WHY THE BBC GOT IT WRONG WITH ITS NEW EDITORIAL GUIDELINES

 

I was baptised a Catholic and the last time I was in Venice I attended a Catholic church service. I do not necessarily believe in the church’s views on abortion.

I have gone to Black Lives Matters events and have used the hashtag #BLM on some of my tweets. I do not necessarily believe in defunding the police.

Both things are key to forming my racial identity and religious belief, and are intrinsic parts of my identity and even recognised and protected in British law. They are qualitatively and quantitatively different from how I voted in the Brexit referendum and whether I think Boris Johnson is doing a good job as Prime Minister.

I mention this because the BBC seems to have misunderstood this fundamental point in the new editorial guidelines it announced on Thursday and the subsequent furore over whether journalists can attend Pride events, Black Lives Matter marches, or “controversial” political demonstrations.

First a little context:

The new BBC guidelines are really in response to two things:

1. Social media use in a post-Brexit / "Culture war” world.

2. The BBC recently getting it dramatically and publicly wrong on two big editorial issues; the N-word, and Naga Munchetty talking about Donald Trump.

Now, the two most prominent voices who told them they had got it wrong, and were proved right, on Naga and N-word were Afua Hirsch and me. We are both very approachable people and have done work for the BBC subsequently. It is a shame that the BBC did not consult with either of us before they published the new guidelines because if they had both of us could have told them that they have misunderstood a fundamental philosophical point.

The concept of "protected characteristics".

The Equality Act of 2010 outlines 9 protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation

The new BBC guidelines are an attempt to improve the public’s perception of the corporation’s impartiality and objectivity, especially when it comes to its journalism.

The guidelines set out whether its journalists can publicly tweet about Brexit or attend an anti-war rally (for example) and how that might affect perceptions of journalistic impartiality, and for the most part I agree with them, and they clarify some important points in the new media landscape and the role social media plays.

However what they fail to do is recognise the importance of diversity and the principle of protected characteristics as set out in law.

A gay person attending a Pride event can effectively be part of their identity (irrespective of how “controversial” some of the floats or speakers may or may not be), and is therefore fundamentally different from someone attending a Brexit rally or Animal Rights march however strongly they may feel about these issues. Sexuality is a protected characteristic - political beliefs are not.

Once you frame the debate in terms of “protected characteristics” it becomes quite straightforward and simple. Religion is a protected characteristic. It is very different for me, as a Catholic, to go to church where the bishop may tell me abortion is wrong versus me going to a non-religious anti-abortion or pro-life rally.

Similarly Black Lives Matter rallies are part of my identity as a black British man.

In many ways the BBC guidelines were not really broken before and intelligent managers interpreted them along the lines I have outlined above. They might not have intellectually articulated the distinction between public comments and events that are part of a person's protected characteristics versus ones that aren't, but they kind of knew it instinctively.

For most people who have to grapple with the role their protected characteristics play in their daily lives and at work this comes almost naturally. The problem is some BBC managers in positions of editorial control have not been acting intelligently over some of these matters, and far too few of them come from backgrounds where their protected characteristics can be a negotiation with the majority society.

Now we have a thoroughly modern term for all of this; “diversity and inclusion”.

That is why we say diversity and inclusion needs to be baked into a company's policies at the very start. You cannot just roll out (editorial) policies that are fit for heterosexual able-bodied white men and then think they can apply to all people universally.

The flaws in the new guidelines are actually symptomatic of a far wider issue at the corporation and that is the lack of diversity and inclusion at the very top of the organisation, and among the people who decide on its editorial policies and direction.

BBC, with the greatest of respect, you have made a mistake with your new editorial guidelines and how you are interpreting them. If you want to revise them again my door is still open, happy to talk any time. But, for a long-term solution diversity and inclusion at the top of the organisation needs to change.



UPDATE 16.07.2021

I have received comments asking me: If we take attending #Black Lives Matter as being part of black people's protected characteristics does that mean only black BBC journalists have the right to attend #BLM events?

Extending the religious argument I made at the start of the piece that I have the right to attend church as a Christian, it is similarly recognised that I should be allowed to attend Mosque or Synagogue - even if I am not Muslim or Jewish - it is basic human right. And so similarly, BBC journalists of every race should be able to attend Black Lives Matter events.

However, I think the argument has moved on since I wrote the blog piece nine months ago. With the England football team taking the knee before matches at the EUROs it is now broadly recognised that taking the knee, and other symbols associated with the Black Lives Matter movement, are simply symbols of anti-racism and are not advocating any specific Party political cause. Once this is accepted, attending Black Lives Matter events or taking the knee falls under the basic rights set out in the UN Declaration of Human Rights under Article 2 which states; "Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race" and Article 7 "All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law."

Or to put it more simply: If it is good enough for the England football team, I think it is good enough for the BBC's journalists.