Trevor Phillips, the Covid-19 Review and Why it Proves We Need Diversity Behind the Camera

Yesterday a joint letter was sent by 16 BAME medical organisations, representing tens of thousands of medics in the UK, to Public Health England urging the body to stop Trevor Phillips - the former head of the Equality and Human Rights Commission - from participating in a review into the disproportionate number of deaths of BAME (Black Asian and Minority Ethnic) from COVID-19.

A few days earlier the Muslim Council of Britain, an umbrella group for leading mosques and other Islamic institutions, also called for Phillips to step down from the same review.

I do not want to get into the suitability of Trevor Phillips being on the review - that is not the role of a blog about media diversity. However, as the former head of BBC Scotland current affairs programmes I think the controversy points to a deep problem of diversity in the media, and who the media view as experts and whose voices are seen as “objective”.

Let me explain...

In many current affairs programmes there are basically four types of "characters":

1. Victims - these are the case studies who illustrate the issue the programme is trying to expose. Getting good sympathetic case studies is essential for the viewer to connect with the issue.
2. Baddies - these are usually a company or industry who are carrying out bad practices and causing the harm being experienced by the victim. The baddie can also sometimes be the local or central government whose policies are causing these victims to be harmed.
3. Goodies - this often includes charities or people trying to rectify the problem being exposed, but can even include the reporter themselves holding power to account.
4. Experts - this last category are the “objective” voices who have a deep understanding of the issue being explored and can explain what is going on. Occasionally on controversial issues two experts might be invited on to give opposing perspectives.

In recent years there have been considerable efforts by broadcasters to increase the diversity of whom these experts are. The BBC’s 50:50 project has had considerable success in increasing the number of women experts on our screens and I’ve heard the organisers are now looking to broaden the 50:50 project to look at BAME and disability on screen diversity.

However what the controversy around Trevor Phillips exposes is that the diversity of the people behind the camera who decide who these experts are and who is and isn’t “objective” hasn’t changed. It should be noted that not one major UK news and current affairs programme is headed by a BAME person and to my knowledge there have only ever been three BAME people who have ever executive produced any Panoramas or Dispatches (BBC’s and Channel 4’s flagship current affairs programmes respectively) I am one of them, and none of us are currently directly employed by a British broadcaster.

Trevor Phillips is regularly invited onto news and current affairs programmes as an expert on issues of race as the objective voice.

Whether you agree with Trevor Phillips’s views on race or not, what the last few days has shown us is that large sections of the UK - most notably parts of the BAME and Muslim communities - view him as a highly polarising figure and far from an objective dispassionate expert.

At the same time I would hazard a guess that people at Public Health England and most of the people who are in positions of power in news and current affairs media - at least until now - saw him as an objective dispassionate expert.

It is this disconnect that clearly indicates that those sections of the BAME and Muslim communities who oppose Phillips are missing from the editorial decision making process. They are not influencing who we should think of as experts and who we should view as having controversial views.

Working in television as an executive producer I have personally had my editorial judgement questioned as to the experts I have used - in one instance because the white male criminologist in a Panorama programme had a working class accent. At these times I was senior enough to shrug off these criticisms and use the experts anyway, but I was fully aware of the unsaid cultural pressure I was under to pick experts that my colleagues thought appropriate.

I am not advocating for Trevor Phillips not to be a guest on news and current affairs programmes, far from it. His experience as the former Head of the Equality and Human Rights Commission and his work in race relations over the decades makes his an important voice, and his views resonate with many.

But what we do need is more experts chosen whose views resonate with the sections of the BAME and Muslim communities that disagree with Phillips.

This will only be achieved when we have more diversity behind the camera - diversity of people picking the experts - as opposed to just looking at the diversity in front of it.


Correction: The article originally stated that only two BAME people had ever executive produced BBC and Channel 4's flagship current affairs programmes, Panorama or Dispatches, that has been corrected to three. It should noted that none of the three executives were directly employed to work on either flagship programme when they executive produced them.

How Social Media Challenges Shed Light On Industry Diversity Problems

Two Twitter threads I have recently been part of sum up the difficulties of creating a more diverse media industry perfectly.

In the last few weeks, as we have all been in Covid-19 lockdowns, so-called social media "challenges" have proliferated. We have all seen them and many of us have taken part in them. For instance, the; "post a picture of yourself at 20" challenge on Twitter and the #FlipTheSwitch challenge on Instagram.  

For the most part they are just harmless fun and help to relieve the boredom as we find ourselves cooped up in our homes day after day, week after week.

But two Twitter threads I have been involved in clearly demonstrate how difficult it is to diversify the media. Here's how...

1. A common theme in all these Twitter challenges is after you have completed it to tag 4 or 5 people who should take part next.

2. They often reveal people's personal tastes and what sociologists call "cultural capital".

The first Twitter challenge I want to talk about started at the very beginning of the lockdown in the UK and it asked people to list the top 5 albums they would rely on to get through these difficult times.  I have no idea who started this particular challenge but for the most part the majority of the people on the thread were black, the people they tagged at the end of their completed lists were black and most of the albums listed were of black music (more on that last point later).

I hasten to add that some of the black people on this particular thread were well known British celebrities, musicians and actors - and so it was not a insubstantial thread. However, not one of the people could personally offer me a job.

The second Twitter challenge I was roped into asked people to list "five perfect films". On this thread there were not only remarkably few black people, there were hugely influential media industry titans who could definitely further my career in one form or another.

Considering the people involved in these lists form organically, as people recommend friends to take part, they are a very good indicator of social circles. They can also be seen as a good proxy of how information spreads across social media. 

Now, instead of fun Twitter challenges let's think how these organic social circles form and grow when people know of possible job opportunities, or - in the television industry - possible commissioning opportunities.

In the real world, several academics have examined this phenomenon and shown how informal social networks are not only the best source of valuable work information but serve to entrench existing inequalities. 

However, who was present and who was absent from the different threads was not the only issue.

The albums and films people picked were also important.

There is little doubt that people's choices on these kind of lists are carefully curated and consciously or subconsciously they signal your cultural values and tastes. What you are effectively doing when you write down your favorite albums or films is saying "here is my cultural judgement". 

In the media industry your cultural judgement is one of your most valuable assets. The movies you value and music you like are what sociologists call "cultural capital". Liking the "right" movies literally gains you entry into certain groups, and the more effortless your mastery is of what are the "right" and "wrong" movies and music the better. And what could be more "effortless" than just taking part in a fun Twitter challenge?    

What the Twitter threads clearly demonstrates to me is, it is very hard for black people to be included in some key social circles, and even if they are they might not display the "right" cultural judgement (possess the cultural capital) to take advantage of them.

So what can be done?

The first thing that needs to be done is the importance of these Twitter or other social media threads needs to be acknowledged. They are important at the best of times but right now they take on extra importance as we are all on lockdown.

Once we recognize their importance we should take the same approach to tagging people as many people do when it comes to industry panels (ensuring no man only panels). We should endeavor to tag a diverse range of people to take part especially when we begin to realize that the thread is being populated by important people in the industry.

And lastly, and this might be the most difficult one, we should try not to just value the list recommendations that mirror our own tastes and prejudices. But welcome diversity of cultural opinions and maybe even retweet a few every now and again.

Even when the lockdown is lifted there is no doubt that we will enter a new normal. Silly as they are, social media challenges might be a new battleground in increasing industry diversity.

If you want to know the truth about diversity - follow the money

One of the most important programmes I oversaw, just before I left the BBC, was a Panorama investigation into drugs in sport. The investigation was done in collaboration with the US based news organisation ProPublica and it would have been impossible to complete without them. They are a great organisation to work with and since then I have always kept a keen eye on the work they do and how the organisation is run.

And so it was with interest that I read their latest staff diversity report published last week.

As you can imagine I have plowed through quite a few diversity reports of media organisations over the years and I must confess there is a lot to commend the ProPublica report.

First, for racial diversity they don’t just break the numbers into two broad numbers of “white” and “non-white”, which is what a lot of other media organisations do, although they don’t classify it as “non-white”, in the UK it is normally labelled BAME (Black Asian & Minority Ethnic) and in the US it is PoC (People of Colour).

The idea that all non-white people suffer from the same type of prejudice is not only simplistic but can be detrimental if you are trying to improve the full range of racial diversity. One BAME number might hide the fact that certain ethnic groups are not progressing compared to others.

Second, they broke their numbers down along editorial and non-editorial roles. This is something that media diversity campaigners like Simon Albury have been pushing for sometime for media organisations in the UK to do. It is the editorial roles which are crucial in deciding the output that is produced. So far I am unaware of any UK based media organisation or broadcaster that currently does this, and it can hide the true diversity of who makes the programmes or writes the news, as the headline figure is bumped up by non-editorial roles.

However at the same time as commending their reporting I think in many ways it, and most diversity reporting in newsrooms and media organisations, is fundamentally flawed.

Diversity for the most part is still seen as a headcount issue.

When I was at BBC Scotland we were equally obsessed with diversity - regional diversity - but the subject of head counts relative to London was rarely raised.

What we concentrated on was finances and slots.

We wanted to make sure BBC Scotland was getting its equal share of the money and programme slots.

The idea is with money and programmes slots the jobs will follow.

If you do it the other way round you can be in the position that we are currently in, that the small number of BAME directors in television hides an even worse fact that they are predominantly working on smaller budget programmes. An example of this is the number of BAME directors on the primetime BBC soap EastEnders is less than 2%, while for the far smaller budgeted Doctors it is over 20%.

On paper both the EastEnders and Doctors directors are classified as the same for diversity reports.  but there is a qualitative difference.

Simple head count diversity reports do not pick this up but financial diversity reports would.

The same problems apply in newsrooms up and down the country.

Good journalism takes time and money. Some reporters are given more time and resources than others. To not capture this in our diversity reports gives a completely misleading picture as to what is happening in the newsroom.

I am not advocating that we completely ignore looking at headcount diversity, we were aware of headcount in BBC Scotland, but in my experience it is not a useful metric if we want to achieve real long-term change.

Broadcasters, do you know who's benefiting from your Covid-19 schemes?

How much are schemes to help the TV and film industry during these unprecedented times of Covid-19 helping people from diverse backgrounds?

That is a genuine question.

Normally when I write a blog if I pose a question at the start it is just a rhetorical device to then explore an issue, it is a simple device to structure an argument - the answer to which I more or less know the answer to already. 

But this time it is a genuine question and a plea to everyone from the government to broadcasters to trade unions to keep diversity records of who is accessing and benefiting from all the schemes and financial support currently being rolled out. And adapt them if certain groups are missing out.

There is no doubt that there is a genuine attempt by everyone connected to the industry to help people pull through in these difficult times. Netflix and the BFI have announced a film and TV emergency relief fund. ITV have created a £500,000 fund for independent producers and I can't open Twitter without reading how Donna Taberer, the Head of Talent at the BBC is helping people in the industry (and that is literally just scratching the surface). 

I'm not saying more can't be done, and I support BECTU, politicians and other organisations for highlighting where the support is lacking and how some of the government policies to help freelancers are failing TV and film professionals. But it would be churlish not to acknowledge some of the efforts being made.

However, at the same time as praising the work that is being done I am reminded of an important life lesson my mother taught me.

My mother (now retired) was a manager of Willesden Citizen Advice Bureau (CAB) in North London for over fifteen years (NB: For readers outside the UK, CABs are best described as charitable organisations which do a mix of social and paralegal work). A large part of her work was helping people to access the benefits they were entitled to - for instance to claim unemployment and housing benefits.

Willesden is in the borough of Brent which in the last UK census was the most racially diverse borough in the country. What my mother found was that even though in theory the benefits were universal, and could be claimed irrespective of race or gender, who actually claim them varied widely. For various reasons, often people from the most disadvantaged groups were the least likely to claim what was theirs by right.

And so she taught me that having a welfare system that was equal in theory to all was not enough, you had to actively identify which groups were accessing them and actively help the others not doing so. 

While my mother's homespun wisdom served the people of Brent well, and provided me with an early political education, more recently there has been new strand of economics which supports my mother's experience.

Nudge theory is the economic theory that people make choices in life depending on how they are offered to them. For example, at it's simplest - you are more likely to buy food in a supermarket when it is placed on a shelf at your eye-level than food on the bottom shelf, even though in theory both are equally available.

What the economists have found is that nudge theory also plays an important role on which benefits people access and which groups of people claim them. Examples of studies of different groups not claiming what they are owed include universal free school meals, social security benefits and tax credits.

What the broadcasters and other media related organisations are fundamentally doing is creating a new welfare system for Covid-19 support. 

Most nudge economists would tell you that it would be very surprising if any welfare system is accessed equally by different groups, especially when it is first rolled out. That is not a necessarily a criticism of the different schemes - that is just a fact of life.

However what is essential is that the organisations rolling out the welfare system track who the recipients are and then either tweak the system or actively go out and target the people not benefiting.

How the UK television industry is responding to Covid-19 is admirable but it is only a first step. If we do not track and record who is benefiting it can entrench existing disadvantages and decrease diversity. 

Let's make sure, even in these difficult Covid-19 times, we keep on rising to the challenges.

Additional note: After a brief exchange with a lawyer while tracking diversity is the right thing to do, broadcasters and organisations in receipt of public funds might find its also the legal thing to do.

Not All Gender Diversity Wins Are Equal

Many years ago, as a series producer working in BBC documentaries, I once recommended a young Assistant Producer to a fellow series producer who was staffing up a primetime documentary series for BBC1. I thought she would be perfect for the gig – she was a strong self-shooter and had just finished working on an observational series following the lives of a few key characters. All qualities the primetime series would need.

She happened to be black.

She had an informal chat and a coffee with the series producer. We all know the type of thing – this is not an interview/interview type of scenario.

Afterwards I asked her how it went.

Not good – came the response.

She told me the series producer had asked her if she thought she would have problems filming and forging relationships with white contributors.

The series she had just finished working on was filming the lives of black people – this new job was more “mainstream” following the lives of predominantly white people.

I should mention at this point that the assistant producer in question worked in the BBC an had been born in and lived her entire life in the UK. White people were not an alien group to her.

She didn’t get the job.

It is impossible to say if it was due to her race that she didn’t get the job – there are a million and one reasons why people don’t get work in the highly competitive field of television. However, what was interesting is most of the final production team were women – from senior producer roles to junior researcher jobs. In fact the only senior role held by a man was the series producer.

This was over 10 years ago, but in today’s lingo it would be described as a win for gender diversity – but was it really?

I was reminded of this incident after the publication of a new study looking at gender diversity in Psychology of Women Quarterly.

First the good news…

Over the course of four experiments the new study found that white men were not only open to more gender diversity they positively embraced it.

White men thought companies that promoted gender diversity were not only more forward looking but more prestigious.

Now for the bad news…

After establishing the positive link that white men had between gender diversity and a companies success the researchers wanted to see what effect race would have on those perceptions.

In one experiment they took a company brochure that had been viewed favorably and substituted some of the pictures of white women with African-American women. The fictional company immediately went down in people’s perception.

In another experiment they attributed statements to a woman with a “white sounding” name from a company versus statements from a woman with a more typically “African-American name”, again the perception of the company went down for the company with the woman with an African American sounding name.

And a third experiment looked at how white men viewed statements attributed to a white man from a fictional predominantly white male company, versus statements attributed to a white woman in a more gender mixed but predominantly white fictional company versus statements attributed to an African-American woman in a more racially mixed fictional company. The respondents rated the statement by the white woman the highest, followed by the white man with the African-American woman coming in last.

This new study is important for a number of reasons.

In recent years there has been the concern that there has been a pushback against gender diversity generally. According to UCLA Anderson Management “In consulting firm PwC’s 2019 Annual Corporate Directors Survey, 68% of directors surveyed felt investors were paying too much attention to gender diversity, nearly double the percentage of the previous year.” What this study tells us, is if you want your company to be viewed favorably those 68% of directors are wrong. We need to pay more attention to gender diversity - not less. There is still a long way to go in television – where women still make up less than a third of television directors and every UK broadcaster has a gender pay gap issue.

However, what the study also tells us is that if we are not careful it will be white women who will be the beneficiaries of those gender diversity gains while black women are left behind. Much like my very unscientific anecdote at the start of this piece.

Championing diversity is essential and we should celebrate all diversity gains. But it is also important to recognize that not all diversity gains help all diverse people – even when they might be perceived as being in the same group.