like.

Second, I am always wary of highlighting anecdotal evidence that might support someone's argument. Any single picture is literally, (and metaphorically), just a snapshot and so might not be representative of the industry as a whole. I was trained as an economist, I hate unscientific skewed data.

But on Monday, something different happened... 

THE POWER OF PICTURES.

TV veteran Shibbir Ahmed asked Simon to post all the pictures he’d collected over the last few months in one Twitter thread. The result is devastating and packs a psychological and emotional punch that takes the wind out of almost any disabled and/or Black Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) people working in television. The pictures seen together are also deeply demoralising for anyone actively working to increase diversity in the media.

Taken together it is impossible to dismiss them as “one-offs” or not representative of the industry as a whole, especially in the absence of any crew photographs that show high levels of BAME and disabled diversity.

The pictures are upsetting not just because they vividly illustrate the uphill struggle facing non-white and non-abled bodied people working in the industry. 

They are upsetting because it can feel as if the pictures are incredibly insensitive. It feels as if the pictures are almost celebrating our exclusion. No one featured in the pictures seems to have any empathy as to how these pictures will be received by all the types of people not featured in them. 

Far from being embarrassed or ashamed about the employment practices that these pictures seem to reveal the participants seem to want to rub salt in the very real wounds of diversity work exclusion.

However, I personally know some of the people featured a few of the pictures and I refuse to believe that they could be so hurtful and uncaring around issues of diversity.

As always science might provide the issue.

ACADEMIC STUDIES

Research by New York University’s Felix Danbold and UCLA Anderson’s Miguel Unzueta, published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology: Interpersonal Relations and Group Processes studied how different groups perceive diversity differently.

They looked at seven different studies which showed that depending on your social standing in wider society and your place in an organisation you literally looked at these types of pictures and perceived a group’s diversity differently.

In one experiment, people were shown pictures and asked to judge if the picture was “diverse”. People from marginalised racial groups felt a group was not “diverse” until the number of non-white people reached a certain percentage. This percentage was considerably lower for white people to perceive a group to be “diverse”. Interestingly this was not just about self-interest with regards to the non-white participants. The BAME participants had the same view with regards to the diversity of a picture irrespective of whether their specific racial group was featured in the picture.

In another experiment, researchers showed that different groups placed a different level of importance on where diversity was in an organisation. For example when talking about diversity at Facebook under-represented groups are more likely to want a higher representation in technical and leadership roles before declaring “victory”, compared to dominant groups.

The other interesting point to consider is that many of the #DiversityFail pictures that Simon Albury posts actually have relatively high levels of gender diversity. Other people have suggested that people may have difficulty thinking of more than one type of diversity at a time. So seeing that a team is diverse along gender lines can make people not consider other types of diversity.  

So what does all this mean?

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

First of all, the #DiversityFail pictures reveal that we are still a very long way to go when it comes to increasing diversity behind the camera. A lot further than official statistics may have us believe.

Secondly, it might have important policy implications. The BBC executive committee for example currently only has one non-white member, Gautam Rangarajan, and as far as I am aware no visibly disabled members. At the same time, 41% of the committee are women. The committee is ultimately the group that decides if the corporation is achieving its diversity targets and what those targets should be.

The research clearly demonstrates that whether a diversity policy is judged a “success” or “failure” will depend on the make up of the group assessing it. This points to the urgent need to increase the overall diversity at the top levels of all the broadcasters, not just the BBC, if executive committees’ views are going to chime with the perceptions of the more diverse population as a whole.

One last point, I must commend the work of people like Simon Albury and Shibbir Ahmed because without these #DiversityFail pictures many of us would be none the wiser of what the diversity behind the camera really looks like. I just hope that the correct policies are implemented by the broadcasters soon, so we can start using the hashtag #DiversityWin!

A Victory! BBC agree to fund BAME journalism in same way it funds local newspapers

I am not one for hyperbole but...

...possibly the biggest development in UK media diversity was announced on Monday 21st October and nobody noticed.

In the short-run the announcement will be a lifeline to BAME (Black Asian and Minority Ethnic) journalism providing them with much needed finance. But more importantly it could reshape the entire diversity debate provide a precedent for good practice for years to come.

WHAT IS THE ANNOUNCEMENT?

The BBC has got a special fund for "Local News Partnerships". It was set up in recognition that local newspapers and local journalism play an essential role in our local democracy. They expose important local stories - sometimes with national significance - that national and international media organisations just miss. And finally they provide an essential pipeline for local journalists to enter larger mainstream news outlets. But local newspapers are in financial difficulties - we cannot afford for them to go to the wall.

The BBC's fund financially supports around 140 journalists in different local newspapers to the tune of £8 million.

The BBC is not the only media organisation who recognises the importance of local journalism and supports it. Google and Facebook both have schemes to financially support local journalism and a government select committee published the Cairncross Review in February arguing the government should do the same.  

I not only support these initiatives but have argued in the past that all the reasons for supporting local news apply to supporting the "ethnic press" and BAME media organisations like; The Voice, Black Ballad, Eastern Eye, etc.

So in February after the publication of the Cairncross Review I spoke to fellow diversity champions and had meetings with BBC executives, Facebook executives and one or two MPs who had been on the government committee.

And guess what - the BBC heard us!

BAME MEDIA ORGANISATION CAN NOW GET EXTRA MONEY

  

Six months after my initial meeting with the BBC they have revised their criteria for media organisations to apply the Local News Partnership funding. 

It now states the local news provider must: 

"Target an audience typically located in a specific geographical area which is no greater than a single Nation of the UK or which targets a BAME community of the UK"

That means the Voice, Eastern Eye, Black Ballad, Gal Dem, can all now apply for funding.

IT IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN FUNDING A FEW BAME JOURNALISTS

The announcement however is far more important than funding just a few BAME journalists - important as that is. 

For a long time campaigners for BAME media diversity have pointed out that attempts to increase regional diversity (supporting local newspapers, producing more programmes outside of London) have been backed by real money and real jobs. While efforts to increase BAME diversity have usually been in the shape of mentoring schemes, more training, or onscreen initiatives.

Over the last twelve years efforts to increase regional diversity have been extremely successful, while efforts to increase BAME diversity behind the camera have been incremental at best.

There is also the natural tension that increases in regional diversity to areas outside London can be detrimental to the BAME community that is heavily concentrated in London. 

The BBC announcement sets a precedent that every person wanting to increase BAME diversity will be able to point to from now on.

It says that BAME diversity should be treated in exactly the same way as regional diversity  with financial support.

When the BBC and Channel 4 for example ring-fences money for regional productions it is hard to justify why no money should be ring-fenced for BAME productions if the BBC recognises this important principle with its Local News Partnerships.

WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN NEXT?

In the short run the BBC needs to be applauded for what it has just done. I cannot stress enough that I went to ALL the large media organisations with schemes to support local journalism arguing that they should include BAME journalism. ONLY THE BBC CHANGED ITS POLICY.

We also now need BAME media organisations to apply for the money that is rightfully theirs. There is no point fighting for a change if we do not then follow through. Taking the money does not compromise your editorial position in anyway, all the local newspapers that take the BBC money are fiercely independent and do not hesitate to criticise the BBC when they think it is necessary.

We now need to go back to the government select committee, Google and Facebook and restate why they should follow the BBC's example.

And lastly we should argue that the BBC should not stop here. It should look at all of its policies to support regional diversity and see how they can adapt those successful methods to support not just BAME diversity but all other types of diversity including; LGBTQ+, disability and gender.

But before we do all that we might just want to go and get a drink. We don't often get wins like this one - this is worth celebrating.

Are "racist" journalists out to get Sir Mo Farah?

Is the “racist” media out to get Sir Mo Farah?

That is definitely what the Olympic multiple-gold-medalist implied at a press conference recently when asked questions about his former coach Alberto Salazar being found guilty of drug doping.

When first asked about his former coach his response was basically to say it has nothing to do with him; “The headline is Farah, Farah, Farah. There is no allegation against me. I’ve not done anything wrong. Let’s be clear – these allegations are about Alberto Salazar.”

So far, so much a sports story that I wouldn’t normally write about in this blog. But then Mo went on. 

“As much as I am nice to you, there is a clear agenda to this,” Farah said. “I have seen this many times. I have seen it with Raheem Sterling, with Lewis Hamilton. I cannot win whatever I do.”

It was clear to anybody listening to the press conference that by invoking Raheem Sterling and Lewis Hamilton, Mo was calling the media out for being racist and they were targeting him with this line of questioning because he is black.

So is Mo right? Is he the victim of a racist media?

The answer is a definite “No - but Mo is not crazy to say it” 

The press conference once again it illustrates why diversity in the media is so important and why it is almost impossible to do good journalism without it.

Let me explain why.

First I must declare an interest in the Alberto Salazar story. I was the executive producer of the original Panorama that exposed allegations about the Olympic coach and the Nike Oregon Project which Salazar ran and Mo was part of back in 2015. 

Four years later Salazar has been found guilty of using drugs as part of his coaching methods to assist athletes. 

It is of course important to note that Farah and Salazar parted ways in 2017 (two years after the Panorama investigation) and Mo Farah has never been found guilty of any doping violations. 

However it is perfectly legitimate for journalists to put questions to one of Salazar’s top athletes about the illegal coaching practices which were going on while that top athlete was under his charge.

So, in that respect Mo Farah is completely wrong to level accusations of racism.

However his sense that he is being treated unfairly and the victim of a witch-hunt are supported by most academic research and it has to do with the lack of diversity of those questioning him.

During the course of the press conference something strange happened while I am watching it on my computer. At the start Mo fills the frame, but midway through the camera zooms out to reveal some of the journalists. And yes, you’ve guessed it, they are all white. (There may have been others questioning the Olympian who were not white but they were not visible). 

I am also reminded of a picture that circulated online a few days earlier of the BBC production team that covered the World Athletics Championships in Doha. In the photograph is roughly 200 people who appear overwhelmingly white.

What you have then is a GB athletics team where black sports stars are vastly over-represented coupled with an overwhelmingly white team of broadcasters deciding the editorial decisions of what should be covered and how. This is an issue that has been raised in the UK most notably by BCOMS (Black Collective of Media in Sport).

A lot of academic studies have been done into trust in the police but I think a lot of the conclusions are transferable to trust in journalism. Numerous studies have shown that trust in the police by marginalised groups is heavily correlated with their level of representation in the force.

To put it simply, it is hard to trust in the racial impartiality of a group’s decisions if it seems unable to hire impartially.

Or to misquote a well-worn phrase “Good journalism should not only be done, but also seen to be done”.

And this is where we get into the world of hypotheticals.

Would the predominantly white journalists have asked Sir Seb Coe the same questions during the height of his athletic powers about possible doping accusations in the same way they are questioning Mo? 

Would Mo be treated differently if he were white?

The truth is we will never know.

And that is the fundamental problem with the lack of diversity. It can cause you to question the very legitimacy of good journalism.

It goes from “Mo is just playing the race card!” to “Those are some legitimate questions but would they be treating him differently if he was white?”

One last point about some of those academic studies into police trust. A lot of them found that the actions of the police didn’t actually change when they become more diverse (arrest rates etc) but trust in those actions did.

I think the BBC and other media organisations have done some great investigations into doping (I’ve been involved in some) I don’t want a cloud to hang over the hard work of those journalists just because their bosses haven't put in the hard work to increase the diversity of their workforce.

Lack of diversity may have just changed how the BBC is run forever

Who runs the BBC?

Because of the BBC’s lack of diversity the answer to that question might have changed forever on Monday 7th October 2019, and with it the shape of our democracy.

A few months ago I wrote about “grey rhino” theory. This is the idea developed by policy analyst Michele Wucker that people, organisations and even entire countries, can be slow to react to impending disasters, even when they know they are coming. 

The coming disasters are called “grey rhinos” because we can see the dust clouds of the stampeding rhino but we fail to take the necessary action until the rhino is right on top of us and it is too late.

The best example of this is climate change; scientists continue to warn us that disaster is coming (we see the clouds of dust) but it increasingly looks like we are not going to act until it is too late.

Media diversity is a perfect example of a “grey rhino”. Everybody acknowledges that a lack of diversity will have catastrophic effects and yet we seem paralysed, unable to take the necessary steps to avoid the problem.

Now here is the really interesting part of “grey rhino” theory: We may know the source of the coming disaster (climate change, lack of diversity etc) but we do not know what shape it will take.

So for example, we might know climate change is coming but we don’t really know if it will be the sea level rise that will be the real disaster or crop failure or species extinction or something else altogether that we haven’t even thought of that will be the real catastrophe. 

This is precisely what has just happened at the BBC - a grey rhino is stampeding through the corporation but it is destroying things in ways no one predicted.

The grey rhino in question is of course diversity.

When it comes to diversity the common narrative is broadcasters need to increase their diversity otherwise viewers will not see themselves reflected in the output and go to other media which more accurately reflects them. 

In short;  We see the grey rhino, we might not be reacting but we are pretty sure what he consequences will be when the grey rhino arrives. 

This analysis gave broadcasters a false sense of security because viewing figures are falling but are still relatively stable and so the grey rhino is still some way off. 

But we were all wrong.

We were right about the grey rhino, we were just completely wrong about the consequences of ignoring it.

Let me explain.

Two weeks ago the BBC’s Executive Complaints Unit (ECU) partially upheld a complaint against Breakfast News presenter Naga Munchetty for breaking their editorial guidelines when talking about racism in relation to Donald Trump. It would appear that the ECU is overwhelmingly male and not a single person of colour works for the ECU (although the BBC have refused to give details of the of the racial makeup of the unit).

After a small public outcry over the decision the BBC’s executive committee publicly came out in support of the ECU’s decision, and one member of the executive committee, David Jordan, made public appearances defending the decision. This point is crucial because it was no longer just an issue for the complaints’ unit but had been elevated to the BBC’s highest committee. It is also important to note that there is only one person of colour on the executive committee. 

There then followed more public outcry following the executive committee’s actions, and a piece in the Guardian which showed that David Jordan was either not in possession of all the facts when he made the public appearances to defend the decision or actively misled the public when he made his TV appearances.

At which point the Director General, Tony Hall, overruled his executive committee and said they were wrong to defend the ECU’s decision.

Again this point of the story is crucial.

For the DG to overrule a decision of one department (the ECU) is serious but hardly catastrophic. For the DG to unilaterally overrule the decision of his executive committee is possibly the most serious thing any head of a company or organisation can do.

This means that the DG has either lost faith in the judgement of his executive committee, or he has not lost faith and has only reversed the decision for political expediency.

If the former then normally some members of the executive committee would be moved to new positions as their judgement is wanting.

If it is the latter then you would expect the BBC Board - who oversees the governance of the DG and the executive committee - to step in and discipline the DG for pandering to the public and not abiding by the corporation's own rules.

Neither of these two things have happened.

And so on Monday a small earthquake happened. 

Ofcom - the UK’s media regulator stepped in.

According to the Guardian,  Ofcom told the BBC that it has “concerns about whether the public broadcaster’s complaints process could still commend the confidence of the public, not least because it could not explain on what basis - other than public outrage- the director general had overturned the original decision.” 

Kevin Backhurst, effectively the number two at Ofcom, said “We’ll be requiring the BBC to be more transparent about its process and compliance findings as a matter of urgency.”

Now I cannot express strongly enough the importance of the last two paragraphs.

In plain English what Ofcom is saying is: We are stepping in to make sure the BBC executive is governed properly. 

Telling the BBC how to run its complaints procedure and how transparent the BBC executive should be in explaining its decisions is a question of governance. Telling the DG that he needs to be accountable to explain why he overturned his executive committee is a question of governance.

What Ofcom effectively did yesterday is tell the BBC Board, who are meant to oversee governance, you are not doing your job and we have been forced to step in.

This is massive. 

It potentially changes who the BBC is accountable to. It potentially changes the independence of the BBC from being overseen by a board at arms length of the government, to a regulator with a different relationship to government. If it doesn’t change it - at the very least it clarifies the relationship in ways people had not fully appreciated.

The BBC executive sees this as a major shift in their relationship with Ofcom, as they felt the regulator had “no clear jurisdiction” to undertake some of he actions they have undertaken and told them so directly.

As the national broadcaster the BBC is a key pillar of British democracy. Whether its governance is overseen by a semi-independent board or a regulator with links to several government departments (although officially independent of government) might seem like a technical point but it effects the very nature of our democracy. 

Even if everything settles down after this, Ofcom has flexed its muscles and publicly put the DG, the executive and the board in their place. Nothing will ever be the same again.

Diversity was the grey rhino that we all knew was coming, but it has come far sooner than we all expected and for good or ill it is disrupting things in ways no one predicted.

I love the BBC and I have a lot of respect for Ofcom. Neither are perfect and maybe the changing relationship between the two is for the best. But ideally I want us to make any changes to governance and our democracy slowly and in a fully considered manner. Not for it to forced upon us by a stampeding “grey rhino”.

The first “grey rhino” is already stampeding through one media organisation, there is no doubt unless we address diversity there will be more to follow and who knows what they will trample on.