Academics, UK media diversity needs YOU!

In 2014 I gave oral evidence to the Commons culture committee with Lenny Henry and Pat Younge about media diversity. 

At that committee I cited the work of Professor Irena Grugulis and her study “Social Capital and Networks in Film and TV: Jobs for the Boys?” in which she identified a relationship between the time it takes to staff up a project and the diversity of the team. She also showed how the time between “green-lighting” a project to when it goes into production had shortened over the years. Previously there could be several months between a commission and needing to fully staff it, now that time has been reduced to an average of just two weeks, with a detrimental effect on diversity.

After I gave my evidence I was contacted by a journalist at Broadcast (the industry “bible” for people working in television in the UK) who was genuinely surprised that I had quoted an academic study and wanted to know more.

For me that example perfectly illustrated the lack of practitioners drawing on the wealth of academic work to inform their policy decisions and working practices. My quoting of an academic paper was such a rarity that it warranted genuine surprise by people working in the sector.

Thankfully, six years on, that is beginning to change. 

Establishing the Sir Lenny Henry Centre for Media Diversity in March 2020 at Birmingham City Univeristy, followed by the launch of Representology - a Journal for Media Diversity in conjunction with Cardiff University, was a conscious effort by everyone involved to bridge the gap between academia and practitioners. 

It is not an easy place to situate oneself. We are regularly approached by media organisations who want the academic rigour associated with a body situated within a university but want the advice in a few weeks. At the same time there are certain sections of academia who are clearly suspicious of the work we are doing and whether we are championing the experience of practitioners over years of academic research.

No one said it would be easy.

But our end goal is to increase the level of people from underrepresented backgrounds working in the media and we believe that academia has a vital role in achieving this. 

We are aware that Representology - a Journal of Media Diversity is read by senior media executives who would never normally pick up an academic study - however relevant it might be to their work. 

To this end, we are calling for more submissions for the journal which can reach a unique  audience that can have the real possibility of changing the industry. Find out how to submit here.

One or None Cannot be our Only Options - Kamal Ahmed, the BBC, and the Problem of Diversity in Senior Positions

Last week BBC News announced a restructure of its management board reducing the size of the top team from eleven to eight. My understanding is that all board members had to effectively interview for their jobs and the end result was the position of Editorial Director was abolished and with it Kamal Ahmed’s position on the board was made redundant.

Kamal Ahmed was the only person of colour on the news board, which means the board is now 100% white.

Cue much consternation. 

The Telegraph led with the headline: “BBC faces backlash after breaking own diversity pledge and appointing all-white board”. 

The Guardian went with “BBC makes editorial director Kamal Ahmed redundant in restructure - Changes leave corporation in breach of own rules on minority ethnic representation”.

Forty eight MPs and peers wrote an open letter to the BBC complaining at the lack of diversity at the highest level at the heart of its news.  Roughly the same number of BBC journalists wrote a similar letter internally to the Director General and the Head of News, Tim Davie and Fran Unsworth.

While all this was going on my phone has been ringing off the hook (can smartphones even do that?), BBC insiders have slid into my DMs and I have lost count of how many people have asked me if I am going to blog about it.

So here goes the mandatory blog post…

First of all, I was a BBC manager myself - not quite as senior as Kamal Ahmed - but I have been involved in my fair share of management restructures, both at the BBC and at other media organisations. For this reason I 100% support the BBC to be able to restructure its News management board as it sees fit. Restructures are always horrible processes to undertake but they are sometimes necessary - especially if you are trying to make savings, which the corporation is currently trying to do.

I also support the corporation’s right to make any one member of the board redundant from the board irrespective of their race, gender or any other characteristic. Anything else would be arguing for “box ticking diversity” and a person should not simply be on a board because of what they are, but for what they can do.

However, that does not mean we should just look at recent developments and simply accept them. Also the distinction between what a person is and what they can do is not always so black and white (excuse the pun).

Firstly, something is deeply wrong when the racial diversity of the top board of a public news organisation in a multicultural society rests on the shoulders of just one individual. Issues around diversity can never, and more importantly should never, rest with one individual. I have written previously about the burden of representation being too much to bear when you are the “only one”, as well as the impossible positions it puts “the one” individual when it comes to specific decision-making of championing diversity while appearing objective in the eyes of the rest of the board. 

We should not forget, for instance, that Kamal Ahmed was in position when the BBC news board approved the sanctioning of Naga Munchetty for labelling one of President Donald Trump’s tweets racist. He was also on the board when it defended the use of the N-word by a reporter being broadcast on breakfast television. These are both also editorial decisions that the corporation subsequently had to reverse.

It would also be fair to assume the BBC news board also supported Samira Ahmed’s pay structure - considering she works for them - a pay structure which was found to be illegal in court and in breach of equal pay legislation. 

The BBC news board also continues to hold a blanket ban on any of its journalists participating in Black Live Matter events. 

I have no idea what Kamal Ahmed’s personal views are on any of these issues and what role he played in either supporting them or arguing against them internally. But what one can see from outside is the previous structure did not seem to avert the corporation making managerial and editorial decisions that have come under heavy fire from both black media professionals and the public at large.  

For this reason I am not arguing for a return to the status quo. 

Indeed, my concern is that if the news board had been restructured and Ahmed had kept his position on it we would not be having this conversation.

The fundamental point is that we need a critical mass on the news board if we want to change the culture and for BBC news to properly reflect the diverse audiences BBC news serves. And that goes far deeper than one person on or off the board.      

It remains a highly problematic position that not one of the BBC’s broadcast major news bulletins (Breakfast, One O’Clock, Six O’Clock or Ten O’Clock) is overseen by a person of colour. It remains highly problematic that not one of the BBC’s major political programmes or current affairs programmes - from Newsnight to Panorama - is headed by a person of colour. As far as I am aware, I am the last person of colour to executive produce a Panorama and that was over five years ago.  

It is a highly problematic position where one person of colour leaving a senior position leaves any organisation with none, in whatever their respective area of expertise was.

It is not until there is a critical mass of people of colour - not just in the news board but throughout the organisation - that the corporation will be able to reflect the diversity of its audience, and the people who they are ultimately responsible to through the license fee. In many ways fighting for one position is almost a distraction.

Kamal Ahmed being made redundant should be a wake up call. Not a wake up call that people of colour should be above the possibility of redundancy. But a wake up call that we should never be in the position that our options are too often one or none.

One last point - all executive positions are not the same.

While I have tried to show that this is an issue which is far larger than Ahmed and just the news board there is one point that needs to be addressed.

There are currently two positions on the BBC news board that still need to be filled: HR Director, and Senior Controller, News International Services. 

At least one of the positions is expected to be filled by a person of colour, and it is highly likely it might even be both as this would fulfil the BBC’s 2019 onwards policy of having two people of colour on every board. 

The problem is the HR position will have no direct say over important editorial decisions. And while the international news position is vitally important, (I have written before about the dangers of seeing the world through a white gaze of white foreign correspondents), this position too will have no direct influence over domestic news.

As one senior journalist of colour working at the BBC recently messaged me “Our audience challenge is in the UK - neither international nor HR solve that. (The BBC) needs strong editorial decision making there.” All of the diversity examples I stated above were to do with UK editorial or management decisions.

We need BBC news to reflect the diversity of the entire country it serves. The fact its board is currently all white may soon be rectified but that does not mean its diversity problems will have been solved. 

(Correction: An earlier version stated that the BBC journalists wrote their letter to Tim Davie and Fran Unsworth anonymously. I now understand the names were only removed when it became public.)

An investigation into possibly one of the biggest miscarriages of justice in recent years hold important lessons for how diverse programmes are commissioned and financed

There could be no stronger argument for the need for more diversity behind the camera than the news on Friday (12th February 2021) that the case of a nurse who is currently serving life in prison for murdering four patients and attempting to kill a fifth, has been referred to the Court of Appeal.

Diversity behind the camera could mean a possible wrongful conviction is overturned and an innocent man is released from prison. Let me explain...

On the 4th October 2011, possibly the most important programme I have ever overseen was broadcast. It was originally shown only in Scotland after being rejected by the BBC commissioners in London. Although later on the strength of the Scottish journalism the London gatekeepers eventually agreed to pick it up and we made a Panorama on the issue in 2014.

It was an investigation into a possible miscarriage of justice.

The Colin Norris is a convicted serial killer currently serving 30 years. He was a nurse who supposedly poisoned at least five elderly patients with insulin – killing four of them in 2002.

The 2011 programme was staffed by a lot of journalists who used to work on the series “Rough Justice” - which specialised in bringing miscarriage of justices to light. Our film on Colin Norris (BBC Scotland Investigates: The Hospital Serial Killer), revealed new scientific evidence that casts doubt on the insulin poisoning that he was convicted for. As well as the new scientific evidence my team also discovered other people that had died of similar low blood sugar symptoms as the 5 “victims”, but these other people died when Colin Norris was not on duty. This meant that either there was someone else murdering these people or, more likely as the new scientific evidence points to, they all died of natural causes. If our investigation is right an innocent man could be serving time for four murders and an attempted murder he did not do.

The Scottish programme was covered extensively in the Tartan press (The Herald, Scotsman, Daily Record and Scottish versions of the UK papers) and received an above average audience. The new evidence was then submitted to the criminal case review commission to decide if a miscarriage of justice had in fact taken place.

It is the evidence in that programme that has now contributed to it being referred to the Court of Appeal.

For the purpose of this blog post and the importance of media diversity, however, the key fact is that Colin is Scottish. As I stated at the start this potential miscarriage of justice was not picked up by network television. In fact, it was only commissioned by me because I had a pot of money to highlight issues that are either of interest to a Scottish audience and / or are about something specific to Scotland.

Moreover when the same team made a BBC Panorama programme into the issue in 2014 one of the deciding factors for the Panorama gatekeepers, based in London, to agree to commission it was because I cross subsidised it with my Scottish pot of money. I effectively match-funded the London money making it considerably more attractive for the London executives to commission it.

The implications for people interested in diversity in television is obvious.

How many important stories are falling through the cracks because there is not specific ring-fenced money for looking at a specific group of people? Is there a similar miscarriage of justice film about a disabled person that hasn’t had a top BBC team of journalists looking at it because there isn’t ring-fenced disability money or TV programmes? What important black issues are we failing to cover because there isn’t ring-fenced money to make black specific programmes with allocated slots? By their very definition, we will never know the answer to those types of questions.

The truth is all broadcasters and all genre commissioners are far better at commissioning diverse programmes in the mainstream than they were twenty years ago, both in terms of on-screen talent and issues. One only has to look at the recent Small Axe series and the great journalism Rianna Croxford regularly produces. And I do not want to go back to the days when different diverse groups were given their own programmes and ring-fenced money but those films were nearly all broadcast at obscure times when no-one was watching.

However what the original 2011 programme “BBC Scotland Investigates: The Hospital Serial Killer” did reveal is that ring-fenced money for specific communities, regions or nations can sometimes uncover important stories that would otherwise be overlooked.

What the later Panorama programme reveals is that broadcasters might want to explore the idea of a pot of money dedicated to match funding diverse productions in primetime, giving commissioners a real financial incentive, and reward, to commission more diversely.

Lastly, this is also an argument against diversity being relegated to an advisory role. Almost everyone in Scotland news could see the importance of this original investigation. We pitched it to the editors down in London, we advised the London gatekeepers and we used all our powers of persuasion but to no avail. An advisory role would not have made any difference.

It was only by people championing regional diversity having editorial power and finances that this investigation ever saw the light of day. And ultimately it could be the difference between possibly an innocent man being in prison or being freed.

(This blog post is based on a post originally posted in on October 2011 - "Lessons From A Serial Killer")
.

Media Must Avoid Blaming Black and Asian People For Their Low Covid-19 Vaccine Uptake

GO AND GET VACCINATED!

BLACK PEOPLE, GO GET YOURSELF VACCINATED!

ASIAN PEOPLE, GO GET YOURSELF VACCINATED!

People of colour in the UK are thought to be more reluctant than their white counterparts to receive the Covid-19 vaccine. This poses a very real public health problem, especially as it is  coupled with the fact that people of colour are disproportionately impacted by the virus.

This has led to a push by media organisations, and heath authorities, to push for wider uptake by people of colour of the vaccine. While these efforts should be applauded we need to make sure the very communities they are trying to help are not demonised and "othered" in the process.

To explain the issues let me go back in time over twenty years...

When I was a young director at the BBC I made a programme for the current affairs series "Black Britain" with the legend who is Clive Myrie. It was about the Windrush generation returning to Jamaica and being targeted by criminals because they were perceived as coming back with money from the UK. At the time Jamaica had one of the highest murder rates for any country during peace time and several of these returnees had been murdered.

It was an important issue that was effecting our community and I felt it was important that we cover it.

I made the film, but I insisted I put in a section on the IMF's Structural Adjustment Policies which had exacerbated inequality in Jamaica and the US's involvement in the country contributing to a gun culture. It was important to put the news in historical context otherwise Jamaica in general, and black Jamaicans specifically, would have appeared to be murderous people confirming some of the worst racist stereotypes.

As a lowly director I had to fight for that section to be included, although I had the support of my black series producer, Maxine Watson, and of course my reporter, Clive Myrie.

Fast forward 20 years and we have similar issues when it comes to how the media report the low uptake of Covid-19 vaccines by certain communities.

I think the work the BBC, and other media organisations, are doing to tackle the issue of low Black, Asian and minority ethnic uptake of the vaccine and misinformation in the community is vitally important.

However, just like the murders of Jamaican returnees context is king. It is important to explain the origins of the misinformation and mistrust which is plaguing our communities. Otherwise we run the risk demonising and ridiculing the very communities whose trust we are trying to gain.

The Executive Director of the Equality Trust, Wanda Wyporska, contextualised the issue when she appeared on Newsnight and was asked about the issue, saying; "There is a distrust and a mistrust of authorities which is hardly surprising when the authorities have tried to send our grandparents back to the Caribbean in terms of Windrush, or our communities are being deported and portrayed as gang members and prostitutes on TV. And when we have a higher rate of stop and search that has been absolutely abused under Covid. So it is not surprising that our relationships with authorities is not one of trust".

Although the clip I just quoted was from a BBC news programme far too often the BBC's coverage has omitted this important context, and the BBC is far from unique in the way it covers the issue.

It is the difference between blaming the victim, versus realising the problem of low vaccine uptake is only a symptom of a far larger issue - systemic racism. A symptom that needs to be addressed nonetheless.

Black and Asian people are no less, or no more, rational than our white counterparts. 

Messages of misinformation are far more likely flourish in communities that have a reason to mistrust official media channels.

If media organisations want to address these important issues they must gain the trust of these communities. Without putting the issue in context they run the risk of people feeling that they are being talked down to, their reality not being recognised, and simply tuning out one of the most important public health messages in a generation.