Apologies are good - solutions that fix the problem for good are better.
Over the course of less than a week the BBC broadcast two incidents of their presenters using the N-word (see my last blog post for details).
Ofcom (the industry regulator) has confirmed that they have received almost 400 complaints for its use in the BBC news programme and the BBC has received 18,600 complaints so far and counting. There have been calls for the BBC to apologise, a petition organised, and some established Black actors have even called for the people involved in taking the editorial decision to be sacked.
At the same time the BBC has not only refused to apologise but issued a statement explaining their editorial reasoning behind their decision to use the word in the news programme and why they stand by the decision. It should be noted that Lucy Worsley, the presenter of American History’s Biggest Fibs, who also used the N-word, did issue a public apology in a personal capacity.
There is also the argument that the incidents illustrate the lack of non-White people at the BBC in positions of editorial responsibility making these kinds of decisions. An argument I support and continue to campaign for. But the reality is this is unlikely to change any time soon to a significant degree.
So where does this leave us?
One side arguing for the corporation to apologise and for those responsible to be disciplined while those on the other side (mainly BBC management) standing firm by their decision and refusing to admit any fault.
While I think the BBC should issue a formal apology I also believe this may be the perfect opportunity to take advantage of the old adage “never let a good crisis go to waste”. The phrase was popularised by the American Democratic politician Rahm Emanual, and the full quote is; “You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.” So what is the “thing” that needs to be done that we thought could not be done before?
The BBC needs to write formal procedures into its editorial guidelines as to how to deal with racial slurs.
Currently there are only three words which warrant mandatory referral to higher editorial consideration and must be approved by the relevant channel controller/editor before they are broadcast. These are; “c***, m*****f***** and f*** or its derivatives”.
The guidelines state: “Any proposal to use the strongest language (c***, m*****f***** and f*** or its derivatives) must be referred to and approved by the relevant channel controller/editor, who should consider the editorial justification. Editorial Policy may also be consulted.” (my use of asterisks)
Now is the perfect opportunity to insert a new line into the guidelines to address the issue of the N-word and the explicit use of other racial slurs.
The new updated guidelines would simply state; “Any proposal to use the strongest language (c***, m*****f***** and f*** or its derivatives) or use explicit racial slurs including n***** and p*** must be referred to and approved by the relevant channel controller/editor, who should consider the editorial justification. Editorial Policy may also be consulted.”
Ideally any such decision would also have the input of at least one person of colour.
Now you might wonder why I am focusing so much on the BBC Editorial Guidelines. The reason is that all the UK’s Public Service Broadcasters including ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5 use the BBC’s guidelines as a reference for their own editorial decisions and practices. And so how the BBC decides to address this issue will affect the whole of UK broadcasting.
The BBC made a mistake in broadcasting the N-word.
I believe they should apologise.
But using this opportunity to create a system where this cannot happen again could be the silver-lining to a very ugly cloud.
Generally, I agree with you.
ReplyDeleteI note that Sideman, a radio 1Xtra presenter, has resigned complaining about “the N-word being said on national television by a white person”. If using the N word is wrong, then I'm not too keen on it being okay for some people to use it but not others of a different colour using it.
And whilst we are on about derogatory words being banned, could we add 'bitch', 'karen', 'chav', 'gammon'?
For many white folks like me, we see the steps that have been made in understanding how communities like the black community have been institutionally discriminated against and how unpicking that discrimination so black citizens have the same opportunities and the same sense of citizenship as 'white' citizens is being achieved, and hope this can be a template for how those white communities that also have been marginalised and discriminated against can see their lives improved. But the opposite seems to be happening. There is no sign that white communities that face barriers and discrimination are having their issues faced, instead they are being stigmatised as having privilege but being too stupid to use it, and having efforts to recognise their situation ignored and dismissed.
So how about now that BAME communities are over-represented in front of camera and elsewhere in UK cultural life you use your experience to open some doors for those sections of the white population that are massively under-represented and discriminated against?
Thank you for leaving a comment.
DeleteLanguage is contextual and so who is saying something, how they are saying it and about what, are all considerations we need to think about when we make judgments about the appropriateness of a word's use.
I do not think it would have been acceptable for any reporter, regardless of race, representing the BBC to use the the N-word at 10.30 in the morning. At the same time I think the level of offense is heightened when a White person says it due to the historical power relationships between black and white people and the use of the word.
All the words you listed are problematic - personally I do not think they are as offensive as the N-word - which is illustrated by you using the term "N-word" while spelling out the other words. But they are problematic and depending on the context inappropriate.
In terms of the issues you raise with regards to "White privilege" I think to answer that would require at least one whole new blog post to do it justice.
Thanks so much for taking the time to read the blog post and thank you even more for leaving a comment.
Thanks 'Unknown' for your comment.
DeleteAs preparation for your future blogpost about White Privilege (WP), here's my thoughts.
A good theory fits observed reality and is a useful tool for understanding and influencing our surrounds. My view is WP is neither. Firstly, outcomes for different ethnic groups markedly differ. Some, like Bangladeshis, Pakistani's and Afro-Caribbeans, do worse on average than whites, but Indians and Chinese do better. If WP was the driving force in determining outcomes for people of colour, all groups should do worse than whites, but that isn't so.
Secondly, outcomes in the White population differ markedly. White working class do worse than many immigrant groups. As a group, they are quite distinct from, say, White professional class. When they are in the same school they tend to segregate, and obviously they are geographically separated in many cases.
It has not gone unnoticed by many white people that many of the whites voicing for support for WP are what we would ordinarily simply called privileged. They are signalling that they as a group understand the drivers of discrimination and hence justify their position of power, and the 'other; whites do not understand this issue and so deserve their place at the bottom of the pile. So 'white' support for WP is fairly toxic in itself as it seeks to eliminate class as a factor in society and replace it with a notion of political acceptability. Here the drive to remove anyone from public life who disagrees.
It is clear to many white people that some groups of white people have no privilege whatsoever, hence the constant raising of the girls of Rotherham and Rochdale. The issue there was not that some bad people did some bad things, but that agents of the state looked on and did nothing. It is hard to sustain the idea that these girls had some racial privilege, and hence if a section of white society does not have WP, then the notion of WP as a useful idea falls. Incidentally when people reply to BLM with 'White Lives Matter' it is people such as these girls who people are referring to, so complaining about it is seen as just another kick in the teeth for a section of society who have suffered considerably and continue to do so.