TV Diversity and the Gray Rhino Problem

I moved to Beijing just over three years ago after living my entire life in the UK.

Living in a different country not only gives you a different perspective on life but also exposes you to different ways of thinking. On a grand scale you can see the difference between how a society based on Judeo-Christian values approaches a problem versus one based on Buddhist or Confucian ideals.

On a smaller scale it can just be the difference between what types of books and films are popular in one country versus another country.

“Gray Rhinos” are one such example – in China you cannot go to a business meeting without someone bringing them up.

Yes you read that right. China is obsessed with “Gray Rhinos”.

China’s President Xi Jinping warned against “Gray Rhinos” in January 2019 and China’s central bank are worried they will destabilize the whole country!

They are not worried that herds of wild animals from Africa will stampede across Asia though.

Rather they are worried about a term first coined by policy analyst Michele Wucker. She uses the “Gray Rhino” is a metaphor for a problem that we know is coming - we can see the dust cloud on the horizon long before the charging animal comes into view - but all too often we don’t take the necessary actions to avert the disaster until we see the actual rhino, by which time it is far too late!

Even though Michele Wucker is American the idea has really struck a chord in China with slowing economic growth, an aging demographic and the signs of other social and economic problems which have yet to come to fruition.

Obvious examples of “Gray Rhinos” in the UK are issues such as climate change, the state pensions’ black hole and of course the funding of the NHS. Everyone can see the growing dust clouds associated with the problem but we don’t seem to be taking the necessary steps to solve the problem while we still have the chance.

For me diversity is possibly the biggest “Gray Rhino” facing British broadcasters today.

The demography of the UK is changing. By 2031 one in five Britons will be BAME (Black Asian and Minority Ethnic) and by 2051 it is forecast that almost one third of the population will be BAME.  

All the research shows this growing segment of the population prefers streaming services more than their white counterparts and feels that services like Netflix do a better job at representing their lives than programmes produced by broadcasters such as the BBC.

Anyone who knows anything about the UK television industry, diversity and the UK’s changing demographic can see the dust clouds of the charging “Gray Rhino” coming.

So if everyone can see a problem coming why are people so bad at dealing with “Gray Rhinos”?

Here are a few theories:

First, many “Gray Rhinos” are often created by our own existing working practices and biases. Admitting that we are the problem requires us to challenge ourselves and change everything that has brought us success in the past. That is no easy exercise.

Second, politicians and executives are far more likely to focus on the short-term, trying to muddle through and hoping to push any hard decisions on to the next person in charge.

Which brings us to the third, and possibly the most important reason we fail to deal with “Gray Rhinos”. Solving them is hard and fraught with danger. If leaders make the wrong the decisions they can actually make matters worse. As Michele Wucker writes; “choosing the wrong response to a problem can hurt a leader more than doing nothing.” (Take the example of global warming; should we invest in wind, solar or wave energy? Making the wrong decision could cost a leader his job –  doing nothing but leaving it to you successor might be the easier course of action)

We can see examples of all three problems in broadcasters trying to deal with the oncoming diversity “Gray Rhino”

First most television executives in the UK have become successful by NOT properly embracing diversity. It is incredibly hard to change everything that has brought you success so far in your life and career for a problem you hope is still way off.

Second, you can see how broadcasters are continuing to muddle through. For example all the broadcasters place their Heads of Diversity within their HR departments and do not give them a seat at the executive board level. Considering this could be the issue that could make or break UK broadcasting seeing the job as just a case of increasing diversity statistics rather than a more strategic role with real power is a classic case of muddling through.

And third dealing with diversity requires some very hard leadership decisions. It may require adopting completely new business models more in line with Netflix and streaming services rather than the traditional broadcasting model for example. Or it may require a completely new way of measuring success and justifying that to shareholders (in the case of ITV and Channel 5) or politicians and the public (in the case of Channel 4 and BBC). And it will almost definitely require serious experimentation of the type of programmes broadcasters produce and the type of people who make them.

But while we might understand the reasons why large organisations do not tackle massive “Gray Rhinos”, experience has shown that invariably inaction is far worse and costlier than taking action. And the cost of not tackling this “Gray Rhino” is British broadcasters run the risk of totally losing large parts of their audience. So maybe it is time for all the British broadcasters to look at the example of China and confront the Gray Rhino racing towards them before it is too late.

What raising a child and media diversity have in common - bring in the grandparents

My son was born in Beijing almost three years ago.

My sister-in-law was living with my wife and me in China at the time and was a great support at the hospital when my wife went into labour – but she did not have children. So when Moses Safari Ryder was born there was a sudden realization that none of us really knew what we were doing and we were a long way from home. (“Safari” by the way is the name given in Swahili when you are born when travelling or away from home).

But we needn’t have worried because my mother jumped on a plane and less than 24 hours later was in Beijing imparting all the knowledge she had gained from successfully raising two boy.

Three months later when my mother went back to the UK another sister-in-law appeared – who had a four-year-old daughter. Her knowledge and experience of raising a child made life infinitely easier.

If you think of a family as a business then what my mother and second-sister-law provided is a concept called “institutional memory”. They had both gone through the process before; they knew the mistakes to avoid because they had seen them before. They knew the shortcuts. They knew what should cause alarm and what not to worry about.

Whether you are trying to raise a son in a small family or roll out a new policy in a multinational corporation institutional memory is incredibly important. It can be the difference between a business repeating a costly mistake or knowing best practice that has worked in the past.

However when it comes to diversity in the media industry it can feel like we have no institutional memory.

We consistently repeat the same mistakes and fail to capitalize on the very things that have worked so well before.

Far too many people act as if the push for diversity in the television industry started when Lenny Henry gave a speech at Bafta in 2014.

The fact is I cannot remember a time in my 20+ year career when women, BAME (Black Asian and Minority Ethnic) and disabled people have not been actively fighting for a bigger place at the media table to tell their stories and have their voices heard.

When I talk to senior industry figures in their fifties, sixties and even seventies who have been at the frontline of trying to increase diversity in television I am amazed how consistently they feel that the present policies rolled out by broadcasters are either repeating the same mistakes or failing to capitalize on what has happened before.

These are not old curmudgeons who think “everything was better in my day”. Invariably these are people who can offer a relevant critique on what broadcasters are doing right and what they are doing wrong.

I cannot tell you how often a conversation about a new diversity policy will start like this:

“…the new policy initiative is OK but it is similar to what we tried in ’95 and where it went wrong was XX so if I were in their shoes I would try YY”.

Or they will say

“…I don’t know why the broadcasters are dismissing that policy approach it worked perfectly well in the 80’s and with a bit of tweaking I think we might have something”.

The sad fact is far too few of these people are being consulted about the various diversity policies that the different broadcasters role out every year. We lose this institutional memory at our peril and the fact is with increased freelance work, staff turnover and the end of jobs for life the situation is only going to get worse.

And so here is MY diversity policy suggestion:

Can one of the UK’s top media universities create a diversity institutional memory brain trust?

This would comprise of eight to ten key people who have worked in the UK film and television for the last four to five decade and have experience of diversity policies over time.

They could meet two or three times a year and critique the broadcasters’, Ofcom’s (TV and radio regulator) and BFI’s (British Film Institute) different approaches to diversity. They could offer possible suggestions as to how to improve what is working based on their own intuitional memory and maybe suggest why some policies should be scrapped. This can then be put in a report and published by the academic institution for the whole industry to learn from.

The idea of a “Film and TV Diversity Memory Bank” is something I floated last time I was in London with a few senior execs in their fifties and sixties and I have at least three people who are eager to make this happen.

My parenting and son’s life benefited massively from a little institutional memory.

Isn’t it about time diversity in the TV industry did too?

32 to 1 - Ofcom's diversity in numbers

Last week I gave a speech to a room full of people interested in diversity in the media. It was a wonderful event in which I was able to talk to senior TV execs from the BBC, ITV and Channel 4 some of whom have championed media diversity for over forty years. I was also able to talk to young media professionals who are just starting off their careers with fresh ideas and approaches to the issue of diversity.

The exchange of ideas and experiences was truly enriching and I am sure will form the basis of several blog posts to come, as well as possible campaigns for new policy suggestions that broadcasters, media regulators and politicians may want to adopt in order to increase diversity.

But just the act of breaking bread (or more accurately sharing a drink) with fellow media professionals who all want to increase diversity in our industry was rewarding in itself and I sincerely hope that similar events can be repeated soon.

The speech I gave primarily focused on the ethnic diversity of the UK media regulator Ofcom and afterwards a lot of people asked me if it was available online. I have tidied it up, taking out the usual introductions that are in such speeches and elaborated a little on the figures I quoted.

Enjoy…

"Ofcom is the body that is charged with making sure that broadcasters abide by their licenses and fulfill the requirements set out for them to broadcast in the UK.

Ofcom for example officially set out the minimum amount of programmes broadcasters have to produce outside of London. They set out the minimum amount of news and current affairs, high quality drama and other genres they have to do.

And with regards to diversity Ofcom are officially in charge of making sure the BBC specifically meets its new - since 2016 - Charter commitment to diversity.

On Thursday (28^th March) the BBC announced it had exceeded its targets on meeting diversity for BAME, LGBTQ and Disability. And for women the BBC was only 2% behind hitting its target of 50%. The BBC is not the only media organization to “hit” their diversity targets - all the broadcasters regularly hit their self-defined targets. Good news for everyone including Ofcom.

But here’s the rub. Even though the BBC says it’s met these targets, people like me, and many of you here today know there is a problem. Diversity, on and behind the screen is still not working.

Now, over the last 10 years - that’s just over a third of my career and starting from when I was still inside the BBC - I’ve been working with industry figures like Simon Albury and Sir Lenny Henry and Angela Ferreira to challenge this status quo and come up with new solutions to address how to increase diversity.

We’ve proposed ring-fencing money for diverse programmes, just like money is ring-fenced for children’s programmes. We’ve proposed centres of excellence with real money behind them, like they have for Nations and Regions.

We’ve proposed simply creating a definition of what the industry means by diversity so people can agree on what should be measured and how success can be judged.

So why have none of these simple solutions been picked up? Why does it sometimes feel like we’re talking to thin air? Like our solutions are falling on deaf ears?

So I’ve been looking a bit more deeply at Ofcom – as this would be the organization that would create a definition or impose ring-fenced funds on an organisation.

Ofcom has a number of advisory boards and sub committees to represent different groups, raise important issues and make sure Ofcom is doing a good job.

There is the Content Board which “represents the interest of the viewer, the listener and citizen”. There is Consumer Panel “set up and maintain effective arrangements for consultation with consumers”. And there are four other boards to represent “interests and opinions”, specific to people living in the four Nations (England, Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland).

There are a number of other boards and sub-committees but none represent the interests of the viewers, consumers and citizens in the same way.

I’ve done a little research on who are on the different boards.

Altogether there are 32 people members on the 6 different major boards.

Now all I did was a Google image search on each member and did a little background research and so it was not an exact science, but of those 32 people how many do you think are Black Asian or Minority Ethnic (BAME )?

(For those of you reading this who were not at the speech I paused for dramatic effect at this point as people shouted out suggestions - you had to be there :)

The answer is one.

Only one person of a BAME background advises Ofcom on whether they are doing a good job.

Currently just one out of 32 people can give a BAME perspective on whether independent prodcution companies are being treated fairly.

Only one out of 32 people can give a BAME perspective on the quality of programme content.

Only one out of 32 people can give a BAME perspective on whether the policy solutions suggested by the likes of Lenny Henry have any merit.

Now ideally I believe there should be a Diversity Board on the same level as the four Nations boards to represent the specific interests, issues and concerns of specific groups such as women, BAME disabiled and LGBTQ+ people. After all the UK’s BAME population alone is almost as large as the popyulations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland combined.

But even if you do not agree with the creation of a new board I think very few people would think 1 out of 32 is good representation. 

Now I know some of you will quickly point out that the head of Ofcom is a black woman – the very competent Sharon White - but let us take a step back and think about this:

No one would have dreamt of saying; “Well Ed Richards – Sharon’s predecessor - grew up in Portsmouth so we don’t need an England board, and we don’t need to worry about  the advice on out of London productions.” That would be nonsense.

So ladies and gentlemen, here is my new solution to increasing diversity throughout the television industry.

To use the Latin term; “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” ("Who guards the guards?"). If we want Ofcom to do a better job at increasing diversity we need to look at the diversity of who are advising them, overseeing them and even judging them.

We need, at the very least, to increase the diversity of Ofcom’s existing boards, and ideally have a new specific board on diversity. If we believe the other boards are essential for Ofcom to come to the right decisions about England, Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland, then changing the diversity on the boards and even creating a new board is equally essential for Ofcom to come to the right decisions about diversity."

Footnote – there is one BAME person on Ofcom's advisory panel on spectrum which is a technical panel on how broadcasting signals and media networks are used.

I have also created a list of all of Ofcom's advisory and oversight committees for people to look at a break down of the gender and ethnic diversity of each one (I have excluded the executive Policy and Management board as this is the managment board that the other boards are meant to oversee and advise) I stress this was done purely through Google image searches and research into the biographies of the various members - if I have made mistakes I would be thankful to Ofcom or anyone else to correct them:   

Ofcom Board

Ofcom's main decision making body is the Board, which provides strategic direction for the organisation.

It has a Non-Executive Chairman, Executive Directors (including the Chief Executive), and Non-Executive Directors.

The Executive runs the organisation and answers to the Board.

The Ofcom Board meets at least once a month (with the exception of August). Agendas, summary notes and minutes are published regularly on the Ofcom website.

10 members
3 women

1 BAME (Sharon White)

Ofcom Content Board

The Content Board is a committee of the main Board and it sets and enforces quality and standards for television and radio. It has members representing each of the countries in the UK, and includes members with extensive broadcasting experience. It is charged with understanding, analysing and championing the voices and interest of the viewer, the listener and citizen.

13 members

5 women

1 BAME (Monisha Shah)

Communications Consumer Panel (CCP) (Advisory Committee for Older and Disabled People)

The Communications Act 2003 requires Ofcom to set up and maintain effective arrangements for consultation with consumers. These arrangements include the establishment of the Communications Consumer Panel, an independent body with the function of advising both Ofcom and others.

9 members

3 women

0 BAME

Ofcom Risk and Audit Committee

The Risk and Audit Committee is responsible for ensuring the maintenance of appropriate and adequate audit processes and the governance of the internal audit and external audit programme

It is a sub-committee of the Ofcom Board and is chaired by a non-executive member of the Ofcom Board..

3 members

2 women

0 BAME

Nominations Committee

The Nominations Committee is chaired by the Chairman of Ofcom. All non-executive Ofcom Board members are members of the Nominations Committee.

Remuneration Committee

The Remuneration Committee has oversight over all matters relating to the remuneration of the Chief Executive and members of the Executive Committee (together called “the senior management team”).

7 members

2 women

0 BAME

Advisory Committee for England

The Advisory Committee for England advises Ofcom about the interests and opinions, in relation to communications and postal matters, of persons living in England.

The Committee usually meets five times a year. The Committee’s minutes are provided to the Ofcom Board.

6 members (4 + 2 members from other committees)
3 women

1 BAME (Monisha Shah)

Advisory Committee for Northern Ireland

The Advisory Committee for Northern Ireland advises Ofcom about the interests and opinions, in relation to communications matters, of people living in Northern Ireland.

8 members (6 + 2 members from other committees)

3 women

Advisory Committee for Scotland

The Advisory Committee for Scotland advises Ofcom about the interests and opinions, in relation to communications matters, of persons living in Scotland.

6 members (4 + 2 members from other committees)

5 women

0 BAME

Advisory Committee for Wales

The Advisory Committee for Wales advises Ofcom about the interests and opinions, in relation to communications matters, of persons living in Wales.

7 members (5 + 2 members from other committees)

2 women

0 BAME

Community Radio Fund Panel

Section 359 of the Communications Act 2003 makes it possible for a fund for community radio operators to be set up, and for Ofcom to administer it and “make such grants as they consider appropriate” to community radio licensees.

3 members

2 women

0 BAME

Ofcom Spectrum Advisory Board (OSAB)

The Ofcom Spectrum Advisory Board (OSAB) provides independent advice to Ofcom on strategic spectrum management issues.

8 members

1 woman

1 BAME (Wassim Chourbaji)

UPDATE - 25/06/2019

It was announced today that Aaqil Ahmed (former head of BBC Religion)has been appointed to the England Advisory Committee - increasing the BAME representation to two.

Diversity and the power to say what you really think

OK before reading this blog post make sure the children have been put to bed and people of a delicate disposition may want to skip this one – there’s bad language.

If you're still reading, here's why there is bad language.

Almost every Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic person (BAME) working in TV I know at some point complains of TV commissioners and executives simply “not getting” their editorial vision or watering down “diverse” elements of their programmes.

People might not want to say it openly, but over a drink or in quiet conversations people will tell you what they are really thinking. And to put it quite simply they want to say “f--- off", but they know they can't without losing the commission and even jeopardising their careers.

But being able to say “f--- off” can actually be the right decision in the end and may increase diversity.

Let me explain with an example of a time that I did say "f--- off", and exactly how I was able to do so and increase diversity.

For 8 years as the head of investigations and current affairs programmes in Scotland I was at the very heart of the BBC trying to increase regional diversity. When I moved up to Glasgow in 2007 the BBC had just started to increase the number of programmes it made outside of London with £38.9 million of the network budget being spent in Scotland by the time I left more than £90 million worth of network programmes were being made in Scotland.

The effect of such a large change in such a short period of time cannot be overstated and the experience has informed much of my thinking when it comes to all sorts of diversity.

And one of the most important lessons I learnt occurred in a meeting down in London when I was pitching a film to a commissioner.

The film was a current affairs documentary with excellent journalism behind it. But importantly it had some elements which were specific to Scotland with one of the major characters of the film being Scottish.

The meeting in London was going well and it was obvious that the commissioning editor in London wanted to commission the programme but he was still umming and ahing - something was clearly troubling him.

Finally he said it: can you take out the Scottish element? It would be perfect for us without the Scottish bit.

Now bear in mind Scotland is part of the UK and if we want to increase regional diversity we need to show Scotland and Scottish issues across the UK. But for the London based commissioner he just felt it would be better if we “took the Scottish part out”.

He “kindly” conceded that we could recut the film with the Scottish part in and transmit that up in Scotland but “let’s keep it out of the version which is broadcast across the rest of the UK”.

Now my Scottish bosses and I had anticipated that this might happen and so I had been instructed that whatever happens we keep the Scottish element in and we tell London to “f--- off”. (Yes - unlike my BAME colleagues I mentioned at the start  my white Scottish colleagues were not afraid to mince their language).  

And the reason we could do that so confidently is because we could find the money to make the film ourselves in Scotland. We might not get a UK wide network audience but we were confident in our own editorial judgment and taking out the Scottish part would weaken the whole film.

We were also confident that even if it only played in Scotland other people in the UK would be able to find it via the iPlayer.

Having the money behind me enabled me to say “f--- off” in the politest BBC exec to commissioner type way, and the knowing I had the full weight of BBC Scotland’s money behind me made the commissioner know I was not bluffing.

After a little more umming and ahhing the commissioner relented, we kept the Scottish element in and the film went on to win a fistful of awards.

Today I look at the vast majority of diversity initiatives to increase the number of women, BAME (Black Asian and Minority Ethnic) and disabled people behind the camera and in key positions.

I go to seminars and hear top television execs saying that people from disadvantaged groups should be able to have their editorial vision on screen, and all I can think of is one thing:

Have you given them enough money so they can tell you to “f--- off”?

Have you given them enough independence so that when they have an editorial vision which is different from yours can they implement it anyway and not jeopardise their careers?

True diversity can be a little scary because by definition true diversity behind the camera is about making editorial judgments which are different from the one’s a non-diverse person would have made.

The BBC has made tremendous progress in regional diversity. I just hope that like me, the BBC and other broadcasters, can take those lessons and apply them to how they increase other types of diversity.

Rejection, diversity and mental health - we need to talk

Rejection hurts, talking about it can be even more painful but it might be the only way for people from diverse communities to help each other.

I write about diversity in the media industry and regularly talk to friends about the prejudices we face.

Even if some of us do not know the exact figures we all know the overall picture.

Women, Black Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) and Disabled people are less likely to be hired, there are fewer women in management positions, we all experience pay gaps compared to our white male counterparts and we are more likely to lose our jobs.

We know this in the abstract. We all know the general picture.

But if the general figures are correct then my BAME, disabled and women friends are facing rejection on an enormous level. We are facing rejection at job interviews. We are facing rejection when it comes to promotions. We are facing rejection when we ask for pay rises. We are facing rejection when we are simply trying to hang on to our jobs.

But despite this we rarely talk about our own personal experiences of rejection, not even to each other and definitely not publicly.

Now there will be some who will say that everyone suffers from rejection regardless of diversity. That is true. But the statistics around glass ceilings and the higher number of BAME people leaving the media industry, despite the industry growing as a whole, points to something quite different than just normal rejection.

I have never talked about my own personal experiences of rejection. Despite all my numerous blog posts I have never once written about the job interviews I have been to and failed. I have never once talked about the fact that one of the key reasons I have run seventeen marathons, and counting, is to deal with rejection and disappointment.

Every person I know from a diverse background has their own coping strategies – some more healthy than others.

But today I want to break that silence – not just for myself but for all diverse people in the industry.

And it is all because of two tweets I recently read.

A few weeks ago Aaqil Ahmed, the former head of BBC Religion, posted two tweets in response to a message about the low number of BAME representation on FTSE boards:

“Problem is - when headhunters approach someone like me they say you would be brilliant, I rarely get an interview and 9/10 the company go with the usual suspect. It’s not that they don’t get it it’s that they are risk averse and too monocultural in thinking, even media companies.”

“It’s the leap to have you on the board involves different thinking on their part and now I rarely even say yes to an approach unless I really really fancy it. I can’t be bothered now going through the process when I know the usual outcome.”

Those two tweets spoke to me. They told me I am not alone.

They told me another person of colour is tired of “going through the process” when he knows it will almost certainly end in rejection (nine times out of ten). That when it comes to one aspect of career progression at least, getting onto a FTSE board, he has literally given up on the process of putting himself forward.

But most importantly his two tweets gave me comfort. These were not abstract numbers about discrimination. This was personal.

I then had a private conversation with Aaqil and thanked him for his tweets – and we discussed not only how it affects us but also our relationships of those closest to us. For example my wife and family are incredibly supportive but work rejection can take its toll on even the strongest bonds. 

Aaqil’s tweets were a rare exception – normally we don’t talk about the personal rejection we all suffer and I think that might be for a number of reasons:

Discussing it can strip away our last layers of pride and self-esteem which we so desperately hold on to.

We worry that talking about how other people have rejected us in the past might lower our value to prospective employers (and people whose approval we want) in the future.

But possibly most of all it is just too painful to discuss head on.

Nothing can protect you from that pain of rejection. If you are going for a job you must by definition open yourself to the possibility of being successful (if you don’t there really is not point in applying) but the very act of opening yourself up to that possibility means you are open to the pain that invariably goes along with it.

And that pain can have real effects on your mental health.

A study by Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health’s Department of Epidemiology revealed that women who suffer from a gender pay gap are 2.5 times more likely to suffer from depression. 

Another study by Cornell University’s College of Human Ecology in 2017 showed a clear link between being the victim of racial discrimination at work and a range of mental health issues.

But there is one way we can lessen the effects of rejection, racism, ableism, sexism and other forms of prejudice, and that is just to start talking about it. Simply talking to friends about the problems you are facing, about the rejection you are suffering, and sharing common experiences has been shown to help mental health in study after study.

Setting up support groups at work, listening openly to other people who have suffered discrimination, and most importantly validating other people's experiences by being honest about your own situation all helps.   

So from now on I am going to try and be more open and honest about my experiences in the media industry. And just how Aaqil helped me, I hope I can help others (as well as myself).

We cannot increase diversity if we do not define it

Just over a week ago Ofcom (the body that regulates British television) finished its consultation process on how the industry should define whether a programme is made outside of London.

Creating a definition is more complicated than you might think. 

Ofcom’s current definition is almost ten years old and there are concerns that production companies are effectively “gaming the system”. For example some London based production companies are thought to be “opening” satellite office outside of London to claim they are “regional” just for one programme and then “closing down” immediately after the programme is completed or that key production talent living in London are shipped out of London to a hotel just for a few months.

It is also important to recognize that it is not only production companies who "game the system", there are also the concern that some broadcasters might be intentionally “turning a blind eye” to productions which they know are not really “regional” so they have more freedom to commission whoever they want.

Creating a definition evefryone has to abide by is important because the major UK broadcasters all have to produce a certain percentage of their programmes outside of London. So being able to define what qualifies as an “Out of London” production is essential.

Ofcom first came up with a definition following the 2003 Communications Act which protects TV productions outside of London.

Although many people think the current definition has its flaws (hence Ofcom is updating it) having an agreed definition has been essential in measuring how well broadcasters are doing in meeting their license agreements.

When there isn't an agreed definition broadcasters can simply make up a definition that suits them and they can claim to be making progress when in reality they are not making progress at all.
 
This is the fear that this is exactly what is happening to TV diversity right now.  

How will we know if the broadcasters are really increasing diversity or just creating a definition that suits them and then claiming success? 

Currently Channel 4 has a two tick system (where productions must be able to tick two different criteria from a complicated list) to qualify as “diverse”.

Channel 4 also talks about championing “BAME-led-indies” but does not make it clear what its definition of a “BAME-led-indie” is. Is it the ethnicity of the CEO, board members of percentage of shareholders, or something else?

BBC is even vaguer with its definition of “diversity”. It implicitly has one as Danny Cohen (when he was Head of Television) told a Parliamentary Select Committee that the BBC was going to ring-fence 15% of its development spend on diverse productions – so he must have known what did and did not qualify as a diverse production. But there did not seem to be a clear definition publically as to what was and was not a diverse production.

At the same time the British Film Institute has a three tick system, similar to Channel 4, to decide whether a production is diverse or not.

There is no industry standard definition. And as far as I am aware none of the broadcasters conducted open public consultations on how to define diversity.

In short the whole thing is a bit of a mess.

They are all defining "diversity" themselves and then surpise surprise most of them are doing really well according their own made up definition.

It is precisely for these reasons that a lot of people interested in increasing diversity in the media are now calling on Ofcom to do exactly what it has done for regional diversity and conduct a public consultation and create an industry standard definition.

And it is not just the usual suspects like Sir Lenny Henry calling on Ofcom to do this.

The Mayor of London Sadiq Khan, the mayor of a city with a 40% BAME population, has openly written to Ofcom telling them it is essential for them to define diversity.

Scotland’s First Minister Nicola Sturgeon also wrote to Ofcom “urging” them to create an industry wide definition - drawing parallels between defining BAME diversity and “what constitutes a Scottish production”.

Ofcom has been charged with ensuring that the different broadcasters increase their diversity but as Nicola Sturgeon said “Targets are unlikely to be met in the absence of robust definitions”

As someone who worked in Scotland for eight years I applaud Ofcom tightening the rules around what qualifies as an “Out of London” production because as an exec producer I saw firsthand how production companies and commissioners sometimes played fast and loose with what should and shouldn’t be counted as an out-of London production.

But as someone who also cares about diversity of women, disabled people and BAME people working in the industry I believe Sadiq Khan, Nicola Sturgeon and others are right that Ofcom now need to define “diversity” in the TV industry.

“White Saviour” images in front of the camera and (lack of) diversity behind it

OK for the 1,456^th time – DIVERSITY BEHIND THE CAMERA MATTERS!!!

Is that really so difficult to understand?

I am going to keep this blog post short because it is so obvious I am surprised I even have to write it

Unless you have been living under a rock you will have heard about the recent argument over Comic Relief and Stacey Dooley, with David Lammy MP accusing it of perpetuating “white savior” imagery.

Again for the sake of brevity I will not get into the specifics of David Lammy’s argument but suffice to say I think most people would agree that some of the imagery around Comic Relief and Red Nose Day are “problematic”.

So what is the solution?

David Lammy has come up with a few possible solution including; the suggestion of a possible comedian from Kenya the TV extravaganza could use in the future, using different imagery, and wanting “African people to speak for themselves, not UK celebs acting as tour guides.”

Even if all these things were implemented and Comic Relief became a bastion of positive imagery of African self-empowerment tackling its own problems, this would really be just another case of “whack-a-mole”. 

If you “solved” Comic Relief today there will be new issues tomorrow on another programme of how Africans and people of colour people are represented.

The real issue is that there is real lack of ethnic diversity with regards to the people in senior positions BEHIND the camera. A lack of diversity of the poeple responsible for the editorial decisions which are made and the images that are used.

In September 2018 the BBC announced the appointment of Peter Davey as the new showrunner for Red Nose Day. It then went on to announce the top people he will be working with: “He will work closely with Ben Caudell, BBC Studios Comedy Executive Producer, Colin Hopkins, Executive Producer and Mel Crawford, Head of Creative - Red Nose Day and Comic Relief. Richard Curtis, co-founder and vice-chair of Comic Relief, continues in his role as Executive Producer.”

Everybody mentioned in the press release are white.

Let us imagine for one second a major television event to raise money to combat breast or cervical cancer and it did not have a single woman on its most senior editorial team. If such a television event came under criticism for how it represented women the answer would not be to get more, or different, women celebrities IN FRONT of the camera. It would be to examine who is making these editorial decisions in the first place. 

Agree or disagree with David Lammy MP I commend the fact that he has raised a serious and troubling issue.

However there really is only one long term solution and that is to increase diversity behind the camera.

If you want better representation of disabled people on screen, please employ some disabled people behind the camera to have real editorial input on how they are represented.

If you want better representation of women on screen, please employ some women behind the camera to have real editorial input on how they are represented.

If you want better representation of Africans and people of colour on screen, please employ some Africans and people of colour behind the camera to have real editorial input on how they are represented.

I am now going to launch my own charity appeal:

Please give generously to the “Marcus Ryder Relief” its aim is to stop television execs shouting at their computer screen “DIVERSITY BEHIND THE CAMERA MATTERS!”

Thank you