Why you cannot combat fake news without addressing diversity

Last week the British government published a report on “fake news” and how to combat it. The report was titled “Disinformation and ‘fake news’”, it was 108 pages long, mainly focused on the “evils” of social media and even went so far as labelling Facebook as “digital gangsters”

The problem with the report is that it had one glaring ommission, it did not mention diversity once.

So what on earth has diversity got to do with fake news?

Let me explain.

Much of the discussion around “fake news”, focuses on the people creating it, writing it and spreading it. People rarely look at why people “choose” to consume fake news, as opposed to reading and watching news from more reputable news sources.

Most people don't like the idea that anybody actively "chooses" fake news. The conventional thinking seems to be that people are just passive recipients of news stories and are fooled by fake news stories on their social media feeds. All we need to do to remedy the problem is educate people to be more vigilant to spot fake stories, crack down on "evil social media" and extoll the virtues of mainstream news sources and how reliable their facts are.

But I think that ignores hundreds of years of journalism - people have turned to news sources they like and turned away from news sources they do not like.

People make choices.

They make choices as to whether to believe the Telegraph or the Guardian, the make choices as to whether to believe the Sun or the Mirror. The idea that people would suddenly abandon this and be completely passive recipients of news stories from news organisations they have never heard of doesn't seem to make sense.

There is an element of choice - the question is why are they choosing to read fake news from unreputable news sources?   

THINK LIKE AN ECONOMIST

Now, for people who read this blog regularly you will know I love economics, I have a degree in economics and I’m married to an economist so I often view issues through an economic lens.

Therefore when I look at the problem of fake news I think of it as an economics problem.

In very simple economic terms fake news is a product.

And to understand any product, be that washing up powder, newspapers, drugs or even fake news, you have to understand the idea of “supply and demand”. 

The people who make fake news and disseminate it are the “supply” and the people who read it are the “demand”.

So what causes some people to leave reputable mainstream media and consume media from sources that are less than reputable?

THE SUPPY AND DEMAND FOR FAKE NEWS

Everyone keeps looking at “fixing” the “supply” of fake news by making our reporting more accurate, or cracking down on social media that spreads untrue stories.

But any economist will tell you that if you want to stop a product you also have to look at its “demand”. In fact any police officer will tell you that if you want to crack down on illegal drugs you have to deal with both the supply AND the demand.

It won’t be until we address the “demand” for fake news rather than constantly looking at the supply that we will be able to combat the problem.

And I believe key to addressing the demand for fake news is the issue of diversity in newsrooms up and down the country. 

LACK OF DIVERSITY IN MAINSTREAM MEDIA CREATES DEMAND

Unsurprisingly and depressingly the government report did not mention diversity once.

Let me explain why diversity is so important when it comes to combating fake news.

The BBC, New York Times and other mainstream news sources constantly go on about how accurate their news is in an attempt to combat fake news. However most people do not believe that BBC and other mainstream news sources have got their facts WRONG.

What a lot of people believe is that there are important stories that are being ignored or specific elements of a story that are not being covered.

GRENFELL TOWER - CASE STUDY IN LACK OF DIVERSITY

We saw this in the aftermath of the Grenfell Tower fire. People wanted to know why journalists had not covered the issues that led to this tragedy before the fire. Veteran news reporter, Jon Snow, lamented that the fire demonstrated that most media was “comfortably with the elite, with little awareness, contact or connection with those not of the elite” and that the fire had shown this lack of connection was “dangerous”.

Jon Snow went on to say “Grenfell speaks to us all about our own lack of diversity (in newsrooms), and capacity to reach into the swaths of western society with whom we have no connection.”

What it demonstrated is that for millions of people in the UK there are very important stories that are central to their lives yet are simply not being covered due to the lack of diversity in newsrooms.

If people believe that critical news stories are not being covered by mainstream media then they will seek them out in “non-mainstream” media.

And these non-mainstream news sources is exactly where fake news can flourish 

BEING ACCURATE IS NOT ENOUGH - DIVERSITY IS KEY.

The BBC, New York Times, CNN etc boasting about how accurate / truthful their news reporting is, will not solve fake news if people believe that there are other stories that they are not being covered.

Until we can fix the reason people “demand” fake news and want to consume stories from non-conventional news sources we will never be able to put a stop to fake news. And key to that is restoring people’s faith that newsroooms will not only report stories that are relevant to a white middle class demographic and from a white privileged perspective.

Interestingly the issue of fire safety at Grenfell was covered before the fire but not by any mainstream media but in a blog post written by “non-qualified” journalists. It is precisely these kind of unverified blog posts people who are trying to crack down on fake news want us to read less. Incidents like Grenfell and the mainstream media’s diversity fail is exactly why millions of people will continue to demand these unverified news sources. 

Which all brings me to my main point:

Diversity is vital to combating fake news. It is vital to a functioning media. And not to be over-dramatic but it is vital to our very democracy.

But as long as it is seen as a “side issue” or just a question of “increasing headcounts” of women, BAMEs or disabled people rather than core to the functioning of our society we will never be able to solve some of the biggest issues facing us.

The fact diversity was not mentioned once in the latest government report on fake news is concerning. It is also concerning that the committee who oversaw the did not have a single person of colour sitting on it (although they did take evidence from a range of different people). The fear is the report demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of just how central diversity is to the media and our journalism. 

Let’s all make sure that we do not have debates in the future of media that does not recognise the importance of diversity.

Why the BBC needs to radically rethink their Head of Diversity job

Last week the Head of BBC Diversity and Inclusion, Tunde Ogungbesan, announced he was stepping down after a little more than three years in the role.

As a former BBC exec, and often at the forefront of diversity issues in the media, I received my fair share of messages asking me what I thought of this news. 

My response to all the messages was the same: “The job the BBC has created is an impossible job but the BBC should seize this opportunity to restructure the approach it takes to the Head of Diversity and Inclusion role.”

AN IMPOSSIBLE JOB?

First of all, why is it an impossible job?

It is an impossible job because it has a great deal of responsibility, but, unfortunately, little power. 

The job is meant to oversee the increase in diversity and inclusion at the BBC as well as increasing the retention and promotion of diverse staff.

It is a massive responsibility and its success or failure will be a major component in deciding the future of British media. 

Despite the importance of this role, and while Tunde, (and his predecessor Amanda Rice) could encourage everyone in the organisation to try to hire diverse staff, they did not have the actual power to hire a single researcher, assistant producer or producer. And while the Head of Diversity may sit in on some interviews, they cannot compel, and would find it very difficult to chastise or admonish an exec or senior manager for their hiring practices.

Also, in the context of more and more outsourcing by the BBC, they again could encourage everyone to try to commission programmes from more diverse sources, but they had no actual influence over which independent production companies commissioners end up commissioning programmes from. They certainly did not have the power to insist that they commission from BAME-led indies, women led-indies or disability-led indies.

Ultimately the role as it is currently structured has very limited, if any, power to directly affect change on any measurable diversity criteria. 

This lack of power explains why the diversity role at the BBC – and such roles in many other organisations - is seen as some sort of extension of HR, and is therefore so often preoccupied with creating training schemes, or measuring diversity and outreach projects. 

More and more training schemes, more and more measurement. 

These both have their place, but in the end they have not made much difference. By some measures it seems that the diversity of people actually making the programmes behind the camera has in fact gone down over the last ten years, not up. 

THE DIVERSITY JOB THAT DOES WORK

Now compare the power that the BBC’s Head of Diversity has to the BBC’s Director of Nations and Regions. 

The BBC’s Director of Nations and Regions, like the BBC’s Head of Diversity, is charged with increasing and strengthening a certain type of diversity. In the former case, the Director is charged with strengthening diversity of productions outside of London. 

Yet, unlike the Head of Diversity, the Director of Nations and Regions has real power. 

Almost 6,000 BBC staff members directly or indirectly report to this Director.

They have the direct power to hire and fire staff that are not doing a good enough job in increasing regional diversity. They can champion indies based outside of London and directly grow and develop the indie sector. They oversee how hundreds of millions of the BBC’s money is spent.

And importantly the Director of Nations and Regions sits at the BBC’s top table - on the BBC’s Executive Committee deciding the strategic direction and policies. This means they can influence not just how hundreds of millions of Nations and Regions money is spent but also how literally billions of BBC money is spent. If the BBC wants to implement a policy they feel will be to the detriment of the Nations and Regions they are at the highest table to stop it.

It is clear that the BBC recognises the importance of increasing regional diversity and gives the role the appropriate power and money to make sure it happens.

DIVERSITY IS MORE THAN JUST HR

On the other hand, for the Head of Diversity, the BBC – and to be fair many other media organisations – as I’ve mentioned earlier, seem to take the view that it is an extension of Human Resources, who has only indirect influence over the final impact of an organisation.

Diversity is often viewed as a simple task of increasing  headcount of certain types of people as opposed to recognising the complex relationship diversity has with the other parts of the media industry inside and outside the BBC - most notably increasing the role diversity-led indies need to play.

Indeed, the fact that one is seen as more or less an HR role and the other is more related to the BBC’s output is reflected by the type of people appointed to the relative positions. The Directors of Wales, Northern Ireland, Scotland and the Nations and Regions usually have programme making backgrounds. The last two heads of BBC Diversity have had no programme making experience at all.

MAKING SOMETHING THAT WORKS

With Tunde Ogungbesan’s departure the BBC has a real opportunity to make diversity work in the organisation.

Even before they start interviewing, the first thing the BBC needs to do is revamp the Terms of Reference of the role.

The BBC needs to make sure that they give the new Head of Diversity the power to go along with the responsibility. That means a seat right next to the Director of Nations and Regions on the executive board, and it also means a hire that has had programme making experience who intimately understand the media industry first hand. And finally the BBC needs to hire someone who can help craft a new economic model that promotes and sustains diversity in the BBC and influence the television industry as a whole.

As the saying goes with great power comes great responsibility. The BBC has already given the Head of Diversity great responsibility now it is time they gave them great power.

Give black journalists their 40 acres and a mule.

In the late 90’s to early 2000’s I produced a current affairs radio show for Choice FM called the “Schumann Shuffle” every Saturday morning. It was three hours long; the first hour was music and general radio banter. In the second hour we would get important guests to discuss a pressing issues (Trevor Philips as Chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission was a regular guest, Simon Woolly from Operation Black Vote often came into the studio and we had the Mayor of London Ken Livingstone a few times) if they were important to black Londoners we got them in front of the mic. The last hour was a current affairs phone-in discussing the news topics of the week.

At the time it was arguably the most influential current affairs programme for black people in the UK. It got larger audiences than its counterpart at the BBC and was where black politicians and decision makers spoke directly to black people and black people spoke back to them - holding them to account. Despite working at the BBC for 24 years in many ways I think this was the most important public service broadcasting I ever did.

It was also my first foray into news and current affairs and it was an excellent training ground for a young journalist. Without this experience I do not think I would have been able to do the other news and current affairs programmes I went on to do in the rest of my career.

I firmly believe that black led journalism organisations can provide a valuable service to the black community and nurture black journalists by creating a pipeline for them to go on to other mainstream media organisations. Gary Younge, Afua Hirsch, Henry Bonsu and Dotun Adebayo all worked at black newspapers at some point in their careers.

But the truth is “ethnic media” are under threat. Choice FM became Capital Xtra in 2013 and no longer plays the community role it once did. The New Nation newspaper printed its last copy in 2016. The Voice newspaper still exists but my understanding is that it is under severe financial strain. British Asian media is under similar pressures with Eastern Eye close to closure just ten years ago.    

This week the UK government’s Cairncross Review was published, its remit was to investigate ways to secure the future of high-quality journalism in Britain. The government is worried that too many newspapers are making a loss, due to advertising migrating to Google and Facebook. Yet, high quality journalism is essential for an informed electorate to know how to vote and make informed decisions. The review says we cannot afford to lose it.

The Cairncross Review made several recommendations, but the one that has caught the most attention is the idea that the government should provide direct funding to local newspapers to make sure they can support important local journalism. Frustratingly they did not say anything about the BAME press and media.

The BBC, Google and Facebook all currently have different initiatives worth millions of pounds to fund local newspapers either directly giving them money or paying for journalists. Because, like the Cairncross Review, they recognise the importance of local journalism and fear what would happen if it vanished.

The UK government has also set up the Audio Content Fund worth £3 million a year to fund what Broadcast Magazine calls; “original commercial radio productions that are traditionally more difficult to support commercially.” To put it another way this is precisely the kind of fund that could have paid for the work I was doing at Choice FM which was more expensive than just playing three hours of music. When radio stations are strapped for cash often quality journalism is the first thing to go.

If the government, BBC, Google and Facebook are all worried about the demise of quality journalism, they can’t just look at the problems facing local newspapers, they must also turn their attention to how they can support BAME focused newspapers and media From legacy publications like The Voice and Eastern Eye to new digital publishers such as Black Ballad and Media Diversified.

Add the fact that 94% of British journalists are white the demise of BAME media outlets has cut off one of the most effective pipelines to increase the number of BAME journalists.

Back in the 90’s when I was producing the Choice FM current affairs show, black people would often use the phrase “40 acres and a mule” when they felt they were owed something. A reference to the supposed promise that freed slaves were promised 40 acres and a mule by the US government. So in my best 90’s vernacular I think it is about time black journalists were given their “40 acres and a mule”. 

Why TV streaming services are winning in diversity

Too many British broadcasters still think in terms of linear broadcasting and the size of their overnight audience - and that is holding the diversity of their programming back.

According to a recent report by the UK media regulator, Ofcom, when it comes to diversity British audiences are increasingly finding better representation and authentic portrayal on Netflix and other online video streaming providers. Ofcom also found that the UK’s younger audiences (which are demographically more ethnically diverse) were deserting linear traditional television broadcasters and choosing online services instead.

So what are online providers getting right and legacy broadcasters like the BBC, ITV and C4, getting wrong?

Are the executives and commissioners at the online providers more enlightened and receptive to diversity compared to their counterparts at the BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5?

While people are important I very much doubt that the difference can be attributed to just the different attitudes of a few individuals and commissioners.

Instead I believe the answer can be found in the different economic models between traditional broadcasters versus online video streamers.

Amanda Lotz, a professor of Media Studies at the University of Michigan analyzed Netflix’s economic model in 2017 and argued that traditional broadcasters still think in terms of attracting large audiences for a single programme as advertisers pay for eyeballs. (As an American she didn’t look at the BBC but I would argue the same argument applies as the BBC still looks to large audiences to justify its license fee).

Online streamers like Netflix and Amazon on the other-hand are not pursuing large audiences for advertisers – instead they are trying to maximize subscribers.

Professor Lotz says “To succeed, subscriber-funded services must offer enough programming that viewers find the service worthy of their monthly fee. Each show doesn’t need a mass audience – which is the measure of success for advertiser-funded television – but the service does need to provide enough value that subscribers continue to pay.”

Professor Lotz describes the strategy Netflix employs as “conglomerated niche” and says that because it does not broadcast in a linear fashion most subscribers don’t even know most of Netflix’s content and only concentrate on the series that appeal to them. She uses the metaphor of a library to describe this phenomenon; “If you were to ask different Netflix subscribers about the service’s brand, you’d likely get different responses. There is no one Netflix; rather, think of it as an expansive library with many small nooks and rooms. Most subscribers never wander floor to floor. Instead, they stay in the corner that matches their tastes.”

This means channel executives at traditional broadcasters think completely differently when it comes to commissioning content versus commissioners at Netflix. The BBC exec for example is thinking, “will the programme get a large audience?” while the Netflix exec is thinking, “will this new series be able to get a new different section of the audience to subscribe?”

The Netflix execs are constantly seeking out programmes that will get a different niche audience to subscribe or continue to subscribe.

Take my favourite series at the moment “Insecure”, it finally tipped the balance for me to finally take out a subscription for HBO Go, and I am sure I am not the only one. “Insecure” is therefore a win for HBO, in a way that commissioning yet another “non-diverse” programme would not be as it wouldn’t attract new subscribers.

Compare this to ITV or BBC. All things being equal the ITV and BBC commissioners would prefer to commission another series like “Call The Midwife” as it would bring in a far larger audience, even if it is the same old non-diverse audience that already watches the majority of their programmes, than commission “Insecure” which relatively speaking would be a ratings flop.  

This leads to far more diverse programmes being commissioned by broadcasters who are financed by subscribers. The irony is that in targeting niche audiences streaming services often create quality content which over time has a far wider appeal.

If you talk to executives of traditional broadcasters they all recognize the importance of commissioning for non-linear viewing and targeting certain demographics (for the last twenty years every commissioning meeting I’ve ever been to has talked about attracting a younger demographic). But it is still incredibly hard for commissioners to break out of a linear “big-audiences-matter” mind state.

The truth is as traditional broadcasters worry about big audiences now, they risk having no audiences in the future. Only by recognizing the rich diversity of their audiences, and creating programmes that they want to watch, will broadcasters survive.

Black-led indies – the elephant in the room of diversity fails

What is the most important statistic when it comes to ethnic diversity in television?

How many Black Asian and Minority ethnic (BAME) people are employed in television productions?

How many BAME people are in managerial positions at the different broadcasters?

What is the percentage of programmes directed by BAME directors?

These are all important statistics and are measured, (some badly and some well), in one form or another. But increasingly I believe that the most important statistic that can give us a measure of how well ethnic diversity is doing in the TV industry is one we are not even attempting to measure:

How many independent production companies are being managed by BAME people or have BAME people in significant positions of responsibility.

Let me explain why this one stat is so important.

In 2007 I moved to Glasgow to restructure BBC Scotland’s current affairs department as the BBC embarked on increasing the number of network programmes produced outside of London. Part of that process was building and nurturing the indie sector in Scotland. Regional diversity needed thriving independent production companies and couldn’t just rely on the BBC in-house productions to be successful.

There are now 124 TV production companies based in Glasgow alone. The high number of indies was used when the city successfully pitched to become a regional hub for one of Channel 4’s new out of London production bases.

People working in television in Scotland need to know they can set up independent companies and have a reasonable chance of success and gain commissions.

A business environment that does not support private businesses is failing and will hinder the careers of the most ambitious.

The fact is the health of the TV industry in a certain area cannot be measured solely just by how many people are employed in it, as they might for example, all be employed just by one company or on one large production, and that makes it very vulnerable in the long run.

Also in my experience regionally based indies are brilliant incubators for nurturing talent and provide an essential critical mass of people working for them to build up local networks and connections which prove important throughout people’s careers.

Finally the success of regional indies is a good barometer of how well connected channel execs are with people outside of London – whether we like it or not many commissions come about due to personal connections.

So if Scottish indies are doing relatively well – indicating healthy regional diversity -  the obvious question is how are BAME independent television companies doing?

The answer is they are not doing very well.

Televisual magazine publish a list of the top 100 independent television companies every year along with the names of people in key positions in those companies.

Of the roughly 300 names listed I could only find 6 people of BAME backgrounds in key positions (yes - I Googled everyone). And only one of the indies listed could possibly be thought of as a “BAME-led” company - Voltage TV whose CEO and Managing Director are both Asian. (So yes if you do the maths of the remaining 99 companies I could only find four people of colour in key roles)

There have been attempts by broadcasters to address the diversity of indies, Channel 4’s “Alpha Fund” champions “BAME-led” indies but it has had limited success if one judges it against the criteria of whether any of these indies have been able to break into the top 100 indies list.

The fear is that the lack of BAME-led indies points to bigger failures of BAME people throughout the television industry; from weak relationships between commissioners and BAME-led companies, to BAME-led companies being stereotyped and only being commissioned to produce programmes about "diverse" issues.

There are successful BAME indies (Maroon Productions, Sugar Films and Douglas Road Productions spring to mind - and there are others) but these are the exception as opposed to the rule. If there was the same dearth of women led indies or regionally based indies it would be recognized as a crisis. The lack of successful BAME-led indies is no less a crisis which the whole industry needs to address.   

We need to think beyond simple head counts and start looking at BAME-led indies.