The Great Media Diversity Executive Exodus

Earlier this month, it was revealed the BBC’s Head of Creative Diversity, Joanna Abeyie, was leaving the corporation, although for many people working in the area of media diversity her departure had been an open secret for a few weeks prior.

The news followed the announcements just weeks earlier that four high level diversity and inclusion executives at major US media companies — Warner Bros. Discovery, Disney, Netflix and the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences — would be leaving their respective positions.

I am reminded of Oscar Wilde’s famous words on parental loss: “To lose one parent may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness.” It is a bold man who tries to improve on an Oscar Wilde quote but in this case I would add, “…to lose your aunts and uncles at the same time would suggest a murderer in the family.”

So what is happening in the world of media diversity? Is it just an ‘unfortunate’ coincidence, have media companies been ‘careless’ in their approach to diversity and inclusion, or is there a ‘serial killer’ stalking these diversity executives?

The headlines following the high profile departures in the US would suggest that many people are worried that it is the third option, with companies not only killing off these positions but reneging on diversity and anti-racism initiatives that were launched in the wake on the murder of George Floyd.

The Financial Times led with ‘Exits of diversity executives shake faith in US companies’ commitments,’ while the LA Times went with the headline ‘High-profile exits spark fears that Hollywood diversity pledges are just ‘PR’.’

However, when it comes to the UK, and the BBC in particular, I would suggest that there is a fourth option that is taking place, which requires us to look back further than just the past few weeks and even before the global Black Lives Matter protests.

To extend the Oscar Wilde quote to possible breaking point, “Other families look more appealing.”

Since 2019 the BBC has seen the departure of at least seven senior diversity and inclusion executives including; Tunde Ogungbesan (Head of Diversity, Inclusion and Succession), Anne Foster (Head of Workforce Diversity), Miranda Wayland (Deputy Head of Diversity), June Sarpong (Director of Creative Diversity), Jackie Christie (Race Lead on BBC Human Resources), Nina Goswami (Creative Diversity Lead) and, most recently, Abeyie. Interestingly, the vast majority of them have either left the large broadcasters or gone to work for non-media organisations ranging from Clifford Chance to Saudi Aramco.

On top of that, the BBC’s diversity department has been restructured at least three times since 2016, with nearly all the current key positions being external appointments with little or no previous media experience.

“Less Than Amazing” Results

Unsurprisingly with such a high staff turnover, constant restructuring, and a lack of industry knowledge and institutional memory, the results have been underwhelming.

If one looks at the UK national census for England and Wales ethnic diversity in the general population from 2011-2021, it has increased 4.9% (from 14.1% to 19%). At the same time, the BBC has increased the ethnic diversity of its workforce by 4.1% percentage points (from 12.3% to 16.6%). Despite all the money that the BBC has put into various diversity initiatives and policies, its non-white workforce diversity has grown at a slower rate than the population as a whole.

Or in other words: In relative terms, ethnic diversity at the BBC has gone backwards and, all things being equal, there is a strong argument that it would have been better not to have even had a diversity department. And while I have focused on the BBC — primarily because is is incredibly open about its data and job positions — anecdotally other UK broadcasters suffer from similarly high turnovers and “less than amazing” results.

Now, I am not advocating that the BBC, or any other British broadcaster, should get rid of their diversity departments. What this points to is a failure in how UK media approaches diversity.

The BBC, and other British broadcasters, must acknowledge that their approach to diversity is not working. The first step in achieving that is retaining the people who have first-hand experience of dealing with the problem. Joanna is simply the latest in a long line of diversity departures.

Update (11.05.2024)

Since first publishing this article in Deadline (July 2023), Amazon Prime restructured with the loss of its Head of Global Diversity role (Miranda Wayland) in April 2024, and in May 2024 the BBC restructured with the loss of its Director of Diversity and Inclusion role (Chinny Okolidoh). Coincidentally the BBC restructure announcement came just a day after Baroness Floella Benjamin warned, at the House of Lords, that the financial problems currently facing UK broadcasters must not have a negative impact on diversity gains in the industry over the last twenty years - however modest.

The article originally appeared in Deadline on 28th July. 

Generative AI Diversity Guidelines for Journalists

Six Principles for Responsible Journalistic use of Generative AI and Diversity and Inclusion

Generative AI (GAI) programs, such as ChatGPT and Bing, are increasingly entering UK newsrooms as a tool for British journalists. The use of AI in journalism raises specific challenges when it comes to the issue of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, and there are still ongoing discussions whether Generative AI can be used ethically and effectively in newsrooms. These guidelines are not to endorse the use of Generative AI in newsrooms but are intended to raise issues that should be considered with specific reference to diversity and inclusion if it is used.

The algorithms of Generative AI tools rely on processing large quantities of existing source materials. It is commonly acknowledged that existing British journalism suffers from a diversity problem with an over-representation of white men. For example in 2020 Women in Journalism published research showing that in one week in July 2020 - at the height of the Black Lives Matter protests across the world - UK’s 11 biggest newspapers failed to feature a single byline by black journalist on their front pages. Taking non-white journalists as a whole, of the 174 bylines examined only four were credited to journalists of colour.

The same report also found that in the same week just one in four front-page bylines across the 11 papers went to women.

Importantly the week the study surveyed the biggest news stories were about Covid-19, Black Lives Matter, the replacement of the toppled statue of the slave trader Edward Colston in Bristol and the appeal over the British citizenship of the Muslim mother, Shamima Begum.

This means that assuming the algorithms of Generative AI programs draw on the stories written by journalists in mainstream newspapers to generate its information, if a journalist were to ask it any questions about the issues in the news that week they will overwhelmingly be receiving information from a white male perspective.

The end result is that Generative AI programs, if used inappropriately, will only serve to reinforce and amplify the current and historical diversity imbalances in the journalism industry effectively building bias on top of bias.

The lack of diversity and inclusion in the source material that Generative AI uses is of course not only limited to journalism but also applies to numerous other fields as well including the sciences and academia.

While we urge all Generative AI programmers and software designers to address these concerns, as well as urge media organisations (and other sectors of society) to improve their diversity and inclusion in order to increase the diversity of the source material, there are steps that all journalists can undertake right now to work in a more ethical and responsible manner when it comes to diversity and journalism.

We have proposed six basic media diversity principles that all journalists and media organisations should abide by. As Generative AI changes, and its use in newsrooms adapts, these principles should also change and be dynamic over time. We also do not see these six principles as definitive. Instead we see this as an urgent intervention to address the current lack of public discourse around this critical issue.

We actively encourage these six principles to be interrogated by practitioners and academics and for them to be built upon.

Six Basic Principles

1. Be aware of built-in bias

Journalists and media organisations need to recognise the potential for bias inherent in the use of current Generative AI models when it comes to diversity. To be explicitly aware of an issue is always a critical step in addressing a problem, just as we are expected to be aware of the bias inherent in all our sources, whether because of vested interests or the limitations of personal experience. Once we are aware of built-in bias we can build on the same strategies that we use with human sources, e.g. careful questioning, background research, second-sourcing etc.

2. Be transparent where appropriate

Journalists and media organisations should be transparent in their use of Generative AI when, and where, it is appropriate. What level of use of Generative AI in the production of a piece is appropriate before declaring its use will depend on how it is used, change with time, and depend on the issues covered. This should be an ongoing discussion with the journalism industry, creating and promoting industry standards. At this point we would, at the very least, suggest that directly using text created by Generative AI should be clearly labeled. We would also encourage media organisations to publish their policies and guidelines around the use of Generative AI.

3. Build diversity into your prompts

Ask for diverse experts and perspectives. Journalists should explicitly seek, through their prompts, for Generative AI to draw on source material written and/or owned by different demographics.

Where this is not possible journalists should use prompts to obtain lists of experts and recognised commentators on specific issues from different backgrounds. Going to the original work of these experts and commentators directly can complement any material created by Generative AI and address possible biases.

4. Recognise the importance of source material and referencing

Journalists should respect and acknowledge the work of the creators of content that Generative AI draws on to produce its results. Historically the lack of acknowledgement of original work has disproportionately fallen on people from under-represented and marginalized backgrounds. To achieve this, we would encourage journalists to use Generative AI programs that explicitly list the source material used in the creation of its text.

5. Report mistakes and biases

All journalists have a responsibility to contribute to creating a better media sector and improve tools used by journalists. When biases are spotted and issues arise when using Generative AI programs journalists should report these to the programmer and software developers (this is often possible within the Generative AI tool through your own responses and/or the ‘thumbs up/down’ buttons). Similarly best practice should also be fed back in order for the programmers of Generative AI to build better models.

6. GIA-generated text should be viewed with journalistic scepticism

Do not rely on Generative AI created text as an authoritative source of information GAI is well known for ‘hallucinating’ facts and other information in its responses, creating fictional individuals and sources. No information provided by GAI should be treated as fact, but be viewed as “informed plausibilities” — it is best used to provide suggestions that are then followed up for further exploration. We would also encourage journalists to use Generative AI programs that explicitly list the source material used in the creation of its text.

Conclusion

We recognise that there is the potential for the use of Generative AI in journalism to increase exponentially over time.

We believe that if news organisations and individual journalists use Generative AI they should view it as a tool rather than a replacement for journalists. We also believe that it is vital that if and when it is used it is used in a responsible way that can address related issues of media diversity or at the very least ameliorate some of the worst problems.

However, we also recognise that many of these problems are created by a lack of diversity on the source material in the first place - due to the under-representation of certain demographics in various different sectors from academia to the media, as well as how AI programmers choose and weight the source material that Generative AI algorithms use. Therefore, while these are six principles of how individual journalists should use Generative AI it is still incumbent on wider society to increase the diversity of their respective sectors and for Generative AI programmers to examine how they can also address diversity issues.

According to a survey by the World Association of News Publishers currently half of all newsrooms use Generative AI tools, yet only a fifth have guidelines in place, it is unclear if any of these guidelines explicitly address diversity and inclusion. This must be rectified as soon as possible.

Supplemental Note

Examples of Possible Generative AI bias

1. On the 10 June 2023 when prompted; “Who are the twenty most important actors of the 20th Century?”
ChatGPT did not name a single actor of colour

2. On the 13 June 2023 when prompted: “What are the important events in the life of Winston Churchill?”
Bing failed to mention his controversial views on race, his controversial role in the Bengal famine, and his controversial views towards the Jews or Islam.

3. On the 10 June 2023 when prompted: “What are important facts about the American founding fathers?”
Chat GPT failed to mention that any of them owned slaves.

We are not dictating, or even suggesting, that journalists should include these facts when covering these three issues. However it seems to clearly point to a certain perspective that traditionally would be thought does not represent the concerns and priorities of disproportionately historically marginalised groups.

(This guidelines were first published in by the Sir Lenny Henry Centre for Media Diversity on 16th June 2023 and was written by Paul Bradshaw, Diane Kemp and Marcus Ryder) 

How the Windrush Generation Shaped Modern Britain

Celebrating Windrush is my love letter to my fellow black people across the UK, but to my fellow black Londoners in particular. I was born and raised in London. In 2007 my career took me to Scotland, followed by China and then Malaysia, before I eventually returned to London in late 2021. In all my time away the thing I missed the most was my black British community. London is home to the majority of black people living in the UK — from Brixton to Peckham, and from Ian Wright to Malorie Blackman, I believe we are a large part of what makes this one of the greatest cities in the world.

Today is the 75th anniversary of the day 1,027 passengers disembarked the HMT Empire Windrush at Tilbury Docks, over 500 of them from the Caribbean, the majority being Jamaican.

The importance of the Windrush was recognised at the time with the event being captured on film and newspapers reporting on it. The Evening Standard even went as far as chartering a plane to photograph the ship as it approached Britain. The picture was on the front page the next day with the headline: “Welcome to Britain! Evening Standard plane greets 400 sons of Empire.”

The anniversary and the name ‘Windrush’ hold a special place in the hearts and minds of black Britons and I am glad it is getting the recognition it deserves. Although there has been an African presence in Britain for more than 1,000 years the Windrush is seen as a turning point. It is viewed by many as the start of mass immigration from the then Empire, and the birth of modern British multiculturalism.

For me, though, in many ways it is still hugely misunderstood and goes to the heart of how we think of our history. Because the Windrush does not just mark the black presence in the UK, it marks the start of modern Britain.

It is arguably as important as VE Day, the Act of Union between England and Scotland, the English Civil War, 1066 and the Roman presence in Britain. Modern Britain would simply not be possible without black people. There would be no NHS, as we know it, without black British people. There would be no modern British public transport system, as we know it, without black British people. For example it is estimated that London Transport directly recruited around 6,000 employees directly from Barbados alone between 1956 and 1970. In 1948, the NHS was seen to be in crisis with over 54,000 nursing vacancies, It was the Windrush generation that literally came to the rescue - by late 1965, there were 5,000 Jamaican women sworking in British hospitals, and by 1977, 12% of all student nurses and midwives were recruited overseas, with two thirds of those coming directly from the Caribbean.

The very infrastructure of post-war Britain was only made possible by mass immigration from the Caribbean, Africa and Asia. And that mass immigration has in turn shaped modern British culture. Patrick Vernon, the author of 100 Great Black Britons who has been campaigning for the importance of the Windrush to be recognised, wrote in 2018: “British society today would be unrecognisable without the contributions that immigration and integration have made: from the NHS to the monarchy, our language, literature, enterprise, public life, fashion, music, politics, science, culture, food and even humour.”

Britain in general, and London in particular, is defined by its multiculturalism. From our best sports stars to our most famous actors, from renowned authors to noted scientists, black Britons are at the forefront of global Britain.

A test is to Google “famous contemporary British [insert activity here]” and you will find at least one black British person in every search result, from Lewis Hamilton to Clive Myrie, and from Stormzy to Maggie Aderin-Pocock. When I co-edited the book Black British Lives Matter with the comedian and actor Lenny Henry one of our key aims was to explore the importance of black Britons’ contributions across different sectors of society. With contributions from the historian David Olusoga, politician Dawn Butler MP, author Kit de Waal, campaigner Doreen Lawrence and architect David Adjaye, among others, it was an opportunity for each person to explore their own black British experience and how we have enriched and changed every part of British life.

By extension, we cannot treat the Windrush as if it is just an important “Black History” event. That is analogous to suggesting 1066 is just “French History”, or the Act of Union is a milestone only Scots need to think about.

Marking the arrival of Windrush not only gives us all an opportunity to acknowledge and celebrate the important contribution that black Britons have made to the UK, it also gives us a chance to think about the state of British society today, in all its multicultural splendour, building on the Windrush generation. All of us who make up the black British community stand on the shoulders of giants. And those giants are the original pioneers who came here on the Windrush, and subsequent ships and planes, from the Caribbean — the “Windrush generation.”

As we commemorate the 75th anniversary it is crucial to ask, what do we — as Brits — owe that generation who forged the way for us to be here? How do we respect their vision as they stepped off that ship, and saw the cameras flashing? How would, and in some cases do, they feel about where British society is today? It means at the very least fighting for them when issues such as the “Windrush scandal” emerge, where the Government wrongfully deported people from the Caribbean. Due to its policy in 2012 of creating a “hostile environment” for immigrants in which the NHS, landlords, banks, employers and many other bodies were compelled to inform on any “undocumented” migrants to the Home Office. With the consequence of immigrants from the Caribbean who came over legally but did not keep up with all of the bureaucratic and legal changes over the years being wrongfully deemed as “illegal immigrants”. While the government has now acknowledged its mistakes, the scandal is far from over with many victims still fighting for justice and compensation.

After the Black Lives Matter protests of 2020 it is about ending the racism that so many black people still face today. But it goes deeper than this. It is about how the UK can build on the positive examples from its history of integrating migrants, and enabling them to give their very best to Britain today. It is about how the UK shapes the future of the NHS, or invests in a stronger public transport system and other infrastructure.

Windrush is about how can we all build the type of society that our forefathers and foremothers came to this country to build, and expected to continue as their legacy. Windrush Day is undoubtedly a time of celebration, but if we are truly to honour those who came before us it 
should also be a time for reflection and building.



(This essay was first published in Evening Standard on 22nd June 2023) 

Not Holding Power to Account - The Consequence of the Lack of Media Diversity

Back in 2012 the then Duke and Duchess of Rothesay, better known as Prince Charles and Camilla, visited the BBC Scotland Studios in Glasgow to celebrate 60 years of BBC Scotland television. I was head of BBC Scotland Current Affairs programmes at the time and I was duly lined up with other executives in the newsroom to greet them and say a few words about the work we do. After they met staff in the newsroom they filmed a special edition of the weather report in which Charles and Camilla took turns in presenting the forecast.

What I remember most about the royal visit was not what happened on the day but what happened the day after.

The following day Scotland’s then First Minister, Alex Salmond, came to the Glasgow studios and was also given a brief tour. The difference between how the BBC news executives dressed and acted on the two days was marked. On the first day BBC executives greeted the non-elected king-in-waiting dressed in evening suits and ties for the men, and formal dresses for the women. On the second day the same BBC executives meeting the highest elected official in Scotland had reverted to jeans and trainers, and the few who were wearing suit jackets were definitely not wearing ties.

Royalty suits them?

Although my BBC colleagues were fastidious not to discuss their own personal politics at work (the idea of impartiality runs deep in BBC newsrooms) I personally knew that some of the BBC news executives were royalist and others were republicans. I also knew that there were SNP supporters among them as well as well as supporters of other political parties. But irrespective of people’s personal views the overriding culture on display was one in which you showed deference and respect to royalty and relative indifference to elected officials, however high their office.

As one of the few Black people of West Indian heritage working at senior level at the BBC I was more than aware of the ongoing debate that was taking place in the Caribbean about the role of the monarchy. Kenya became a republic in 1964; being married to a Kenyan I understood that Black British people have a very different historical relationship with the royal family. While it’s easy to dismiss fashion choices, the different treatments troubled me, to say the least, as to what it said about the prevailing cross-political culture in the newsroom and who shaped it. For the record, for both visits I dressed in the same smart casual way I usually did every day in the office.

I was reminded of these different treatments recently when I found myself in a discussion with senior news executives from both newspapers and television on how different news outlets had covered the Queen’s funeral.

I said that I thought the domestic coverage in general, and the BBC’s in particular, had been unduly uncritical of the monarchy when one compared it to news coverage elsewhere in the world. The response I received from several executives in the (virtual) room was that the British broadcasters ‘couldn’t have reported on the Queen’s death in any other way’ without being disrespectful, and the period directly following the queen’s death ‘was not the time to be critical’.

Second time round more critical?

There is little doubt that news coverage of the role of the monarchy in Britain has been more critical and questioning in the run up to the Charles III’s coronation than during coverage of the Queen’s death. For example, three weeks before the coronation, BBC Panorama broadcast a programme titled ‘Will King Charles Change the Monarchy?’ The programme shared poll findings that only a minority of people under the age of fifty positively preferred a monarchy to an elected head of state, yet overall 58 per cent of people preferred an unelected monarchy to an elected head of state. BBC Radio 4 also broadcast ‘The Today Debate: Do We Need a Monarchy?’ And other UK broadcasters have had similar programmes critically analysing the role of the monarchy as an institution in UK life and politics.

However, far from making up for a lack of critical coverage during the period of the Queen’s death, all this new coverage highlights a serious journalistic failing.

To use a simple analogy; if the position of King was an elected one, the critical debate and polls around the monarchy now, at the time of the King’s Coronation, feels like having election coverage after all the votes have been cast, the winner has been announced and we’re just deciding where to hold the victory celebrations.

Why? That’s because the period covering the Queen’s death was also the same period as King Charles III’s proclamation and ascension to the throne.

It is that time, not now, that was the critical time in which British journalists should have been asking the difficult questions about the monarchy and fulfilling one of the fundamental principles of journalism, ‘holding power to account’, however inconvenient or unpopular among certain sections of society that truth might have been. It was that time, that was the decision point for the public.

Instead, far too many news organisations and journalists seemed to be caught up in the narrative that we were a ‘nation in mourning’, and therefore actively discouraged coverage that was critical of the monarchy.

Groupthink and lack of diversity in the gatekeepers

I believe the reason this was able to happen was because the senior editors, those with decision-making power, are not diverse, and therefore subject to group-think, even if they are critical of the monarchy in theory in practice and culture they are extremely deferential (think of the way my BBC Scotland colleagues dressed for the royal visit).

The fact is, as a person who analyses media diversity, I am always suspicious when the UK is ever portrayed as a nation with a single homogeneous position or view on anything.

The UK is by definition a heterogeneous country (the clue is in the name United Kingdom) made up of four nations: England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, and has a multicultural population due to being a former empire. The four nations, those with heritage from the former colonies, and, interestingly, different age groups, have very different relationships with the monarchy. The poll commissioned by Panorama at the time of the coronation only reinforced what previous polls had previously indicated.

What the people think?

A May 2022 poll by the British Future think tank indicated that only 45 per cent of respondents in Scotland positively wanted to retain the monarchy, with 36 per cent saying they thought the end of the Queen’s reign should mark the end of the monarchy altogether.

The same British Future poll showed only 40 per cent of 18 to 24-year-olds supported keeping the monarchy, and only 37 per cent of people from an ethnic minority did so. In 2021 a similar poll conducted by Panelbase found that 47 per cent of Scottish adults would vote to keep a royal head of state, compared with 35 per cent who were in favour of an elected head of state.

The story becomes even more complex once age is combined with regionality. According to a YouGov poll, also conducted in May 2022, 80 per cent of 18-30 year olds in Wales want to abolish the monarchy.

What these polls, taken well before the Queen’s death, before the King’s proclamation, and ahead of the King’s coronation, showed is that there is a sizable section of British society that do not want the monarchy to continue. The further you go from a White English, middle-aged bias, the larger this minority becomes and is even a majority in certain demographics.

Et voila, not coincidentally, it is exactly the demographic that most supports the continuation of the monarchy who are disproportionately in positions of editorial responsibility in our newsrooms.

Did the UK media reflect public opinion?

Irrespective of how well the news media has now been able to cover these opinions at the time of the ceremonial coronation, the failure to cover them impartially at the critical time of the King’s proclamation (and the monarchy’s continuation) has two serious consequences.

Firstly, it eroded the already limited trust certain demographics have in the mainstream media. At critical national moments it is vital that the whole country is represented in all its diversity. It is not good enough to say the media will only represent the whole country’s views when it is more ‘convenient’ or deferentially ‘appropriate’ to do so. That erosion in trust can push already marginalised groups, even if they are the majority, to less reputable news sources on social media that might be more prone to misinformation.

One only had to take a cursory look at #BlackTwitter or #IrishTwitter at the time of the King’s proclamation and ascension to see a range of British and non-British views on the Queen’s death that were not being reflected in mainstream UK news.

Some UK newspapers and other media outlets did, at the time of the King’s proclamation, publish opinion pieces by people from Black, Asian, and minority ethnic backgrounds that explained why they were not mourning the death of the Queen in the same way as other people in Britain. However, it is important to realise that this approach was in itself problematic, and further exacerbated the sense of ‘us and them’.

This is because it juxtaposed the supposedly ‘correct’ editorial stance (i.e. that the whole nation was mourning) which had the full weight and authority of so-called ‘impartial’ journalism with another stance relegated to being just an ‘opinion’. Moreover, commissioning these as opinion pieces risked framing any dissent from the dominant editorial stance as a ‘problem of the ethnics’, i.e. a problem with multicultural Britain, which many parts of the population are proud of.

What at first may seem like a welcome attempt to include more diversity, can instead at best lead directly to sloppy journalism and at worst exacerbate structural imbalances regarding whose opinions are heard and valued in the British national conversation.

The second consequence of the failure of impartially in reporting Charles becoming King was the creation of fundamental misunderstanding about British democracy and rights.

The best example of this was when four people were arrested in Scotland for protesting against the ascension and proclamation of King Charles III. At the time, many newspapers framed it as a ‘freedom of speech’ issue and about the ‘right to protest’. However, the journalism should have presented it as a representational issue. Why? Assuming the polls taken both before and after the Queen’s death were correct, these four protestors were representing the views of over a third of Scottish people.

The four protestors chose precisely the right time to speak ‘truth to power’ and engage in the democratic process. The newspapers framing it as a ‘right to protest’ issue essentially disenfranchised large swathes of the population and stifled an important debate. The fact that news outlets are covering dissent regarding the continuation of the monarchy now is literally too little too late for that dissenting voice to have any impact.

Not monarchist, not republican, just impartial

In these emotionally charged times I should emphasise that this is not about being a monarchist or a republican, and as an impartial journalist my own leaning has no consequence. Nor am I ignoring the fact that a large proportion of the British population were grieving at the time of the Queen’s death and King’s proclamation and ascension. This is about professional and impartial journalism, reflecting an authentic picture of the views and opinions of the entire nation back to itself and fulfilling its critical role in the democratic process of holding power to account at the most important times.

The coverage of the King’s coronation cannot be viewed in isolation. Seen in the wider context of the Queen’s death, the King’s ascension, and coverage of the royal family generally, it offers important lessons as to why diversity and inclusive representation are essential to good journalism.

Thinking back to Prince Charles’ visit to Glasgow I hope we can create newsrooms which value our highest elected officials as much as our highest unelected ones. Or at least treat each as critically as each other. More diverse newsrooms would be an important step to achieving this.

(The essay was first published in "Reporting Royalty: Analysing the Media and the Monarchy" Edited by John Mair and Andrew Beck with Richard Lance Keeble)

Disney’s The Little Mermaid, Caribbean Slavery, and Telling the Truth to Children

Children’s films should not ignore the more difficult parts of our history, just because adults feel uncomfortable addressing them.

The question is: How do we make films for children of all races that acknowledge the horrors of historical events such as slavery, while making sure they are free to imagine a wonderful world unencumbered by racism and are not defined by it?

On Sunday I watched the new live action version of Disney’s The Little Mermaid with my six-year-old son.

The visual effects are stunning and the casting is brilliant. If you are not aware, and at this point you would literally have to be living under a rock in the middle of the ocean not to be aware, Halle Bailey plays the eponymous heroine in a celebration of normalising Black beauty standards for children.

For my young son to see the most beautiful character in a film as a Black woman (with non-straightened hair) is important to me as a parent and goes against literally centuries of White beauty standards and societal norms. It is anti-racism at work on a deep level.

While the importance of casting the Little Mermaid as a Black woman has been commented on in numerous articles the casting of the other roles is also worth a mention. The casting is beautifully “colour blind” with the prince being White and his mother being Black (he is adopted). At the same time the Little Mermaid’s father is White while her Mermaid sisters are of various different races and ethnicities. Race as a social construct, as we know it, clearly does not exists underwater.

A world in which the very idea of race for the main characters seems to be subverted, consciously ignored, and at the same time Black beauty is celebrated, needs to be applauded.

However there is one jarring massive problem with the film and it is less about its treatment of contemporary racial issues and more about its treatment of historical transatlantic slavery.

The film is set in the Caribbean in the 18th century. It does not specify exactly when, but judging from the ships, clothes and other references it is during a time of African chattel slavery. And yet there is not a single direct reference to slavery and the islanders live in racial harmony. 

In this setting, I do not think we do our children any favours by pretending that slavery didn’t exist. For me Disney’s preference to try and wish the inconvenient truth away says more about the adult creatives than it does about children’s ability to work through it.

The enslavement of Africans in the Americas (across the southern states of the US, Caribbean and South America) in the 18th century was a brutal time and has been described by some historians and commentators as a “holocaust”, a crime against humanity that is so heinous that there are calls to this day for reparations to compensate the descendants of the victims.

Setting the fantastical story in this time and place is literally the equivalent of setting a love story between Jew and Gentile in 1940 Germany and ignoring the Jewish holocaust. Or possibly more accurately setting it in a slave plantation in America’s antebellum south and pretending the enslaved Africans were happy.

The 18th century Caribbean is a problematic time to set any children’s story, but that should make it full of creative possibilities as opposed to encouraging historical amnesia.

First of all, I do not need every story and movie that my 6-year-old consumes to be historically accurate. The appearance of steel pans in the film, an instrument invented in the late 1930s, raised a wry smile in the pedant in me, but I found it easy enough to overlook. But the total erasure and rewriting of one of the most painful and important parts of African diasporic history, is borderline dangerous, especially when it is consumed unquestioningly by children. I do not want my child to think that the Caribbean in the 18th century was a time of racial harmony, any more than I suspect a Jewish father wants his child to think 1940 Germany was a time of religious tolerance, however much we might both wish they were. 

So does this mean Black children cannot have escapist fantasies of the past, or all our historical stories have to overtly address racism and slavery? 

Definitely not.

I want my Black son to be as free, joyful and unencumbered by horrors of history just as much as any of his White and Asian friends at school, but I also do not want him, (or any children) to be given a false view of history on key issues - slavery being one of them.

There are several ways in which Disney could have easily set The Little Mermaid story in the Caribbean in the 18th century and not whitewashed (excuse the pun) the importance of history.

For example they could have set the story in Haiti post-1804. Haiti was the first Caribbean country to throw off the shackles of slavery and most importantly in its constitution of 1805 explicitly denounces the idea of different “races” proclaiming true equality. According to Julia Gaffield, a professor of history at Georgia State University, the constitution even “explicitly acknowledged that some ‘white women,’ Germans, and Poles had been naturalized as Haitian citizens highlighting the radical reconceptualization of race that underpinned Haiti’s entry on the world stage.”

In this scenario the Little Mermaid could have easily found her prince, while race and slavery could have been gently touched upon without being overbearing or having to show the horrors. A post revolutionary Haiti would have been the perfect setting for an island of racial harmony, and in doing so it would have gently educated children about an important period in world history.

When we think creatively and know our Caribbean history there are numerous solutions to setting the story in the Caribbean during the time of slavery while neither wanting to erase our history or expose children to the full horrors of chattel slavery. As someone of Jamaican heritage I would have loved the Little Mermaid to fall in love with a Maroon (a runaway slave), although that would have required her to swim a little upstream towards the island's interior.

We owe it to our children to give them the most amazing fantastical stories possible to help their imaginations grow. We do not do this by “whitewashing” out the difficult parts of our history. We do it by embracing our rich history and empowering them with the truth. Next time I hope Disney can be as adventurous with its story telling as it was with its casting.

ChatGPT is an existential threat to media diversity

ChatGPT is an existential threat to media diversity.

To understand why it is important to understand why is diversity in the media and creative industry so important. And who better to ask than Chat GPT itself: 

Question to ChatGPT's Open AI - Why is media diversity important?

Answer by ChatGPT's Open AI - Media diversity is important for several reasons: 

 

1. Representation: Media diversity ensures that different voices, perspectives, and experiences are represented. It allows for a more accurate reflection of the diverse societies in which we live. When media outlets showcase a range of races, ethnicities, genders, sexual orientations, religions, and abilities, it helps combat stereotypes, promotes inclusivity, and empowers marginalized communities. 

2. Pluralism: Media diversity fosters a pluralistic society by exposing individuals to a wide range of ideas, opinions, and viewpoints. It encourages critical thinking, open dialogue, and the exploration of different perspectives. A diverse media landscape helps to prevent the dominance of a single narrative or ideology, allowing for a more informed and balanced public discourse. 

3. Democracy and civic participation: A diverse media ecosystem is crucial for a healthy democracy. It ensures that citizens have access to a variety of information sources, enabling them to make informed decisions and participate meaningfully in civic life. When media outlets represent a broad range of interests, they can hold governments, institutions, and powerful individuals accountable, fostering transparency and good governance. 

4. Social cohesion: Media diversity contributes to social cohesion by promoting understanding, empathy, and unity among diverse groups. By portraying a range of experiences and identities, the media can bridge divides and create a sense of shared humanity. It helps challenge prejudices, reduce discrimination, and build a more inclusive society where everyone feels valued and respected. 

5. Economic and cultural benefits: A diverse media industry can have economic and cultural benefits. It creates opportunities for diverse content creators, journalists, and artists, allowing them to share their talents and stories with a broader audience. This, in turn, promotes innovation, creativity, and cultural exchange, enriching society as a whole. 

In summary, media diversity is essential for representation, pluralism, democracy, social cohesion, and economic/cultural benefits. It ensures that the media landscape reflects the realities of diverse societies, amplifies different voices and perspectives, and facilitates a more inclusive and informed public discourse. 

Far too often the debate around media diversity is framed in terms of point five, the need to employ more Black and Asian people in the industry at different levels, or employing more women, disabled people, LGBTQ+ (insert the protected characteristic / underrepresented demographic here).

While increasing the employment prospects and career progression of all these different groups is important it fundamentally misses the other four points and puts media diversity on par with increasing diversity in any other industry or sector; from double glazing to medicinal chemist (just for the record some of my best friends work in double glazing and I once dated a medicinal chemist).

What ChatGPT so beautifully explains is the idea that media diversity is about so much more than employing a few more Black and Asian people in the media industry at different levels, or employing more women, disabled people, LGBTQ+ (insert the protected characteristic / underrepresented demographic here).

While increasing the employment prospects and career progression of all these different groups is important it fundamentally misses the point and puts media diversity on par with increasing diversity in any other industry or sector; from double glazing to marine biologists.

The importance of media diversity is unique and it goes to the very heart of how we function as a society.

And this is precisely why ChatGPT is an existential threat to media diversity.

If we believe media diversity is about freedom of speech, democratic discourse, and who is empowered to contribute to the narrative that society tells about itself and the rest of the world.

Fundamentally if we believe in representational democracy, we must fight for representational story telling. Because it is the stories we tell, both fiction and non-fiction, that shapes our understanding of the world, our values, our beliefs, and how our democracy works.

ChatGPT and other forms of AI are an existential threat to that.

ChatGPT creates text and stories (fiction and non-fiction) which are then used by students, authors, scriptwriters and journalists as a first draft which they can edit, or to supplement their own existing work. (In the future it may not even support the work of creatives but replace them)

The problem is ChatGPT is “White, non-disabled, heterosexual and male”. In that the source text that ChatGPT’s algorithms draw on are disproportionately written by white, non-disabled, heterosexual men.

This should hardly be surprising for anyone who works in the field of media diversity. It is already known that white, non-disabled, heterosexual men are disproportionately over-represented in areas such as journalism, literature, film and theatre.

By drawing on the current source materials ChatGPT will by definition amplify the already existing inequalities of the narratives, values and views of white, non-disabled, heterosexual men being over-represented.

Let me illustrate this with one simple example:

In 2020 the Press Gazette published research by Women in Journalism, showing that in one week in July 2020 - at the height of the Black Lives Matter protests across the world - UK’s 11 biggest newspapers failed to feature a single byline by black journalist on their front pages. Taking non-white journalists as whole of the 174 bylines examined only 4 were credited to journalists of colour.

The same report also found that in the same week just one in four front-page bylines across the 11 papers went to women.

Importantly the week the study surveyed the biggest news stories were about Covid-19, Black Lives Matter, the replacement of the toppled statue of the slave trader Edward Colston in Bristol and the appeal over the British citizenship of the Muslim mother, Shamima Begum.

Assuming ChatGPT's algorithm draws on the stories written by journalists in mainstream newspapers to generate its text, if you ask it any questions about the news that week you will literally be hearing from the voices of White men; White men writing about issues that disproportionately impact people of colour.

If you do not see this as a problem then I strongly suspect you are reading the wrong blog.

The question, for those of us interested in media diversity, is what do we do now?

I do not believe the answer is to simply disengage from ChatGPT and hope it goes away. Instead we have to find ways to engage constructively and find ways for journalists, and other creatives, to use ChatGPT in ways which do not effectively silence, or further marginalises, already under-represented groups.

This is incredibly new territory and I don't think anyone has all the answers of how to do this, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

I am calling on journalists and creatives to join me in creating a manifesto, a simple set of guidelines, of how we should work with ChatGPT constructively and what we should be demanding of the tech companies who create these programmes.

This issue is too important to leave it up to or other people to work out the solutions. (My DM's are open @marcusryder)

World Press Freedom Day is Meaningless Without Media Diversity

Today, Wednesday, May 3rd, 2023 is World Press Freedom Day. The purpose of the day, (now in its 30th year) is to raise awareness about the value of press freedom, the necessity of defending journalists' rights, and the need to support independent, free media.

The most recent report on press freedoms by the World Press Freedom Index revealed a shocking decline in press freedoms across the world, with a record 31 countries being in a “very serious situation”, the lowest rank in the report, up from 21 just two years ago. The list, released by Reporters Without Borders (RSF), also saw the UK fall from 24th in the global rankings last year to 26th this year.

My concern, as a Black British journalist, is that the UK’s position might be even worse for people of colour working (or more specifically failing to work) in the industry.

Freedom of the press means nothing if large sections of the population are denied access to it.

According to the Reuters Institute, only about 0.2% of British journalists are Black

In 2020 the Press Gazette published research by Women in Journalism, showing that in one week in July 2020 - at the height of the Black Lives Matter protests across the world  - UK’s 11 biggest newspapers failed to feature a single byline by a black journalist on their front pages. And of the 174 front page bylines examined in that period only 4 were credited to journalists of colour.

 

The same report also found that in the same week just one in four front-page bylines across the 11 papers went to women.

 

It should be noted that the week the study surveyed featured front page stories about Black Lives Matter, the replacement of the toppled statue of the slave trader Edward Colston in Bristol and the appeal over the British citizenship of the Muslim mother, Shamima Begum.

Front page stories frame how the public view an issue with many never getting past the headline. 

A recent report by the Ethical Journalism Network also found that anti-black racism in UK newsrooms is “commonplace”. 

And finally 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.

For clarity I am not talking about the people in front of the camera – I am talking about the executives and editors behind the camera, the people with real power who decide which stories are covered and how. 

Today, in newsrooms across Britain – whether print, online or on TV - it is primarily white, non-disabled, heterosexual men, in London who are deciding what issues news organisations should cover and how they should be covered.

This is a damning indictment of the very principle of Press Freedom, if Black people are not able to tell their stories or are relegated to minor coverage - even about stories that directly affect us such as the #BLM protests - we do not have a free press.

This is not a freedom that is being curtailed by “evil” governments targeting the press, which is how many of the stories about World Press Freedom Day are framed. This is a press freedom that is being curtailed by the inner workings of the newsrooms themselves.

When we write and discuss World Press Freedom Day we must recognise that diversity and inclusion are not viewed as a side issue, but are essential to the very press freedoms all journalists should hold dear..

It is important that we should all fight for press freedoms across the world, but in doing so we must not forget those closest to home who are also seeing their freedoms curtailed.

Diane Abbott, antisemitism and an important lesson for journalists

The current furore around Diane Abbott MP and accusations of antisemitism, in which she equated the prejudice Jewish people face with the prejudice faced by redheads, hold important lessons for journalists covering the issues of diversity, inclusion, equality, racism and (of course) antisemitism.

To explain, let me start with a story.

A few years ago I was talking to a young black girl about the prejudice women face. She earnestly turned to me and said “I understand it, it’s like racism against women”. I fought back a laugh and replied, “yes, it’s called 'sexism'.”

The beauty of the English language is that it is incredibly rich with the largest vocabulary of any language.

We have a specific term for the prejudice and bigotry that women face; “sexism”, and that in turn is different from “misogyny”.

We do Jewish people a disservice if we simply refer to the prejudice and bigotry they face as “racism”. It is “antisemitism”.

Race as we understand it is a social construct which was effectively “invented” during colonialism and transatlantic slavery. It was invented long after the long history of the prejudice, persecution and bigotry Jewish people face began, which dates back millennia. Therefore, logically the term “racism” is historically incorrect and doesn’t fully capture what Jewish people experience.

It should be noted at this point that “race” is different from “ethnicity”, that is the beauty of English, it is able to capture these nuances.

“Antisemitism” is different from “Islamophobia”, and both are different from “sectarianism”.

We do the different and difficult issues that different people face a disservice if we describe it all as “racism”. We also do a disservice to the great English language.

Diane Abbott was completely wrong to describe the prejudice that Travellers and Jewish people face as equivalent to the prejudice and bigotry redheaded people face, it was crass, offensive, and it was right for her to apologise.

When I read her original letter to the Observer, what I understood her underlying message to be; that the “racism” black people face and “antisemitism” are not the same, it is a message I have sympathy with, or at the very least one which I believe should be discussed openly and calmly. Saying one is more or less important than the other is not one I have any sympathy with.

And herein lies an important lesson for journalists. We need to be precise in our language. We should not create false equivalence or hierarchies of victimhood, or we end up offending everyone.

When a journalist asks the seemingly simple question; "Are Jewish people white?" it is giving far too much credit, (and logic) to a system to classify people which was born out of prejudice and illogicality. For me the 'racial' status of Jewish people beautifully expose the lie that race actually makes any sense at all.  As one Jewish friend once said to me, when I naively asked the same question; "Jewish people are the Schrödinger's cat of racism, we are both white and not white at the same time".

Antisemitism is terrible and needs to be addressed. Islamophobia is terrible and needs to be addressed. Racism is terrible and needs to be addressed.

But we cannot properly fight them if we think they are all one and the same thing. Or as my young friend, at the beginning of this piece did, using the same lens and framing to understand different forms of prejudice.

The English language gives us the tools to properly describe, understand and analyse the world around us in all its beauty and ugliness.

  

And that is why, as both a journalist and some one who strives to increase media diversity, I love English.