We are the 97% (Keynote Speech - Prospect Union National Conference)

(Keynote speech delivered to the Prospect Union National Conference 13th June 2022)

Good morning friends, comrades, brothers and sisters.

I choose my words carefully and my greetings today because I’d like to think we are all one family. And it is a tremendous honour to be given the opportunity to address the family.

For members of the family that do not know me - my name is Marcus Ryder.

I have been campaigning with Lenny Henry and others to increase better media diversity and representation in our family - in television, film and the creative sector - for over ten years. Writing speeches to deliver in Parliament, devising policies, talking softly when necessary and banging tables when needed.

I fundamentally believe that diversity, inclusion and better representation in the media and every part of British society is one of the most important issues facing Britain today.

And I come with good news - we are the majority.

And history shows that eventually the majority will always win.

Too often when we think about diversity, we invariably think about minority, marginalized, disadvantaged groups. 

Black people, ethnic minorities, disabled people, women, LGBTQ - the oppressed and disposed - and if we are lucky the powers that be let us have a seat at THEIR table.

Well, last year, I co-authored a book with Lenny Henry called Access All Areas - and one of the key reasons we did it was because we wanted to reframe how diversity is thought about.

To show diversity is not a minority issue but a majority issue.

So let’s do some simple maths.

If you combine the percentage of the population who are women and then combine that with the percentage of the population which is disabled, then add that with the percentage of the population which are people of color, then finally top it all off by adding the percentage of the population that says they are LGBTQ+...

You get the grand number of 70.5% per cent. 

The people so many of us generally think of as the majority and never use the word “minority” to describe – white, heterosexual, non-disabled men – make up less than a third of the UK population. 

The rest of us - the vast majority of the population - come under the umbrella- term of ‘diversity’. 

Yet, we are too often dismissed as a minority - in need of special treatment.

If we had a level playing field, for every white, non-disabled heterosexual man you see on TV, in Parliament or in any position of power, we should see a woman or Black person or Asian person or disabled person or gay person. Not just once, but more than twice.

This is true for every board room you walk into, every judge’s chambers, every management office you walk into.

Every walk of life you can think of.

From courts to prisons

From schools to hospitals.

However, for me things become even more interesting once you factor in regional diversity and the over-representation of London and the South East of England. 

I spent eight years as a senior executive for the BBC based in Scotland and yesterday I travelled down from Scotland - so regionality and the concentration of power in London is something that is close to my heart.

So let’s do the sums again and calculate the percentage of the population that are NOT white, NOT heterosexual, NOT non-disabled, NOT men, AND are NOT from the South East of England. Because these are the people who are seriously under-represented in far too many walks of life. 

The number is 96.9% per cent!

That means the people we invariably think of as the majority - the people who overwhelmingly run the country make up only 3.1% percent of the population.

The numbers are almost too staggering to comprehend.

For every three White, non-disabled, heterosexual men with a London accent you see on TV, or in a company board meeting, or sitting as a judge, you should see 97 people with a Birmingham accent or a woman or gay person or Asian person or disabled person, or a lesbian, or some combination of these characteristics. 

Three vs. Ninety-seven is the reality of Britain today.

And yet we still talk about diversity in terms of a minority issue. 

Gender pay gaps, ethnicity pay gaps and disability pay gaps are not a minority issue, they are a majority issue.

And almost every labour issue you can think of disproportionately hits people who are often seen as quote unquote diverse. 

Now my area of expertise is the media industry, so I am going to talk about television for a bit -and talk about it on two levels – the individual first, and then the society level. They are linked and each gives us a window into the other. Both also imply certain potential solutions that trade unions can take forward, and I will leave you with one in particular today that I hope you will all support wholeheartedly as a first step to addressing the majority issue, but before that let me clarify the implications of the majority issue when it comes to the lives of journalists workers and their outputs.

When I listen to the news or watch current affairs programmes, or watch children’s programmes with my son, or even good old drama programmes like bridgerton, or even trash reality TV like love island (hey – don’t pretend you don’t know what I’m talking about!), one of the questions I always ask is – whose perspective do they reflect? Whose interests do they serve?

The 3% or the 97%?

Now so far I have been using polite words and phrases such as “diversity” and “better representation” and “inclusion”.

Too often we use these words not to offend the 3%

But when we use these words it is the equivalent of thinking about the lack of Black news editors, or women film directors, or disabled script writers as just a fact of life. Almost an act of god - like bad weather. 

But there are other words I could use to describe what is going on - possibly more honest words:

Words like “racism” and “sexism” and “homophobia” and “ableism”

While this permeates at the society level, and I will come to this, the fact is that even at an individual level we will never be able to achieve better diversity and representation until we acknowledge and address the root causes that are responsible for the lack of representation and the lack of diversity.

This will not surprise you, and of course this is relevant to other industries, but the need to address racism in the media industry is pressing and urgent. 

There is significant evidence that not only is there widespread underreporting of racism throughout the television industry, but that when racism is reported it is either not dealt with effectively through informal measures. And when formal mechanisms are used they can often lead to the complainant suffering reputational damage labelling them as a “trouble maker” which can hinder their career in the future.  This happens here in the UK, it happens elsewhere too – there is a current case with the Washington Post which exhibits exactly these trends right now.

Also, for many the formal processes of trying to address racism in the industry are also often viewed as too difficult and costly - both financially and psychologically - so many victims of racism simply do not raise a complaint.

 

On top of that, much of the industry defines racism as simple one on one interactions and effectively frames it as a subset of their bullying HR procedure. 

This fails to capture the complexity of racism beyond obvious name calling or direct interpersonal interactions. These definitions fail to capture systemic racist practices which can include, but are not limited to; over-scrutiny of non-White employees’ work in comparison to their white counterparts, over-disciplining of non-White people’s mistakes in comparison to their white counterparts and unequal terms of trade experienced by independent productions led by people of colour compared to their white counterparts.

 

Even when individuals do complain, complaints are often not systematically collected by the organisations involved, anonymous complaints are often not recorded at all, and there is no industry-wide mechanism or process to collect reports of racism to obtain an understanding of the problem let alone come up with industry-wide policies and suggestions of how to address the issue of racism.

This is a failure on an industrial scale and we wonder why representation is so bad. - or maybe we don’t wonder at all.

And yet the truth is racism is an issue that is hardly talked about as we opt for words like “diversity” instead.

The lack of talk about racism however does not mean the problem has been solved.

  

The racism in the industry hinders people of colour being hired, being treated fairly, being denied promotions and ultimately leaving the industry all together.

But  this racism – and the outcomes it promotes in terms of lack of representation – is not only a problem for the victims – it is a real and present danger for our entire democracy – and this is where I really hope you will all sit up and listen.

Better representation in the media is fundamentally about democracy and whether we can all live in peace with one another.

News is where this issue is most crucial. You cannot have freedom of speech if large parts of society are not given equal access to the media.

What we see on the news determines what politicians talk about and actually do anything about. 

However, due to all of the “isms” I’ve talked about, there is not one single major television news bulletin from the BBC’s Breakfast News, One O’clock, Six O’clock or Ten O’clock to Channel 4’s Seven O’Clock to any of ITV’s major bulletins or Channel 5s which is headed by a person of colour or a visibly disabled person. 

There is not one major television political current affairs programme - which sets the political weather, including Panorama, Newsnight or Dispatches which is headed by a person of colour or a visibly disabled person. 

This is not just a problem for today - this is true for the entire history of British television.  Our news is determined by the 3%, not the 97%.

And it has consequences. The lack of diversity in news affects which stories the 3% decide to pick and how the 3% cover them.

It will peak the interests of, as well as favour the interests of the 3% - and not the 97%.

Today, in newsrooms across Britain – whether print, online or on TV - it is primarily the 3% who are deciding whether news organisations cover industrial action – whether such stories are prominent or not, and how journalists frame any news stories around industrial action. It is the 3% that are determining whether the unemployment figures are more important to feature than stock market figures. The 3% are determining whether white refugees' lives matter more than black and brown refugees.

I could go on. But you understand my point. We have to recognise that racism, sexism means our news, our current affairs is skewed. And this skew can shape our society, shape our democratic outcomes. It shapes the “overton window” that unions operate in. It shapes what we think is possible in British society and what is not possible.

Right now the industry I love and I suspect many of you love as well is failing us.

It should be everyone – the 100% who are determining what “we” see and know and assess about our society, and help create the circumstances for change to the lives of the 100%. It shouldn’t be just the 3% who do so. Hence, I want the 97% to have a fighting chance in our industry!

And in all industries across the UK. 

That is why following the murder of George Floyd and the global Black Lives Matter protests I joined with BECTU and Prospect to call for the establishment of an independent racism reporting body for the media industry. 

We - myself, Bectu and Prospect believe that this is one key step to start fighting this problem of over-representation of the 3%.

An industry wide body which can both gather reports of racism from all the major industry industry bodies as well as be a body that people in the industry can go to, to report incidents of racism including anonymous reporting.

 

A body that can initiate investigations into issues of systemic racism that would be unlikely to be raised by individual complainants.

 

A body that can offer advice and assistance to people who believe they are the victims of racism, and/or feel they have experienced unequal treatment due to their race, on how to process a complaint and the resources available to them to pursue a complaint - including the services of the appropriate trade union.

 

Finally, the body should publish an annual report on the state of racism in the industry, to measure progress, build on best progress and learn from mistakes. The report should be complete with policy suggestions for industry stakeholders on how to tackle racism.

Now, the current focus of the proposed body is on racism but that is not to say the independent body could not be expanded to address other forms of prejudice and bigotry. Or other focused bodies could not also be established.

And working with BECTU the current focus is on the media industry but talking to Prospect that does not mean it could not be expanded to other sectors. It is much needed throughout Britain. My recent book, Black British Lives Matter, also edited with Lenny Henry, illustrates exactly this point - ending racism in the media sector, the police sector, the social sectors, architecture, sports - will enrich British society.

Brothers and sisters - friends and family.

We have an important opportunity to fundamentally improve a basic foundation of our democracy - freedom of speech and who has access to it.

And it starts with fighting the racism that plagues the media industry.

We must set up an independent racism reporting body now.

Our democracy is too important not to do it.

Thank you.

 

Lenny Henry Centre for Media Diversity - Second Anniversary Gala Speech

(Speech by Sir Lenny Henry delivered at the second anniversary of the Centre for Media Diversity on 20th May 2022)

Hello my people. Don’t you all look fantastic! Everyone having a good time?

 

Big up the Midlands massive! Anybody here from the black country? Can I have a lift home?

 

I am so thrilled to be celebrating two years of the Lenny Henry Centre for Media Diversity. Can I get a hell yeah?

 

This is literally a dream come true.

 

It was a dream to set up a Centre dedicated to increasing diversity in the media industry. And here we are two years in and going from strength to strength, thanks to all the hard work and support we’ve received from so many of you in this room.

 

Now I’ve been speaking about racism and the lack of diversity in the media since… well, biblical times. Jesus had twelve disciples, the brother can’t have one black friend?

 

When I started my career in the 1970’s there were hardly any Black people on our screens or behind the camera. When I first went to work at the BBC it was me, Floella Benjamin and Moira Stewart - all picking cotton in the Blue Peter garden.

 

I was the only Black person on the Black and White Minstrel Show – which, for the younger people in the room, was a racist TV programme where white people sang and danced in black face. I still struggle with that, but it illustrates the lack of options available to young black people in those days.

 

Fun fact - the UK kept their version of the Black and White Minstrel show - long after the US had dropped its. Americans were like “if we’re gonna get a white guy to wear too much makeup and say racist stuff on TV, let’s at least make him President”

 

I have heard racial slurs.

 

I have been the only black person on a film set.

 

I have been stereotyped.

 

But this isn’t a sob story - I’m simply illustrating how far we’ve come and reminding us progress can, must and will happen.

 

And what I have learnt is that we must turn protest in progress. We need to transform  our complaints about the lack of diversity into real tangible results. And that is what the Centre is all about.

 

Let me tell you something about the key ethos of the Centre. Like I said I’ve been talking to people about diversity and racism for years, and no one paid too much attention. Occasionally it would make the news, but it’s actually not that helpful when ITV runs the headline “Ainsley Harriot calls for more diversity”

 

But in 2014 something changed. In addition to talking about diversity, I also began to address the structure of the film and television industry.

 

I still talked about a lack of Black and Asian people, but now I also addressed how much power we have – or, crucially, don’t have.

 

As well as talking about the number of disabled people on our screens or the lack of women behind the camera, I focused on how many of those people were in the positions that control the money.

 

Because money is power, commissions are power. I learnt that first hand when I started appearing on TV. After growing up poor, suddenly I had money.

 

I bought my mum a new telly, new carpet and eventually a house. In Caribbean families, having money brings huge respect and when I bought her the house, she moved Dad from the head of the table and put me there instead. And then she gave me the biggest cut of meat.

 

That must have been tough for my dad. All day long he had to listen to bigots at work complaining about black people coming over here and taking food out their mouths – then he came home to find one of them was his son!

 

It was when I started thinking about diversity as a structural problem that everything changed.

 

And that for me is what this Centre is all about.

 

It’s not about hunting out the unconscious bias or playing eye spy the racist - it’s something beginning with Boris Johnson by the way - the centre is about how we change the way the industry is run so we can make it more inclusive for everyone.

 

The genesis of this can be traced back to an open letter in 2014 where I teamed up with the likes of Doreen Lawrence Amma Assante Kwame Kwei Armah and Idris Elba to ask broadcasters for ring-fenced money for programmes directed by black people. We also asked them to put more money into programmes directed by women.

 

From that moment on I have always recognised the importance of financing in trying to achieve real diversity and inclusion.

That letter also taught me another important lesson. The power of allies.

We felt that if it was just non white people who signed, we could be dismissed as a bunch of angry black actors with an open letter in their hands.

 

It was a simpler time - these days if an angry black actor is holding something in their hand, it’s usually Chris Rock’s face.

 

So we added Richard Curtis CBE, Russell T Davies OBE, Harry Hill, Sir Richard Eyre CBE, Lord Alan Sugar, Matt Lucas, Emma Thompson and a raft of other people to the letter. It was magic

 

So having the support of allies is key in giving you strength - and even cover from possible push back from the powers that be.

 

Let me illustrate with a section from the book Access All Areas, which I wrote with Marcus Ryder.

 

“If we want to create a culture where people are not scared to speak their truth, we need to create a culture of allies. If you are a Black man, you need to support your female co-workers when she is calling out sexism.

 

If you are a White woman, support your Black co-worker when they are advocating policies to combat ethnicity pay gaps.

 

And White men? Well, you guys just have to support everyone!”

 

After we sent that open letter in 2018 I took things up a level - and with Marcus Ryder again, as well as some of the other people on the letter, we campaigned for diversity tax breaks for films and certain TV programmes, that meet key diversity criteria.

 

We went to Downing Street, the Mayor’s office, we met with Nicola Sturgeon and even went to the treasury. Luckily this was before the only way to get a tax break from them was to be married to Rishi Sunak.

 

And this is when we hit a big hurdle – while politicians paid lip service to supporting the idea, we were told by the Treasury that we didn’t have the evidence that diversity tax breaks worked. We hadn’t modelled it.

 

 

 

And that my friends, is why we are all here today – because in 2020 we set up the Centre for Media Diversity at Birmingham City University – so we would always have the academic work to support all of our diversity policies.

 

Two years in and this centre is doing great work, including consultancy for the Financial Times, Channel 4 and the BBC.

 

And I’m very proud to announce this evening that the Centre is now in the process of doing the hard academic work of modelling those tax breaks. We will get there.

 

This Centre has proved that change will happen – people are taking notice, broadcasters, newspapers and trade unions are all using our work to improve their policies and increase diversity.

 

I’m so proud of the achievements this centre has made, but more importantly I am so excited about the road that lies ahead.

 

I can’t wait to see where that road takes us and I’m delighted to have each and every one of you on the journey.

 

Thank you for listening.

(Printed with kind permission by Sir Lenny Henry)

 

Beyond the Tick Box - A New Way To Collect Diversity Data

Diversity data is fundamentally flawed because it is based on an old idea of identity that people are increasingly turning away from  - and seems almost completely broken when it comes to Generation Z.

The other day I was at a conference and during a coffee break got into a conversation with a group of young students about identity. One of the students talked about their sexual identity and told me how they do not see themselves as “heterosexual” but at the same time does not think of themselves as part of the “LGBTQ+” community.

After gently interrogating this apparent contradiction, it didn’t seem like someone who was “in denial” which is how older generations might have labeled the situation. Instead it seemed as if the student basically viewed identity in two ways: Their “personal identity” and their “group identity”

Their “personal identity” was “not heterosexual” (although I can see a problem of defining yourself in the negative I will leave that for another blog post).

However they viewed their “group identity” as “heterosexual”. They said that for all intents and purposes they presented as heterosexual, for the most part lived a “heterosexual lifestyle”, and benefited from “heterosexual privilege”.

The conversation reminded me of a recent episode of the Red Table Talk, in which the singer Janelle Monáe opened up about their identity, saying they are “so much bigger” than the binary. Interestingly she went on to say; “I’m non-binary, so I just don’t see myself as a woman, solely... But I will always, always stand with women. I will always stand with Black women. But I just see everything that I am. Beyond the binary.”

In the context of my conversation with the student about her sexuality I interpreted the singer’s statement to mean their “personal identity” is “non-binary”, while their “group identity” is “Black women”.

The problem with most discussions and forms that ask you about your identity is that there is no distinction between “personal identity” and “group identity”.

The forms ask how you “personally” identify and then assume that is also the same as your “group” identity. 

The irony is in trying to address issues around the lack of diversity and representation organisations are normally trying to address perceived “group identity” not “personal identity”.

The vast majority of the diversity collection forms make little distinction between “personal” and “group” identities assuming they are one and the same. There is however one important exception - the Scottish National Census when it asks about National identity.

One question on the Scottish census is around whether you feel “Scottish”, “British”, both, or another nationality altogether. Importantly your national identity has nothing to do with your nationality, passport or where you were born, the official information states; “National identity is not tied to ethnicity or country of birth. A foreign citizen living in Scotland is free to choose 'Scottish' as their national identity.” 

For me this is an attempt to separate “personal identity” (the fact you might have been born in Pakistan) and your “group identity” (the fact you associate with the label of being Scottish). Interestingly in this example over 50% of people of Pakistani origin identified themselves as “Scottish”, while only 21.2% of people with African heritage identified as Scottish. 

The question on the Scottish census recognises that where you were born and your passport might not be the same as your group identity. Your personal identity might be Pakistani, but your group identity is Scottish.

We see examples of how the group identity and personal identity often break down.

The other day I  was talking to a senior BBC executive who I have known for over twenty years. When I first met them they identified as “working class” but in our most recent conversation they confessed to me that they now felt like "a bit of a fraud” calling themselves “working class” as their lifestyle and their community now are not working class.  

On a diversity form they would still be seen as working class due to their schooling, and parental occupations, but they did not feel that this represented their present “group identity”. Just like 50% of Pakistanis in Scotland who identify as Scottish as opposed to Pakistani - the senior exec might have been born working class but they see themselves as middle class.

You can even see examples of this when it comes to race and ethnicity with people feeling they should tick the “mixed” category but may see themselves as part of a different “group identity”. Whether a person of mixed heritage (for example Black and White) sees themselves as Black, White, Black and White, or mixed (the group identity they feel best describes them) is just as important as their "personal identity" - especially when thinking about issue of culture.

I believe this one question on the Scottish census on identity might lead the way in how we should collect diversity data. It is still important to measure your personal identity; how many people from Pakistan (and other nationalities) live in Scotland, but we should also find a way to capture group identity (which group they identify with). 

What Scotland has got right is thinking that simply by adding up everyone’s “personal identities” you can measure the “group identity”.

Understanding the difference between “individual identity” and “group identity” is also critical when it comes to thinking about “inclusion” - the culture of an organisation -  and not just diversity - the simple headcount of people who have ticked a certain diversity box.

In a world of increasing identity complexity it is important that we measure both.

How we view identity is changing - how we record it and measure it needs to change too.

Twitter, diversity and the existential threat to democracy

(Speech for the Digital Czech Republic 2022 Conference - delivered by Marcus Ryder on 13 May 2022)

Dear friends and fellow Europeans,

Thank you very much for inviting me to speak today. 

I have been scheduled in today’s programme to talk about media diversity and digital democracy.

I fully recognise that for many people on mainland Europe that diversity, and the political rhetoric that surrounds it, is often seen as an Anglophone import from the US and the UK and not relevant to the political realities and culture of the rest of Europe.

Diversity can be seen as a politically correct agenda only relevant in societies obsessed with so-called “identity politics”.

Therefore I do not want to use the word diversity today and instead I will be using another term today instead - “democracy”.

Let’s start with a simple thought experiment.

A lot of people are concerned about the prospect of a single person controlling Twitter - one of the most important mediums of communication on the planet - influencing elections and political discourse. 

Now what would we think of it being a single billionaire would it be OK if it was two people?

What about 100 people?

What about 1,000?

Now imagine it was a million… but they were all white men in Europe. Or - given the current war in Ukraine - maybe all white men in Russia.

How would we feel about that?

All of a sudden it becomes less about quantity and more about quality. While the number of people controlling Twitter is still important - the idea of that degree of concentration of power and control into a single person is alarming - the problem is not solved simply by increasing the number of people. It is also about the qualities of those people. 

With the current Ukraine crisis the problems are obvious if it was controlled by a million Russians. But let’s take another example; how would you feel if you were a Black person and you knew Twitter was disproportionately controlled by White people - White people in the US who overwhelmingly voted for a presidential candidate who made comments supporting white supremacist groups. 

This is not a hypothetical of course.

This is the reality - in the 2020 US presidential elections almost 60% of White people voted for Donald Trump.

We see variations of this reality being played out all the time with one powerful group in charge of social media platforms making decisions that affect another group.  

Last year Facebook, who owns Instagram, apologised after it was revealed it had been blocking Instagram posts which contained the hashtag #AlAqsa or its Arabic counterparts #الاقصى, or hiding them from search results. According to Facebook the mistake occurred due to the Al-Aqsa name, a famous mosque, being associated with terrorist organizations.

A few days earlier Twitter blamed technical errors for deleting posts and suspending accounts mentioning the possible eviction of Palestinians from the East Jerusalem neighbourhood of Sheikh Jarrah.

The question that Facebook or Twitter did not answer was, what was the demographic of the people making these decisions on which hashtags to promote or block?

The suspicion of course is that the people making - what are effectively editorial decisions - are disproportionately based in the US, white and male -  although the people implementing the decisions might be based in Kenya or anywhere else in the world. 

Social media and other digital platforms are increasingly deciding the flow of information and what makes up our political discourse. The problem is the people deciding which conversations and which issues to prioritize are from a small global minority. 

One of the core principles of a representative democracy is equal representation. Unless we have equal representation of who decides what we should be talking about we do not have democracy. 

The lack of equal and fair representation in the editorial decision making on the social media platforms is an existential threat to our democracies in the same way as if they were controlled by a single billionaire.