Black Journalists Should Not Be Silenced To Talk About Black Lives Matter

Over the last two week I have heard senior figures at the BBC make both public and private statements about the corporation's editorial guidelines when it comes to racism and how staff members should express their opposition to racism publicly.

I worry that the BBC has misjudged the public mood, are putting undue pressure on its Black staff and will undermine its own journalism.

But first a little recent history.

In September 2019 the BBC Executive Complaints Unit (ECU) found that Naga Munchetty had broken the BBC’s editorial guidelines - speaking about a tweet by Donald Trump and effectively calling it racist. I wrote a blog post articulating why this was a mistake and contributed to an open letter published in the Guardian calling for the decision to be reversed.

The entire BBC Executive Committee came out in support of the ECU’s decision. Only for that support to be unilaterally reversed by the Director General. 

The problem is the BBC has still not explained its editorial reasoning as to why it came to the erroneous judgement around Munchetty talking about racism in the first place nor explained what changed its editorial position.

I bring this up because a few days ago the Director of BBC News, Fran Unsworth, issued a statement to all BBC news staff about the current protests in regards to Black Lives Matter. In the statement she said that in order for the BBC to be perceived as impartial and objective; “we have the editorial guidelines which say that if you are a news journalist you should not publicly express views in support of campaigns or causes. That means on social media, in articles, in speeches and you should not attend demonstrations.”

A few days later the BBC then sent out an email reiterating the specific parts of its editorial guidelines that cover staff activities in public and how they could affect perceptions of impartiality.  

People who know me well know that the BBC editorial guidelines is the closest thing I have to a bible. It is a living breathing dynamic document that has helped shape my journalism for over 25 years. That is why I take the use of them, and senior BBC executives’ interpretation of them, so seriously. 

It is why I was able to identify how the BBC had interpreted its own guidelines wrongly when they initially sanctioned Naga Munchetty for stating that one of President Trump’s tweets contained a racist phrase last year. Importantly she did not state an opinion but stated a fact based on her own personal experience.

There is currently a lot of discussion within the BBC whether the editorial guidelines are currently fit for purpose. For me the Naga Munchetty affair proves that they are. What was found wanting was how senior executives, many of  whom have not tackled complex editorial issues regarding race previously, have problems interpreting them when they come to the actions of Black and Brown people. 

So, do I think that BBC executives are all racist and simply do not understand their own guidelines - curtailing the human rights of ethnic minorities?

If only it were that simple, and there was a clear baddie to point the finger at.

The fact of the matter is the BBC is trying to balance two conflicting principles both embedded within the guidelines and the email it sent out.

The BBC editorial guidelines quite rightly state that they do not require its reporters - public facing or otherwise - to show “absolute neutrality on every issue or detachment from fundamental democratic principles, such as the right to vote, freedom of expression and the rule of law.” And the email said opposition to racism is one of these principles.

The problem is the guidelines go on to say “We must take particular care to achieve due impartiality when a ‘controversial subject’ may be considered to be a major matter. ‘Major matters’ are usually matters of public policy or political or industrial controversy that are of national or international importance”

And this is where it gets “interesting”. 

The third most used word in the email the BBC sent out - after “BBC” which comes up 29 times and “impartial” (or variations thereof) which comes up 12 times, is “controversial” (and variations thereof) which comes up 10 times.

The issue is how do you tackle racism now it is a “major matter” of “national” and “international importance” and importantly seen by some as “controversial”.

Opposing racism however is not a controversial matter in need of due impartiality and all staff, according to the BBC’s guidelines, should be able to express a view on this without having to “balance” their opinion. However the BBC seems to have decided that some forms of opposing racism are “controversial”.

What seems to have happened, talking to BBC staff, is the BBC executive have prioritised the “controversial” part of the guidelines, effectively telling staff not to express views on “social media, in articles, in speeches and you should not attend demonstrations.” And in so doing have deprioritised upholding the “fundamental democratic principles” part of the guidelines.

Now there is an obvious problem with the word “controversial”.

“Controversial” is by definition subjective and invariably culturally specific. Take a simple issue such as employment discrimination against people because of their sexuality. Most people would not view the idea that it is wrong to discriminate against people because they are LGBTQ+ as controversial. However it was only on June 15th that the US Supreme Court ruled that workers can’t be fired for being gay or transgender, and importantly this was a 6 - 3 decision, which meant a third of the judges disagreed with the decision. 

Does that mean that being against homophobia is a “controversial” subject?

And if it isn’t a controversial subject when did it stop being a controversial subject. 

And was it ever viewed as a “controversial” subject by members of the LGBTQ+ community. And if it was never a controversial issue to advocate for LGBTQ+ rights by gay people then how many LGBTQ+ people should be involved in any editorial group that gets to judge what is or is not “controversial”?

One person posting a picture to celebrate Martin Luther King Jr’s birthday as part of a US public holiday might not be seen as controversial but is posting a picture of him on social media “taking a knee” with fellow civil rights campaigners opposing racism controversial? 

Is denouncing historical slavery controversial? 

Is denouncing historical slave owners controversial?

Is denouncing statues celebrating historical slave owners controversial?

I suspect you will get a very different set of answers to those questions if you have a group  of senior black journalists in a room as opposed to a room full of senior white journalists.

So, do we just give up and decide that everything is relative - controversy is all in the eye of the beholder - let journalists just say what they like - perceptions of impartiality be damned?

Not quite - journalistic organisations do need to stand for some core principles and deciding what is and isn’t “controversial” is a key part of that.

However what the BBC, and all news organisations, need to do is be explicit about what they think is “controversial” and what their key principles are. And importantly they need to be transparent as to who is making these decisions in order for the staff and the public to have confidence in their judgement. 

The reality is it is hard to have confidence in an organisations’ editorial judgement around certain issues if people affected by those issues are not transparently part of the editorial process that makes decisions around them. 

Gone are the days when a group of all men can decide what is and isn’t controversial when it comes to sexism. And hopefully this is increasingly the case when it comes to racism and disability and other underrepresented groups. 

Let us return to the Naga Munchetty affair. For the staff and the public to have confidence in how the BBC balances these difficult editorial issues it needs to show how it has moved on from the Naga Munchetty affair both in terms of who is making the decisions, (it is widely thought no people of colour were part of the original ECU decision that found against Munchetty) and in terms of its editorial reasoning.

Naga Munchetty was right to give her opinion on President Donald Trump’s tweet and the BBC later admitted so. It would be wrong if the lessons of Naga Munchetty were not learnt and Black and Brown journalists did not feel they could speak their truth about racism or act on it.

Black people talking about racism and connecting with the current debate only strengthens the BBC and its journalism.