On-Screen Community Representation - The New Diversity Frontier

In a speech I gave earlier this year to NFTS first year students I argued that how we represent diverse communities – as opposed to just individuals from diverse backgrounds – is the new frontier for on-screen diversity.

It goes to the heart of how we should think of "colour-blind casting" and judge dramas like Killing Eve and Luther.

What follows is an extract of that speech….


Much of drama narrative teaching concentrates on the protagonists. I want to look at an important element of on-screen diversity that is often overlooked and that is the power of the community.

And to do that I want to take you back to the year before I was born.

The year was 1970. That year Sesame Street launched, with an opening scene of a black male teacher in a suit, walking a young black girl, Sally, down the street and introducing her to a multicultural neighbourhood. They walk to his home and he introduces her to his black wife who gives Sally cookies and milk.

From the very first frame, Sesame Street put an aspirational, professional black couple at the heart of its programme.

Now what is interesting is in the 1970’s British Children’s television was in many ways racially diverse.

The same year that Sesame street was launched British television launched Here Come the Double Deckers! a children’s drama with key black characters.

On its flagship early years programme - Play School - the BBC had several black presenters including Floella Benjamin who is now a duchess in the house of Lords. There were programmes like Pipkins on ITV with a black presenter. And on Saturday morning Tiswas you had a teenage Lenny Henry.

In children’s drama Double Deckers was not the only drama with black characters. You had black characters in key roles in Grange Hill, and if I really want to delve deep into my childhood my personal favourite children’s drama was a science fiction drama (which was recently remade) called Tomorrow People - again with black actors in key roles.

Yet despite being born and raised in London I looked across the Atlantic and saw myself reflected back at me and in a reality I wanted to be part of. I looked at programmes filmed just down the road from where I lived and failed to find an emotional connection. This is despite the fact that these UK programmes had quote unquote on-screen diversity and representation.

I had no conscious understanding of race but something in Sesame Street resonated with me. It got something right in 1970 which British television still fails to grasp.

Over the last 50 years there has been real progress, with most British drama writers now recognising that there should be positive black characters. Casting directors are now more willing to cast black actors in non-stereotypical positive roles. Things are far from perfect, but there is no denying that progression. There may have been a degree of representation in the 1970s children’s programmes but now we see positive black characters on our screen relatively often – from actors in Dr Who to The Hustle and of course Luther. However, there’s something special about these positive characters. And all the characters and presenters I mentioned earlier in 1970s children’s programmes.

They are often the only black character, inhabiting functioning white communities, or at the very least majority white communities. Black communities on TV on the other hand are portrayed almost exclusively as dysfunctional. While many of the people portrayed in a drama set in a non-white community may be likeable, the community they were set in is normally anything but.

The message that comes across loud and clear on our screens is that while there might be good black individuals, black communities are a problem. It suggests that if you are a good or positive black person you should want to leave the dysfunctional black communities as quickly as possible.

While some might downplay these unspoken messages, the reality is one comes across these implicit negative views about black communities all the time. There are often similar messages about South Asians on TV, while there might be positive individuals from the Indian sub-continent, the communities are invariably problematic, populated with forced marriages and potential terrorists.

Yet the reality is that while dysfunctional black communities certainly do exist, there are also incredibly good positive functional communities. Analysis by Dr Nicola Rollock into the black middle class offers strong examples of functional positive black communities that rarely see our TV screens. I for one am very proud to be part of a black community that includes lawyers, film makers, policemen, civil servants, charity workers – but also unemployed people. It’s mixed, but positively so.

And so what resonates with people is the portrayal of communities and it is this that has been missing from so much of our diversity debate.

In Killing Eve we do not see any reference to Sandra Oh’s Korean heritage until she has left her white husband, lost her job - working with predominantly white people and hit rock bottom.

At that point she takes a job in the most stereotypical of East Asian occupations. You’ve guessed it - a Korean restaurant.

I am sure the BBC and the producers patted themselves on the back after casting Sandra Oh in the role - a role originally written for a white person in the original books. And yet when it came to representing her community they stumbled at the first hurdle.

No one would ever want to be in that community if they could ever avoid it, and she only returned to that community when she had no where else to go.

Just think about the message that send out to East Asians. You want to kick some butt? Yes you can - as long as you jettison your community and only expose your culture in small palatable (preferably edible) doses.

And yet when we get it right it is brilliant.

Christmas just gone Sainsbury’s broadcast an advert of a black family enjoying Christmas dinner.

It resonated with black people - why?

Because it showed a happy functioning black community.

It also had a very important message - black people can be happy without white people. If it was killing Eve it is the equivalent of saying - Sandra Oh you can kick butt, be a superhero and celebrate your culture.

Now recently the question of onscreen portrayal has taken on more urgency and people have started to bandy around the term “authentic”.

As the UK media industry seeks to improve its diversity the question of “authentic” representation looms large. What does “authentic” portrayal of under-represented look like and how can we judge it?

Recently BEATS (British East Asians in Theatre and on Screen), a media advocacy group for increased diversity, attempted to answer that very question with regards to the portrayal of British Southeast Asians in drama (BESEA). They proposed a simple checklist:

(1) Are there two or more BESEA characters? (2) Do at least two BESEA characters speak fluent English with a British accent? (3) Does at least one BESEA character pursue their own goal separate to the white characters?

If the programme can answer “yes” to all three questions then it has passed the test.

What the BEATS test indicates is that it is not just about quantity - quality is equally important.

Interestingly, there has been push back by some members of the British East Asian community to the exact specifics of the checklist, most notably whether the requirement regarding British accents champions second and third generation immigrants over more recent arrivals. I personally think there will be room for improvement and ways to address this concern. However we shouldn’t lose sight of the core principles and what the checklist identifies are three important criteria vital for authentic representation:

People of colour are not isolated individuals.

Do not “exoticize” people of colour; and finally

People of colour must have agency over our lives.

Now if you take the Killing Eve example or Idris Elba in Luther they frequently pass the second and third criteria. They are really not exoticised in my opinion. And they definitely have agency over their own lives. Sandra Oh seems to kill who she likes and to some degree beds who she likes - I hope that isn’t a spoiler for people who haven’t watched it yet.

But they fall down on the first criteria - speaking to another person who looks like them.

Netflix’s recent hit Lupin also falls down on this criteria - if you disregard flashbacks of Omar Sy talking to his dead father.

Now what is interesting with the first criteria - two Asian people should speak to one another - I believe what they are trying to do is capture the idea and importance of community in portrayal

Community is the new frontier when it comes to diversity.

The fact that BEATS have published this checklist now is also particularly important.

Last June the BBC committed £100m of its content spend over three years on “diverse productions and talent” stipulating that “diverse stories and portrayal on-screen” would be one criteria that productions would be judged by without detailing how.

The fear among many people of colour working in TV that I have spoken to is that the BBC will repeat the same mistakes they did when trying to figure out what “authentic” Scottish portrayal is. Asking whether a black character eating “jerk chicken” is more authentic than having them dine in a French restaurant. Or leaving it up to the discretion of a single executive as to what “authenticity” looks like.

What BEATS’ criteria demonstrates is authenticity is not about specific cultural signifiers but about how you approach your characters. The BBC would do well to heed this when it finally publishes its guidelines as to what “diverse stories and portrayal on-screen” really means.

Now Of course there is one final, fourth, criteria Lenny (Henry) and I identify in our book (Access All Areas) as being essential to achieving real authentic portrayal. And that is to make sure there is diversity in key positions behind the camera.

And so to sum up if we want to have diversity we must recognise that characters are not isolated people. At its most basic they have back stories and for black people those back stories have to include their communities.

Finally I will leave you with one more Sesame Street-related fact.

When the first episode of Sesame Street was aired in 1970 the US was 87.65 per cent white. According to the last census conducted in 2010 it is now 72.40 per cent white.

The year I was born, 1971, was the first time the UK census specifically gathered ethnicity data. That year they found the white population made up roughly 97.7 per cent of the population. Today the BAME population in the UK is 13 per cent, a larger percentage than the non-white population at the time Sally first met all the Sesame Street characters in the first episode.

In 1970 a children’s television show had already worked out the importance of appealing to the country’s non-white population through positive community representation not just portrayal of individuals, an appeal that made a small child born in London a year later fall in love with it.

British broadcasters do not have the luxury of waiting another 50 years to finally work out what Sesame Street got right. Because unlike 50 years ago Sesame Street is literally just one channel hop away, as is all the other great diverse content that prioritises community representation over simple diverse representation of individuals.

NFTS students, you must make that change or British film and television will die without it.

You are our hope, and our future.

We Stand Less on the Shoulders of Giants And More in the Battlefield of the Fallen

On Sunday Noel Clarke won the Outstanding Contribution Award at the BAFTA’s and gave a moving acceptance speech. In the speech he dedicated the award to the “under-represented" in the film industry and effectively reshaped notions of black pride when he said he would not apologise for the ”arrogance” he showed when he won the Rising Star Award 13 years ago. He was not going to say sorry for “popping his collar” because it was an act of defiance, as people like him are not meant to win these awards.

I found the speech moving, and enjoyed its mixture of both pride and humility as Clarke described his journey in the industry and his attempts to “elicit change in the industry”.

But there was one part of the speech that troubled me. He said “I stand on the shoulders of giants, I am not here without the people before me”.

The idea of “standing on the shoulders of giants” is a common one and is frequently cited by black, and other people from under-represented groups, to acknowledge the people who have paved the way for their own successes.

I have used the phrase myself and even wrote a blog piece titled “Standing on the Shoulders of Giants”. I also created an open-source document for people to add the names and profiles of pioneering “giants” of colour in the media industry.

However, I have become increasingly uncomfortable with the phrase and in many ways I do not think it does the justice to the people who paved the way for us. Most importantly it does not adequately recognise the sacrifices they made. Let me explain why…

First of all, it is important to understand where the phrase comes from. It is thought it can be traced back to the 12th Century and was first used by the French philosopher Bernard of Chartres describing how philosophers see further by building on the philosophical works of those that proceed them. The phrase gained popularity in England when the noted scientist Isaac Newton wrote in 1675: "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants."

When Isaac Newton used the phrase, he was referring to scientists and thinkers who had gone before him and he was merely adding to their achievements. Importantly the scientists that went before Newton had, for the most part, been celebrated and recognised for their contribution to science while they were alive, while they were working.

In contrast, when it comes to black people, and others from underrepresented groups, much of the time we are following on from people who are more like fallen warriors in a battlefield. They are the walking wounded who have sacrificed their careers to enable us to be where we are today. For instance, they might have lost their jobs as a result of trying to break barriers, they might have been seen as “troublemakers” and foregone promotions, and we should not forget the mental health damage that many people suffer from working in what is far too often a toxic industry.

That means the people who came before us might be “giants” but we are not standing on their shoulders. They are no longer standing up! We are benefitting from the foes they have slain and the fights they have waged on our behalf.

That’s more like the right metaphor.

On a similar note, a few years ago a woman corrected me when I congratulated her for breaking the glass ceiling. She said, quite calmingly, “mine was just the final push - the ceiling was weakened by all the women who cracked their skulls on the previous attempts”.

This woman was not standing on other women’s shoulders. For her she was standing amongst women who had suffered and sacrificed much more than her and most importantly had not reaped the benefits.

So, why does this phrasing matter? Am I just being a pedant obsessing over whether Noel Clarke used the right metaphor, and myself for that matter - just a few years ago?

For me the issue went beyond mere semantics a few months ago when I found out about the story of Barbara Blake Hannah, the first black person to appear on British TV in a non-entertainment role in 1968. She landed the job of on-camera reporter for daily evening show Today With Eamonn Andrews on Thames TV. But after nine months she was dismissed, allegedly because her employer came under pressure from viewers who called in daily to say: "Get that n***** off our screens."

She was the pioneer who paved the way for every black newsreader in the UK who came after her. But in paving the way, her career was totally sacrificed.

And this is where the metaphor becomes important and how we view Blake Hannah. If we see her as simply a giant whose shoulders black TV journalists stand on, we owe her nothing but gratitude and respect.

If, on the other hand, we view her as a fallen soldier who made sacrifices which we, as black journalists, are benefitting from - then we owe her something far more tangible.

That’s why I believe there should be, in the media industry specifically but also in other sectors, a new charitable fund to financially help these pioneers who have had to sacrifice to pave the way for progress.

All the broadcasters and large independent production companies could contribute to this independent fund. The fund would then be distributed, in much the same way the Film and TV Charity works, in giving grants and ongoing support to people who have left the industry or have made material sacrifices in working in the industry. Or to put it another way – people like Barbara Blake Hannah needs real support not just a plaque.

Let us support the pioneers because they might be giants but they still need a helping hand.

How to Persuade Black People to Take Covid-19 Vaccines - Three Lessons

Last week Sir Lenny Henry wrote an open letter to Black British communities asking them to take the Covid-19 vaccination. The letter was co-signed  by a raft of famous and influential Black Britons and made into a short film by the fantastic Amma Asante. 

I was involved in writing the letter, and even though it was relatively short, I think there are three important lessons for media diversity and trying to connect with a Black audience.

THREE LESSONS

1. It is a love letter.

We deliberately framed the letter as a love letter to the black community. Irrespective of the credibility of the people who signed the final letter within the Black community (and across the UK and beyond) we realised that it is necessary to always make our position clear, especially when we are issuing that message on mainstream media. Our love for our Black families and communities can never be taken for granted and needs to be explicit. 

2. Do not blame the victim

Proceeding the letter there was a lot of media coverage and discussion around misinformation that was stopping Black people being vaccinated. If this narrative is taken to its logical conclusion it means media, policymakers or other opinion leaders are either blaming the Black community for producing more misinformation, or blaming the Black community for being more susceptible to misinformation. When writing the letter we  discussed whether we needed to talk about this issue as well. We came to the decision that we shouldn’t. We took the view that Black people are reluctant to trust official information for very good reasons. The fact is, Black people are no more or no less rational than any other group of people. If Black people do not trust British authorities it is with good reason. As an example, the same week the open letter was published a branch of the British establishment whom Black people are meant to trust when it comes to vaccines brought out a report insisting that institutional racism does not exist. As authors, we realised that we could not gain Black people’s trust by simply writing off their rational concerns and blaming it on misinformation videos. People’s rational concerns need to be acknowledged and addressed, and at least not written off. 

3. Avoiding the White saviour complex

We did not want to produce a letter which in any way could play into the idea that the majority white establishment was here to save Black people. We realised that if we as authors were trying to convince Black people to do anything we needed to ensure they have agency and power over their own lives and we do not fall into tropes of a “white saviour complex” even if it is black people urging them to do something. For this reason we stressed how the vaccine is not simply British but has been developed with the help of Black doctors in the Caribbean and Africa. 

Over the years we have seen far too many public information campaigns aimed at Black people that do not come from a place of love but instead implicitly chastise them for not taking the right course of action.

Over the years we have seen Black people blamed for their own victimhood - either characterised as being too stupid to to know what is good for them or even having cultural beliefs that stop them from doing the right thing. We believe black people act rationally (or at least as rationally as any other group of people).

And from images of starving Africans to encourage us to donate to charities, to Europeans having the answers to “our problems”, themes of the white savior complex pervade our public information campaigns. This is not helpful and must be avoided.

I usually do not go into detail about the thinking behind the letters and speeches I help to write, but the lessons coming out of this one were too important not to highlight them.

I hope other people can learn from our example and I, most importantly, sincerely hope that through the approach we used, the letter will encourage more people to decide to get vaccines against Covid-19.

The New Government Report on Racism is a Threat to How We Report on Race

The new government report on racism in the UK is a threat to how we report on race, racism and diversity, and the idea of journalistic impartiality.

After 24 years of working at the BBC the principle of journalistic “due impartiality” is baked into my very core. It is how I try to approach all my journalism, even after I left the corporation, and it is how I believe you build trust between media organisations and the general public. 

The recent government backed report on racism in the UK by the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities presents an existential threat to how journalists approach issues of race, diversity and racism and maintain principles of due impartiality. This is particularly important for British Public Service Broadcasters (PSBs) such as the BBC, Channel 4, Channel 5 and ITV who are regulated by Ofcom and are meant to abide by the principles of due impartiality in their output.

To understand why, it is first important to understand what “due impartiality” means.

According to the BBC’s editorial guidelines; “due impartiality usually involves more than a simple matter of ‘balance’ between opposing viewpoints… It does not require 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.”

However due impartiality is only achievable and practical if there are certain shared values, beliefs and commonly accepted facts. 

For example the BBC accepts that climate change is an accepted fact and therefore you do not need to feature climate change deniers in your reports or programmes to achieve due impartiality. 

To give another example, it is the clear belief that women and men are equal that enables journalists to report on sexism and still achieve due impartiality. If this was not an accepted norm then reporting on sexism and achieving due impartiality would require journalists to present the viewpoint that women are possibly inferior.

It is this idea which means achieving due impartiality on an issue such as slavery 400 years ago in England where slavery was accepted as a norm by the majority of society would have been very different from achieving due impartiality on reporting on the issue now. In the 1800’s William Wilberforce would have been seen as a “campaigner” possibly in need of “balance”, whereas today his stance against slavery would be seen as normal and could be reported without an advocate for slavery needed to achieve due impartiality. 

So what does this mean for the new report and for journalists reporting on racism in the UK?

At the start of the week it was pretty much accepted that structural racism existed in the UK. Journalists could report on this without needing a counter view to achieve due impartiality. Where there were racial disparities the presumption was that they were due to structural racism unless another reason could be found.

Post the publication of the report this issue of how to achieve due impartiality when reporting racism and racial inequality has been thrown into doubt. We now have an influential government body effectively saying that denying structural racism in the UK is a valid position. If we accept this view then due impartiality would require any mention of structural racism to be balanced by racism deniers.

This obviously has serious and widespread consequences.

So what can journalists do?

I believe the BBC’s reporting on climate change can provide a model for all British journalists. Despite the fact that there are climate change deniers and sceptics the BBC has stood firm and recognised that the vast majority of serious work in this area recognises that climate change is a scientific fact. Therefore, while recognising that climate change sceptics exist, some of whom are incredibly influential, the corporation has taken the stance that they can achieve due impartiality without mentioning the sceptics position all the time.

British journalists now need to take the same principled stance when it comes to structural racism. While it is impossible to ignore the most recent report, journalists should recognise that since the Macpherson report over twenty years ago the idea of structural and institutional racism is an acknowledged fact by the vast majority of social scientists who study this subject. And therefore journalists should continue to report on structural racism and take a position on it.

Journalism and due impartiality is not about being “neutral” or "balanced". It is about reporting factually and objectively on the world around us.

We need to stand up and be counted.