Diversity and the power to say what you really think

OK before reading this blog post make sure the children have been put to bed and people of a delicate disposition may want to skip this one – there’s bad language.

If you're still reading, here's why there is bad language.

Almost every Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic person (BAME) working in TV I know at some point complains of TV commissioners and executives simply “not getting” their editorial vision or watering down “diverse” elements of their programmes.

People might not want to say it openly, but over a drink or in quiet conversations people will tell you what they are really thinking. And to put it quite simply they want to say “f--- off", but they know they can't without losing the commission and even jeopardising their careers.

But being able to say “f--- off” can actually be the right decision in the end and may increase diversity.

Let me explain with an example of a time that I did say "f--- off", and exactly how I was able to do so and increase diversity.

For 8 years as the head of investigations and current affairs programmes in Scotland I was at the very heart of the BBC trying to increase regional diversity. When I moved up to Glasgow in 2007 the BBC had just started to increase the number of programmes it made outside of London with £38.9 million of the network budget being spent in Scotland by the time I left more than £90 million worth of network programmes were being made in Scotland.

The effect of such a large change in such a short period of time cannot be overstated and the experience has informed much of my thinking when it comes to all sorts of diversity.

And one of the most important lessons I learnt occurred in a meeting down in London when I was pitching a film to a commissioner.

The film was a current affairs documentary with excellent journalism behind it. But importantly it had some elements which were specific to Scotland with one of the major characters of the film being Scottish.

The meeting in London was going well and it was obvious that the commissioning editor in London wanted to commission the programme but he was still umming and ahing - something was clearly troubling him.

Finally he said it: can you take out the Scottish element? It would be perfect for us without the Scottish bit.

Now bear in mind Scotland is part of the UK and if we want to increase regional diversity we need to show Scotland and Scottish issues across the UK. But for the London based commissioner he just felt it would be better if we “took the Scottish part out”.

He “kindly” conceded that we could recut the film with the Scottish part in and transmit that up in Scotland but “let’s keep it out of the version which is broadcast across the rest of the UK”.

Now my Scottish bosses and I had anticipated that this might happen and so I had been instructed that whatever happens we keep the Scottish element in and we tell London to “f--- off”. (Yes - unlike my BAME colleagues I mentioned at the start  my white Scottish colleagues were not afraid to mince their language).  

And the reason we could do that so confidently is because we could find the money to make the film ourselves in Scotland. We might not get a UK wide network audience but we were confident in our own editorial judgment and taking out the Scottish part would weaken the whole film.

We were also confident that even if it only played in Scotland other people in the UK would be able to find it via the iPlayer.

Having the money behind me enabled me to say “f--- off” in the politest BBC exec to commissioner type way, and the knowing I had the full weight of BBC Scotland’s money behind me made the commissioner know I was not bluffing.

After a little more umming and ahhing the commissioner relented, we kept the Scottish element in and the film went on to win a fistful of awards.

Today I look at the vast majority of diversity initiatives to increase the number of women, BAME (Black Asian and Minority Ethnic) and disabled people behind the camera and in key positions.

I go to seminars and hear top television execs saying that people from disadvantaged groups should be able to have their editorial vision on screen, and all I can think of is one thing:

Have you given them enough money so they can tell you to “f--- off”?

Have you given them enough independence so that when they have an editorial vision which is different from yours can they implement it anyway and not jeopardise their careers?

True diversity can be a little scary because by definition true diversity behind the camera is about making editorial judgments which are different from the one’s a non-diverse person would have made.

The BBC has made tremendous progress in regional diversity. I just hope that like me, the BBC and other broadcasters, can take those lessons and apply them to how they increase other types of diversity.

Rejection, diversity and mental health - we need to talk

Rejection hurts, talking about it can be even more painful but it might be the only way for people from diverse communities to help each other.

I write about diversity in the media industry and regularly talk to friends about the prejudices we face.

Even if some of us do not know the exact figures we all know the overall picture.

Women, Black Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) and Disabled people are less likely to be hired, there are fewer women in management positions, we all experience pay gaps compared to our white male counterparts and we are more likely to lose our jobs.

We know this in the abstract. We all know the general picture.

But if the general figures are correct then my BAME, disabled and women friends are facing rejection on an enormous level. We are facing rejection at job interviews. We are facing rejection when it comes to promotions. We are facing rejection when we ask for pay rises. We are facing rejection when we are simply trying to hang on to our jobs.

But despite this we rarely talk about our own personal experiences of rejection, not even to each other and definitely not publicly.

Now there will be some who will say that everyone suffers from rejection regardless of diversity. That is true. But the statistics around glass ceilings and the higher number of BAME people leaving the media industry, despite the industry growing as a whole, points to something quite different than just normal rejection.

I have never talked about my own personal experiences of rejection. Despite all my numerous blog posts I have never once written about the job interviews I have been to and failed. I have never once talked about the fact that one of the key reasons I have run seventeen marathons, and counting, is to deal with rejection and disappointment.

Every person I know from a diverse background has their own coping strategies – some more healthy than others.

But today I want to break that silence – not just for myself but for all diverse people in the industry.

And it is all because of two tweets I recently read.

A few weeks ago Aaqil Ahmed, the former head of BBC Religion, posted two tweets in response to a message about the low number of BAME representation on FTSE boards:

“Problem is - when headhunters approach someone like me they say you would be brilliant, I rarely get an interview and 9/10 the company go with the usual suspect. It’s not that they don’t get it it’s that they are risk averse and too monocultural in thinking, even media companies.”

“It’s the leap to have you on the board involves different thinking on their part and now I rarely even say yes to an approach unless I really really fancy it. I can’t be bothered now going through the process when I know the usual outcome.”

Those two tweets spoke to me. They told me I am not alone.

They told me another person of colour is tired of “going through the process” when he knows it will almost certainly end in rejection (nine times out of ten). That when it comes to one aspect of career progression at least, getting onto a FTSE board, he has literally given up on the process of putting himself forward.

But most importantly his two tweets gave me comfort. These were not abstract numbers about discrimination. This was personal.

I then had a private conversation with Aaqil and thanked him for his tweets – and we discussed not only how it affects us but also our relationships of those closest to us. For example my wife and family are incredibly supportive but work rejection can take its toll on even the strongest bonds. 

Aaqil’s tweets were a rare exception – normally we don’t talk about the personal rejection we all suffer and I think that might be for a number of reasons:

Discussing it can strip away our last layers of pride and self-esteem which we so desperately hold on to.

We worry that talking about how other people have rejected us in the past might lower our value to prospective employers (and people whose approval we want) in the future.

But possibly most of all it is just too painful to discuss head on.

Nothing can protect you from that pain of rejection. If you are going for a job you must by definition open yourself to the possibility of being successful (if you don’t there really is not point in applying) but the very act of opening yourself up to that possibility means you are open to the pain that invariably goes along with it.

And that pain can have real effects on your mental health.

A study by Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health’s Department of Epidemiology revealed that women who suffer from a gender pay gap are 2.5 times more likely to suffer from depression. 

Another study by Cornell University’s College of Human Ecology in 2017 showed a clear link between being the victim of racial discrimination at work and a range of mental health issues.

But there is one way we can lessen the effects of rejection, racism, ableism, sexism and other forms of prejudice, and that is just to start talking about it. Simply talking to friends about the problems you are facing, about the rejection you are suffering, and sharing common experiences has been shown to help mental health in study after study.

Setting up support groups at work, listening openly to other people who have suffered discrimination, and most importantly validating other people's experiences by being honest about your own situation all helps.   

So from now on I am going to try and be more open and honest about my experiences in the media industry. And just how Aaqil helped me, I hope I can help others (as well as myself).

We cannot increase diversity if we do not define it

Just over a week ago Ofcom (the body that regulates British television) finished its consultation process on how the industry should define whether a programme is made outside of London.

Creating a definition is more complicated than you might think. 

Ofcom’s current definition is almost ten years old and there are concerns that production companies are effectively “gaming the system”. For example some London based production companies are thought to be “opening” satellite office outside of London to claim they are “regional” just for one programme and then “closing down” immediately after the programme is completed or that key production talent living in London are shipped out of London to a hotel just for a few months.

It is also important to recognize that it is not only production companies who "game the system", there are also the concern that some broadcasters might be intentionally “turning a blind eye” to productions which they know are not really “regional” so they have more freedom to commission whoever they want.

Creating a definition evefryone has to abide by is important because the major UK broadcasters all have to produce a certain percentage of their programmes outside of London. So being able to define what qualifies as an “Out of London” production is essential.

Ofcom first came up with a definition following the 2003 Communications Act which protects TV productions outside of London.

Although many people think the current definition has its flaws (hence Ofcom is updating it) having an agreed definition has been essential in measuring how well broadcasters are doing in meeting their license agreements.

When there isn't an agreed definition broadcasters can simply make up a definition that suits them and they can claim to be making progress when in reality they are not making progress at all.
 
This is the fear that this is exactly what is happening to TV diversity right now.  

How will we know if the broadcasters are really increasing diversity or just creating a definition that suits them and then claiming success? 

Currently Channel 4 has a two tick system (where productions must be able to tick two different criteria from a complicated list) to qualify as “diverse”.

Channel 4 also talks about championing “BAME-led-indies” but does not make it clear what its definition of a “BAME-led-indie” is. Is it the ethnicity of the CEO, board members of percentage of shareholders, or something else?

BBC is even vaguer with its definition of “diversity”. It implicitly has one as Danny Cohen (when he was Head of Television) told a Parliamentary Select Committee that the BBC was going to ring-fence 15% of its development spend on diverse productions – so he must have known what did and did not qualify as a diverse production. But there did not seem to be a clear definition publically as to what was and was not a diverse production.

At the same time the British Film Institute has a three tick system, similar to Channel 4, to decide whether a production is diverse or not.

There is no industry standard definition. And as far as I am aware none of the broadcasters conducted open public consultations on how to define diversity.

In short the whole thing is a bit of a mess.

They are all defining "diversity" themselves and then surpise surprise most of them are doing really well according their own made up definition.

It is precisely for these reasons that a lot of people interested in increasing diversity in the media are now calling on Ofcom to do exactly what it has done for regional diversity and conduct a public consultation and create an industry standard definition.

And it is not just the usual suspects like Sir Lenny Henry calling on Ofcom to do this.

The Mayor of London Sadiq Khan, the mayor of a city with a 40% BAME population, has openly written to Ofcom telling them it is essential for them to define diversity.

Scotland’s First Minister Nicola Sturgeon also wrote to Ofcom “urging” them to create an industry wide definition - drawing parallels between defining BAME diversity and “what constitutes a Scottish production”.

Ofcom has been charged with ensuring that the different broadcasters increase their diversity but as Nicola Sturgeon said “Targets are unlikely to be met in the absence of robust definitions”

As someone who worked in Scotland for eight years I applaud Ofcom tightening the rules around what qualifies as an “Out of London” production because as an exec producer I saw firsthand how production companies and commissioners sometimes played fast and loose with what should and shouldn’t be counted as an out-of London production.

But as someone who also cares about diversity of women, disabled people and BAME people working in the industry I believe Sadiq Khan, Nicola Sturgeon and others are right that Ofcom now need to define “diversity” in the TV industry.

“White Saviour” images in front of the camera and (lack of) diversity behind it

OK for the 1,456^th time – DIVERSITY BEHIND THE CAMERA MATTERS!!!

Is that really so difficult to understand?

I am going to keep this blog post short because it is so obvious I am surprised I even have to write it

Unless you have been living under a rock you will have heard about the recent argument over Comic Relief and Stacey Dooley, with David Lammy MP accusing it of perpetuating “white savior” imagery.

Again for the sake of brevity I will not get into the specifics of David Lammy’s argument but suffice to say I think most people would agree that some of the imagery around Comic Relief and Red Nose Day are “problematic”.

So what is the solution?

David Lammy has come up with a few possible solution including; the suggestion of a possible comedian from Kenya the TV extravaganza could use in the future, using different imagery, and wanting “African people to speak for themselves, not UK celebs acting as tour guides.”

Even if all these things were implemented and Comic Relief became a bastion of positive imagery of African self-empowerment tackling its own problems, this would really be just another case of “whack-a-mole”. 

If you “solved” Comic Relief today there will be new issues tomorrow on another programme of how Africans and people of colour people are represented.

The real issue is that there is real lack of ethnic diversity with regards to the people in senior positions BEHIND the camera. A lack of diversity of the poeple responsible for the editorial decisions which are made and the images that are used.

In September 2018 the BBC announced the appointment of Peter Davey as the new showrunner for Red Nose Day. It then went on to announce the top people he will be working with: “He will work closely with Ben Caudell, BBC Studios Comedy Executive Producer, Colin Hopkins, Executive Producer and Mel Crawford, Head of Creative - Red Nose Day and Comic Relief. Richard Curtis, co-founder and vice-chair of Comic Relief, continues in his role as Executive Producer.”

Everybody mentioned in the press release are white.

Let us imagine for one second a major television event to raise money to combat breast or cervical cancer and it did not have a single woman on its most senior editorial team. If such a television event came under criticism for how it represented women the answer would not be to get more, or different, women celebrities IN FRONT of the camera. It would be to examine who is making these editorial decisions in the first place. 

Agree or disagree with David Lammy MP I commend the fact that he has raised a serious and troubling issue.

However there really is only one long term solution and that is to increase diversity behind the camera.

If you want better representation of disabled people on screen, please employ some disabled people behind the camera to have real editorial input on how they are represented.

If you want better representation of women on screen, please employ some women behind the camera to have real editorial input on how they are represented.

If you want better representation of Africans and people of colour on screen, please employ some Africans and people of colour behind the camera to have real editorial input on how they are represented.

I am now going to launch my own charity appeal:

Please give generously to the “Marcus Ryder Relief” its aim is to stop television execs shouting at their computer screen “DIVERSITY BEHIND THE CAMERA MATTERS!”

Thank you