TV's dirty little diversity secret revealed by crew pictures

Pictures of television production crews are trending on my Twitter and Facebook feeds, most with the hashtag #DiversityFail.

I am sure most people have seen the type of photographs I am talking about. A successful production has come to an end and one of the crew members has decided to gather everyone who has worked on the production and take a picture of their happy smiling faces. Then they post the picture on social media for the world to see.

Invariably, despite the official stats that the BBC has 15% BAME workforce diversity or Channel 4 has over 20% BAME workforce diversity, the pictures expose the real diversity of the people actually making the programmes. BAME and people with a visible disability are thin on the ground to put it politely.

The former CEO of the Royal Television Society, Simon Albury, has a habit of collecting these pictures and posting one every couple of months on social media to expose what diversity behind the camera looks like in the UK despite official statistics. 

IGNORING THE EVIDENCE

If I am truthful I usually look at these pictures and simply ignore them. 

First, I know from first hand experience what diversity behind the camera looks like.

Second, I am always wary of highlighting anecdotal evidence that might support someone's argument. Any single picture is literally, (and metaphorically), just a snapshot and so might not be representative of the industry as a whole. I was trained as an economist, I hate unscientific skewed data.

But on Monday, something different happened... 

THE POWER OF PICTURES.

TV veteran Shibbir Ahmed asked Simon to post all the pictures he’d collected over the last few months in one Twitter thread. The result is devastating and packs a psychological and emotional punch that takes the wind out of almost any disabled and/or Black Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) people working in television. The pictures seen together are also deeply demoralising for anyone actively working to increase diversity in the media.

Taken together it is impossible to dismiss them as “one-offs” or not representative of the industry as a whole, especially in the absence of any crew photographs that show high levels of BAME and disabled diversity.

The pictures are upsetting not just because they vividly illustrate the uphill struggle facing non-white and non-abled bodied people working in the industry. 

They are upsetting because it can feel as if the pictures are incredibly insensitive. It feels as if the pictures are almost celebrating our exclusion. No one featured in the pictures seems to have any empathy as to how these pictures will be received by all the types of people not featured in them. 

Far from being embarrassed or ashamed about the employment practices that these pictures seem to reveal the participants seem to want to rub salt in the very real wounds of diversity work exclusion.

However, I personally know some of the people featured a few of the pictures and I refuse to believe that they could be so hurtful and uncaring around issues of diversity.

As always science might provide the issue.

ACADEMIC STUDIES

Research by New York University’s Felix Danbold and UCLA Anderson’s Miguel Unzueta, published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology: Interpersonal Relations and Group Processes studied how different groups perceive diversity differently.

They looked at seven different studies which showed that depending on your social standing in wider society and your place in an organisation you literally looked at these types of pictures and perceived a group’s diversity differently.

In one experiment, people were shown pictures and asked to judge if the picture was “diverse”. People from marginalised racial groups felt a group was not “diverse” until the number of non-white people reached a certain percentage. This percentage was considerably lower for white people to perceive a group to be “diverse”. Interestingly this was not just about self-interest with regards to the non-white participants. The BAME participants had the same view with regards to the diversity of a picture irrespective of whether their specific racial group was featured in the picture.

In another experiment, researchers showed that different groups placed a different level of importance on where diversity was in an organisation. For example when talking about diversity at Facebook under-represented groups are more likely to want a higher representation in technical and leadership roles before declaring “victory”, compared to dominant groups.

The other interesting point to consider is that many of the #DiversityFail pictures that Simon Albury posts actually have relatively high levels of gender diversity. Other people have suggested that people may have difficulty thinking of more than one type of diversity at a time. So seeing that a team is diverse along gender lines can make people not consider other types of diversity.  

So what does all this mean?

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

First of all, the #DiversityFail pictures reveal that we are still a very long way to go when it comes to increasing diversity behind the camera. A lot further than official statistics may have us believe.

Secondly, it might have important policy implications. The BBC executive committee for example currently only has one non-white member, Gautam Rangarajan, and as far as I am aware no visibly disabled members. At the same time, 41% of the committee are women. The committee is ultimately the group that decides if the corporation is achieving its diversity targets and what those targets should be.

The research clearly demonstrates that whether a diversity policy is judged a “success” or “failure” will depend on the make up of the group assessing it. This points to the urgent need to increase the overall diversity at the top levels of all the broadcasters, not just the BBC, if executive committees’ views are going to chime with the perceptions of the more diverse population as a whole.

One last point, I must commend the work of people like Simon Albury and Shibbir Ahmed because without these #DiversityFail pictures many of us would be none the wiser of what the diversity behind the camera really looks like. I just hope that the correct policies are implemented by the broadcasters soon, so we can start using the hashtag #DiversityWin!

A Victory! BBC agree to fund BAME journalism in same way it funds local newspapers

I am not one for hyperbole but...

...possibly the biggest development in UK media diversity was announced on Monday 21st October and nobody noticed.

In the short-run the announcement will be a lifeline to BAME (Black Asian and Minority Ethnic) journalism providing them with much needed finance. But more importantly it could reshape the entire diversity debate provide a precedent for good practice for years to come.

WHAT IS THE ANNOUNCEMENT?

The BBC has got a special fund for "Local News Partnerships". It was set up in recognition that local newspapers and local journalism play an essential role in our local democracy. They expose important local stories - sometimes with national significance - that national and international media organisations just miss. And finally they provide an essential pipeline for local journalists to enter larger mainstream news outlets. But local newspapers are in financial difficulties - we cannot afford for them to go to the wall.

The BBC's fund financially supports around 140 journalists in different local newspapers to the tune of £8 million.

The BBC is not the only media organisation who recognises the importance of local journalism and supports it. Google and Facebook both have schemes to financially support local journalism and a government select committee published the Cairncross Review in February arguing the government should do the same.  

I not only support these initiatives but have argued in the past that all the reasons for supporting local news apply to supporting the "ethnic press" and BAME media organisations like; The Voice, Black Ballad, Eastern Eye, etc.

So in February after the publication of the Cairncross Review I spoke to fellow diversity champions and had meetings with BBC executives, Facebook executives and one or two MPs who had been on the government committee.

And guess what - the BBC heard us!

BAME MEDIA ORGANISATION CAN NOW GET EXTRA MONEY

  

Six months after my initial meeting with the BBC they have revised their criteria for media organisations to apply the Local News Partnership funding. 

It now states the local news provider must: 

"Target an audience typically located in a specific geographical area which is no greater than a single Nation of the UK or which targets a BAME community of the UK"

That means the Voice, Eastern Eye, Black Ballad, Gal Dem, can all now apply for funding.

IT IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN FUNDING A FEW BAME JOURNALISTS

The announcement however is far more important than funding just a few BAME journalists - important as that is. 

For a long time campaigners for BAME media diversity have pointed out that attempts to increase regional diversity (supporting local newspapers, producing more programmes outside of London) have been backed by real money and real jobs. While efforts to increase BAME diversity have usually been in the shape of mentoring schemes, more training, or onscreen initiatives.

Over the last twelve years efforts to increase regional diversity have been extremely successful, while efforts to increase BAME diversity behind the camera have been incremental at best.

There is also the natural tension that increases in regional diversity to areas outside London can be detrimental to the BAME community that is heavily concentrated in London. 

The BBC announcement sets a precedent that every person wanting to increase BAME diversity will be able to point to from now on.

It says that BAME diversity should be treated in exactly the same way as regional diversity  with financial support.

When the BBC and Channel 4 for example ring-fences money for regional productions it is hard to justify why no money should be ring-fenced for BAME productions if the BBC recognises this important principle with its Local News Partnerships.

WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN NEXT?

In the short run the BBC needs to be applauded for what it has just done. I cannot stress enough that I went to ALL the large media organisations with schemes to support local journalism arguing that they should include BAME journalism. ONLY THE BBC CHANGED ITS POLICY.

We also now need BAME media organisations to apply for the money that is rightfully theirs. There is no point fighting for a change if we do not then follow through. Taking the money does not compromise your editorial position in anyway, all the local newspapers that take the BBC money are fiercely independent and do not hesitate to criticise the BBC when they think it is necessary.

We now need to go back to the government select committee, Google and Facebook and restate why they should follow the BBC's example.

And lastly we should argue that the BBC should not stop here. It should look at all of its policies to support regional diversity and see how they can adapt those successful methods to support not just BAME diversity but all other types of diversity including; LGBTQ+, disability and gender.

But before we do all that we might just want to go and get a drink. We don't often get wins like this one - this is worth celebrating.

Are "racist" journalists out to get Sir Mo Farah?

Is the “racist” media out to get Sir Mo Farah?

That is definitely what the Olympic multiple-gold-medalist implied at a press conference recently when asked questions about his former coach Alberto Salazar being found guilty of drug doping.

When first asked about his former coach his response was basically to say it has nothing to do with him; “The headline is Farah, Farah, Farah. There is no allegation against me. I’ve not done anything wrong. Let’s be clear – these allegations are about Alberto Salazar.”

So far, so much a sports story that I wouldn’t normally write about in this blog. But then Mo went on. 

“As much as I am nice to you, there is a clear agenda to this,” Farah said. “I have seen this many times. I have seen it with Raheem Sterling, with Lewis Hamilton. I cannot win whatever I do.”

It was clear to anybody listening to the press conference that by invoking Raheem Sterling and Lewis Hamilton, Mo was calling the media out for being racist and they were targeting him with this line of questioning because he is black.

So is Mo right? Is he the victim of a racist media?

The answer is a definite “No - but Mo is not crazy to say it” 

The press conference once again it illustrates why diversity in the media is so important and why it is almost impossible to do good journalism without it.

Let me explain why.

First I must declare an interest in the Alberto Salazar story. I was the executive producer of the original Panorama that exposed allegations about the Olympic coach and the Nike Oregon Project which Salazar ran and Mo was part of back in 2015. 

Four years later Salazar has been found guilty of using drugs as part of his coaching methods to assist athletes. 

It is of course important to note that Farah and Salazar parted ways in 2017 (two years after the Panorama investigation) and Mo Farah has never been found guilty of any doping violations. 

However it is perfectly legitimate for journalists to put questions to one of Salazar’s top athletes about the illegal coaching practices which were going on while that top athlete was under his charge.

So, in that respect Mo Farah is completely wrong to level accusations of racism.

However his sense that he is being treated unfairly and the victim of a witch-hunt are supported by most academic research and it has to do with the lack of diversity of those questioning him.

During the course of the press conference something strange happened while I am watching it on my computer. At the start Mo fills the frame, but midway through the camera zooms out to reveal some of the journalists. And yes, you’ve guessed it, they are all white. (There may have been others questioning the Olympian who were not white but they were not visible). 

I am also reminded of a picture that circulated online a few days earlier of the BBC production team that covered the World Athletics Championships in Doha. In the photograph is roughly 200 people who appear overwhelmingly white.

What you have then is a GB athletics team where black sports stars are vastly over-represented coupled with an overwhelmingly white team of broadcasters deciding the editorial decisions of what should be covered and how. This is an issue that has been raised in the UK most notably by BCOMS (Black Collective of Media in Sport).

A lot of academic studies have been done into trust in the police but I think a lot of the conclusions are transferable to trust in journalism. Numerous studies have shown that trust in the police by marginalised groups is heavily correlated with their level of representation in the force.

To put it simply, it is hard to trust in the racial impartiality of a group’s decisions if it seems unable to hire impartially.

Or to misquote a well-worn phrase “Good journalism should not only be done, but also seen to be done”.

And this is where we get into the world of hypotheticals.

Would the predominantly white journalists have asked Sir Seb Coe the same questions during the height of his athletic powers about possible doping accusations in the same way they are questioning Mo? 

Would Mo be treated differently if he were white?

The truth is we will never know.

And that is the fundamental problem with the lack of diversity. It can cause you to question the very legitimacy of good journalism.

It goes from “Mo is just playing the race card!” to “Those are some legitimate questions but would they be treating him differently if he was white?”

One last point about some of those academic studies into police trust. A lot of them found that the actions of the police didn’t actually change when they become more diverse (arrest rates etc) but trust in those actions did.

I think the BBC and other media organisations have done some great investigations into doping (I’ve been involved in some) I don’t want a cloud to hang over the hard work of those journalists just because their bosses haven't put in the hard work to increase the diversity of their workforce.

Lack of diversity may have just changed how the BBC is run forever

Who runs the BBC?

Because of the BBC’s lack of diversity the answer to that question might have changed forever on Monday 7th October 2019, and with it the shape of our democracy.

A few months ago I wrote about “grey rhino” theory. This is the idea developed by policy analyst Michele Wucker that people, organisations and even entire countries, can be slow to react to impending disasters, even when they know they are coming. 

The coming disasters are called “grey rhinos” because we can see the dust clouds of the stampeding rhino but we fail to take the necessary action until the rhino is right on top of us and it is too late.

The best example of this is climate change; scientists continue to warn us that disaster is coming (we see the clouds of dust) but it increasingly looks like we are not going to act until it is too late.

Media diversity is a perfect example of a “grey rhino”. Everybody acknowledges that a lack of diversity will have catastrophic effects and yet we seem paralysed, unable to take the necessary steps to avoid the problem.

Now here is the really interesting part of “grey rhino” theory: We may know the source of the coming disaster (climate change, lack of diversity etc) but we do not know what shape it will take.

So for example, we might know climate change is coming but we don’t really know if it will be the sea level rise that will be the real disaster or crop failure or species extinction or something else altogether that we haven’t even thought of that will be the real catastrophe. 

This is precisely what has just happened at the BBC - a grey rhino is stampeding through the corporation but it is destroying things in ways no one predicted.

The grey rhino in question is of course diversity.

When it comes to diversity the common narrative is broadcasters need to increase their diversity otherwise viewers will not see themselves reflected in the output and go to other media which more accurately reflects them. 

In short;  We see the grey rhino, we might not be reacting but we are pretty sure what he consequences will be when the grey rhino arrives. 

This analysis gave broadcasters a false sense of security because viewing figures are falling but are still relatively stable and so the grey rhino is still some way off. 

But we were all wrong.

We were right about the grey rhino, we were just completely wrong about the consequences of ignoring it.

Let me explain.

Two weeks ago the BBC’s Executive Complaints Unit (ECU) partially upheld a complaint against Breakfast News presenter Naga Munchetty for breaking their editorial guidelines when talking about racism in relation to Donald Trump. It would appear that the ECU is overwhelmingly male and not a single person of colour works for the ECU (although the BBC have refused to give details of the of the racial makeup of the unit).

After a small public outcry over the decision the BBC’s executive committee publicly came out in support of the ECU’s decision, and one member of the executive committee, David Jordan, made public appearances defending the decision. This point is crucial because it was no longer just an issue for the complaints’ unit but had been elevated to the BBC’s highest committee. It is also important to note that there is only one person of colour on the executive committee. 

There then followed more public outcry following the executive committee’s actions, and a piece in the Guardian which showed that David Jordan was either not in possession of all the facts when he made the public appearances to defend the decision or actively misled the public when he made his TV appearances.

At which point the Director General, Tony Hall, overruled his executive committee and said they were wrong to defend the ECU’s decision.

Again this point of the story is crucial.

For the DG to overrule a decision of one department (the ECU) is serious but hardly catastrophic. For the DG to unilaterally overrule the decision of his executive committee is possibly the most serious thing any head of a company or organisation can do.

This means that the DG has either lost faith in the judgement of his executive committee, or he has not lost faith and has only reversed the decision for political expediency.

If the former then normally some members of the executive committee would be moved to new positions as their judgement is wanting.

If it is the latter then you would expect the BBC Board - who oversees the governance of the DG and the executive committee - to step in and discipline the DG for pandering to the public and not abiding by the corporation's own rules.

Neither of these two things have happened.

And so on Monday a small earthquake happened. 

Ofcom - the UK’s media regulator stepped in.

According to the Guardian,  Ofcom told the BBC that it has “concerns about whether the public broadcaster’s complaints process could still commend the confidence of the public, not least because it could not explain on what basis - other than public outrage- the director general had overturned the original decision.” 

Kevin Backhurst, effectively the number two at Ofcom, said “We’ll be requiring the BBC to be more transparent about its process and compliance findings as a matter of urgency.”

Now I cannot express strongly enough the importance of the last two paragraphs.

In plain English what Ofcom is saying is: We are stepping in to make sure the BBC executive is governed properly. 

Telling the BBC how to run its complaints procedure and how transparent the BBC executive should be in explaining its decisions is a question of governance. Telling the DG that he needs to be accountable to explain why he overturned his executive committee is a question of governance.

What Ofcom effectively did yesterday is tell the BBC Board, who are meant to oversee governance, you are not doing your job and we have been forced to step in.

This is massive. 

It potentially changes who the BBC is accountable to. It potentially changes the independence of the BBC from being overseen by a board at arms length of the government, to a regulator with a different relationship to government. If it doesn’t change it - at the very least it clarifies the relationship in ways people had not fully appreciated.

The BBC executive sees this as a major shift in their relationship with Ofcom, as they felt the regulator had “no clear jurisdiction” to undertake some of he actions they have undertaken and told them so directly.

As the national broadcaster the BBC is a key pillar of British democracy. Whether its governance is overseen by a semi-independent board or a regulator with links to several government departments (although officially independent of government) might seem like a technical point but it effects the very nature of our democracy. 

Even if everything settles down after this, Ofcom has flexed its muscles and publicly put the DG, the executive and the board in their place. Nothing will ever be the same again.

Diversity was the grey rhino that we all knew was coming, but it has come far sooner than we all expected and for good or ill it is disrupting things in ways no one predicted.

I love the BBC and I have a lot of respect for Ofcom. Neither are perfect and maybe the changing relationship between the two is for the best. But ideally I want us to make any changes to governance and our democracy slowly and in a fully considered manner. Not for it to forced upon us by a stampeding “grey rhino”.

The first “grey rhino” is already stampeding through one media organisation, there is no doubt unless we address diversity there will be more to follow and who knows what they will trample on.

Sir Lenny Henry Speech - Fighting for Diversity is Scary

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Thank you so much for giving me the opportunity to speak to you today.

I’m absolutely delighted to be here in the North of England.  Welcome to “things Boris Johnson has never said’. 

PHONE IT IN

First of all, I have a small confession to make.

Over the years I have made quite a few speeches about diversity in the media.

And believe me, it’s been a slog. In the early days, the BBC’s idea of diversity was to hire some blonde bloke who’d been to Oxford instead of Cambridge.

And so when I was first asked to give a speech, I thought it would be easy.

I would look over my previous speeches -cut a bit from the talk I gave at BAFTA – paste a bit from the one I gave at the Royal Television Society and throw in a few phrases from the last time I gave evidence to the House of Lords

I’d start off by telling you how dire the situation is : 

That only 13.6% of working TV directors are women

Only 2.3% of UK television is made by BAME directors

And only 0.3% of people working the film industry are disabled.

What does that mean? That a show was directed by a black guy’s left kneecap?

And then I’d round it all of with something inspirational and then end with a joke.

Like: Walt Disney once said “All our dreams can come true, if we have the courage to pursue them.”

That’s inspirational.

Imagine how much courage it must have taken Donald Duck to go out every single day without pants.

But I’m not gonna do that today.

Seven years ago I promised myself I would never do that. I promised I would always try and speak my truth when I talked about racism or diversity or my experience in the television industry.

And I want to share a truth with you all today about talking about diversity in the media industry.

It is scary!

WHY DIVERSITY IS IMPORTANT

Doing the kind of speech I outlined earlier, quoting a few figures, saying that diversity is a good thing and everybody should be nice to one another - is easy.

But it doesn’t change anything. It doesn’t achieve anything.

Hand on heart, I want the media industry specifically and Britain in general to change. I want us to become a more diverse and inclusive society

I focus on diversity in the media for two reasons

First, it’s an industry I actually know about, and second – I think it’s important for democracy and whether we can all live in peace with one another.

You can’t have freedom of speech if large parts of society are not given equal access to the media

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

There is not a single major news progamme - from BBC Breakfast news, The Today programme , Panorama , Dispatches - that is headed by a person of colour or a visibly disabled person. That is going to affect which stories they decide to pick and how they cover them.

And it is not just news that’s important – Drama affects us on an emotional level. It enables us to walk in the shoes of another person and understand their reality in a way factual programmes do not.

If we want to understand our diverse neighbours , if we want to be a society at peace with itself and not trying to scapegoat  one part of society or another, I believe drama is the best way to do that. 

So we need true diversity in drama. 

We need disabled people telling their stories so we can understand the world from their perspective.

We need women to have equal access to direct their own films so we can literally see the world through their eyes.

And I want BAME people to be able to create drama and comedy so you can all feel our joy and pain.

So why does talking about diversity sometimes make me scared?

SPEAKING TRUTH TO POWER

Because as long as I just stop the speech at this point – everyone is happy. But if I want real change I have to speak truth to power.

I have to identify what powerful people are doing wrong. 

Tell them what they’re doing wrong - often publicly.

And then offer solutions that many of them might not want to hear.

And after I’ve done all of that – I’ve got to knock on their door and say

 “Hi, it’s Lenny here – that guy that was saying all that stuff? Can I have another job now?”

It is scary for all of us to speak uncomfortable truth to our bosses, but for people from diverse backgrounds: women, disabled people, BAME people  it is particularly difficult.

Study after study  has shown that women and people of colour pay a heavy price for promoting diversity .

A group of researchers studied 300 executives both male and female. They found that when men promoted diversity they received slightly higher performance ratings . They were perceived as ‘good guys’ creating a better workplace. However when female executives promoted diversity , they were perceived as nepotistic - trying to ‘advantage their own group’ and their own performance was then rated negatively.

In another study, two years ago, they found ‘women and non-white executives who advocated for diversity were rated much worse by their bosses’

I don’t want to bring you down with science but I have one more study for you, that might be even more depressing than the first two.

This study found that non-white people who had previously demonstrated a tendency to advocate for diversity  are less likely to be promoted or get a new job. In this study, the researchers sent out CVs  to prospective employers and found that  CV’s that included experiences related to their ethnicity were more likely to be passed over for jobs – even at companies that had publicly stated that they valued diversity .

That is why talking about diversity is scary.

NAGA MUNCHETTY

Just look at what happened to Naga Munchetty just now – for those of you who don’t know the story – because you’ve been living under a rock or in a cave or have BT Broadband - let me give you a little background.

On Wednesday 25th of September , the BBC’s executive complaints unit , officially found that BBC Breakfast’s presenter of colour Naga Munchetty had breached the corporations guidelines by offering a personal opinion of President Donald Trump’s comment that 4 congresswomen of colour who are American Citizens should ‘Go Back ‘ to the places from which they came ‘ 

Naga said the tweet was racist . This is true.

Naga said, “every time I have been told as a woman of colour to go back to where I came from , that was embedded in racism. This is true.

And when asked  how it made her feel she said “Furious. Absolutely furious and I can imagine lots of people in this country will be feeling absolutely furious a man in that position thinks its ok to skirt the lines by using language like that.” Again that is  true.

For speaking her truth as a woman of colour ,the BBC’s complaint unit found she had broken their editorial guidelines.

Now, I do know this: a woman of colour calling a racist tweet racist and telling the world how she has experienced racism should be applauded not chastised. 

Imagine a person in a wheel chair being criticised for talking about their experiences of disability or a trans person for talking about discrimination around their gender or Piers Morgan being attacked for saying how upset he gets whenever he sees a vegan sausage roll

Fortunately the BBC has now seen the error of its ways and reversed their ruling as of Monday - a good start in resolving the crisis - but all the same, let’s give Naga, and every journalist of colour who has stood up to racism a round of applause.

That feels good – applauding a win like that. 

But we still live in scary times when it comes to diversity, inclusion, representation. There’s a long way to go.

Because – I gave speech at Cambridge recently and I smelt complacency in the room. I sensed an element of , “ Yawn: haven’t we  been here before?” and 

“Surely we solved diversity in the TV and Film industry last  year? More Champagne Tarquin’’ 

That frightened me to death - to reiterate: representation behind the scenes, behind the camera in our industry, indeed in many industries has not been solved. 

WE ARE OUR BEST ALLIES

I’ve never spoken about this before.

But I know if I find it scary, there must be millions of other people out there who feel the same way. People, not just in TV and Film but on campuses, in schools, in office buildings and factories all over the country – issues of representation and identity affect us all.

Now as far as I know I don’t have any TV execs in the audience today who I’m trying to persuade to implement new policies. But every time I speak I do want to create change..

First of all we need allies.

If you’re a black man support your female co-worker when she’s calling out sexism

If you’re a white woman, support your black co-worker when they are advocating policies to combat ethnicity pay gaps.

And white men - well white men - just support everyone.

Ladies and Gentleman – human beings – however you identify. We must all take a stand if we want a more diverse society

Because fighting for a more inclusive, diverse better society is scary and we must support each other.

We’re all activists now - and together – we can make a better world.

Thank you.


(Printed by kind permission of Sir Lenny Henry)

Broadcasters ignored the warning signs that led to the Naga Munchetty crisis

Mistakes happen every day, a crisis is usually years in the making.

One of my best friends is a pilot for British Airways and when I sometimes complain about the work  pressure I am under not to make mistakes he often slyly responds by telling me that when pilots make mistakes, terrible things can happen - literally hundreds of people can die. 

the fact is airlines simply cannot afford for pilots to make mistakes. 

But simply telling pilots “Do not mess up!” doesn’t work. 

Airlines need to examine all the reasons a pilot could possibly make a mistake; from tiredness to confusing panel displays to over-complicated controls and address them. Even then the airline needs to factor in that pilots are human and will still make mistakes so they need to create fail-safes and backups so the mistakes are caught (by the co-pilot, air-traffic control, etc), stopping the mistake becoming a crisis.

And now here is the important point: According to my pilot friend because of all the fail-safes mistakes happen but usually they only become a crisis if and when the airline has allowed the problems that led up to the mistake to go unchecked and fester for years.

PLANES DIDN'T CRASH BUT THERE IS A CRISIS AT THE BBC

Which brings me neatly to the current crisis that the BBC is facing over the finding that their news presenter, Naga Munchetty, broke their editorial guidelines when she commented on President Trump’s racist tweet telling four congresswomen of colour “go back to the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came”.

Many BBC execs are in open defiance of the corporation and are tweeting why the corporation was wrong in its decision against Naga. An open letter was signed by prominent broadcasters and journalists of colour demanding that the decision be reviewed, an online petition about it has gathered thousands of signatories. And in a rare example of cross party consensus BAME politicians from both left and right have condemned the BBC for the decision.

The BBC made a mistake in their finding against Naga, almost everyone except the BBC now accepts that, but what the corporation is facing now is a crisis and it has been years in the making.

The bigger problem is once you look at the factors that led up to this current crisis nearly all UK broadcasters suffer from the same problems. It might have hit the BBC now, but it is a crisis that could just as easily happen at ITV, Channel 4 or Channel 5. 

So let’s unpick the makings of this crisis and what ALL broadcasters could learn from it:

LESSON NUMBER ONE - It is not just about the BIG number

The BBC, and other media organisations, often set impressive diversity targets for themselves. For example the BBC wants 15 percent of its workforce to come from a BAME background by 2020  and have set a target of 15 percent for management as well. At the same time Channel 4 have a target that 20% of its employees should be BAME by 2020. Most broadcasters have similarly set targets for gender, disability and other protected characteristics.

What many people have been saying for years though is that while the overall BIG number is important in many ways the more important numbers are the detailed statistics of where the "diverse" people are in the organisation.

Are they in programme making positions, able to shape the programmes we watch? If they are in management positions are they in powerful commissioning positions deciding which programmes are grren lit or are they in management positions in sales, (which is important for bringing revenue into an organisation but does not shape the editorial direction of the organisation).   

This over-emphasis on the BIG number has meant broadcasters have failed to address the fact that not one editor of a major news and current affairs strand (BBC Breakfast, ITV News at Ten, Dispatches, Panorama, Newsnight etc) is a person of colour. 

Importantly, given the current BBC crisis, it would appear that BAME people are massively underrepresented in the department, the Executive Complaints Unit (ECU), responsible for judging whether Naga Munchetty had broken the guidelines. By some accounts the ECU is 100% white, although this is impossible to confirm because the BBC has not revealed these details.

Similarly if one looks at the BBC’s Executive Committee who ultimately oversees the ECU and have been responding to the crisis they only have one person of colour who has limited experience in news and current affairs.

Again I must stress this is not just a BBC problem. The number of people of colour on the executive boards of ALL the broadcasters can be counted on one hand.

By looking at the BIG number the BBC failed to address diversity in the very parts of the organisation which are most vulnerable to crisis and public scrutiny. Today it might be the BBC but the problems run across the industry.

LESSON NUMBER TWO - Chief Diversity Officers Matter.

In February of this year the BBC’s Director of Diversity announced he was resigning. For people who knew anything about diversity in the corporation it did not come as a massive surprise. To date the BBC has still not replaced him.

The BBC has had someone acting up in a caretaker capacity overseeing the HR aspect of the role, but for over 8 months (now going into the ninth month) the BBC has had no one with the specific task of thinking strategically about diversity.

Speaking to senior HR figures in the UK, and experienced recruitment consultants, I am told that it should normally take three months to fill this kind of role. And given that his departure was highly expected it is strange that no succession planning had taken place before his resignation.

Most objective onlookers would hardly think it is a coincidence that the BBC is now in the middle of a crisis in the very area, diversity, that it has failed to fill the director position.

Again this might just seem like a BBC problem, after all the other broadcasters have heads of diversity and inclusion in place, but there is a bigger problem that all the broadcasters are vulnerable to.

None of the Heads of Diversity positions sit on their respective Executive Committees. And so in times of crisis s/he would only be able to advise the committee but would ultimately have no power in the final decisions that are made.

If the current BBC crisis teaches us anything it is that diversity should be at the very heart of their decision making with the person overseeing it having real power and sitting at the top table. 

I hope that the current crisis will cause all the broadcasters to rethink where the Director of Diversity ultimately sits in the organisation and I specifically hope the BBC appoints someone quickly.

LESSON NUMBER THREE - Diverse audiences matter

In 2007 the BBC set up “audience councils” to report directly to the BBC Trust. The members of these audience councils were appointed to represent the audiences in different nations and regions in the UK so the corporation could have an informed panel of members to give them direct feedback on their performance. 

The fact they were appointed was crucial, as this was not just doing market research on what the audience felt, but enabled critical informed feedback on sensitive issues.

However the problem with the audience councils is that while they represented the different geographic areas there wasn’t one tasked with specifically looking at the issue of diversity.

The audience councils were disbanded in 2017 when Ofcom took over the regulatory role previously overseen by the Trust but worryingly Ofcom has repeated the same pattern of having panels set up along geographic lines with none charged with directly focusing on diversity. 

To be fair the BBC has recently created a new advisory group to monitor diversity at the BBC, but many of its members are entertainers and producers who directly rely on the BBC for contracts, while very useful this group is not the same as an independent audience council and there are issues of conflicts of interest when speaking truth to power.

Again this is not a problem exclusive to the BBC. While all the broadcasters are far more sensitive and vocal about diversity than ever before, their traditional structures set up decades ago, are often set up along geographic lines.

IGNORING THE WARNING SIGNS

Setting out just these three points it becomes clear that while the BBC made a mistake over Naga it became a crisis because it has not adequately addressed other structural issues over the preceeding months and years.

It has unduly focused on the wrong diversity figures to ensure diversity is at the crunch points where a crisis could happen - in this particular case the ECU and the Executive Board.

It has been slow to appoint a Director of Diversity who would have overseen the very area where the crisis happened, and worryingly when the person is finally appointed they will not sit at the top table.

The BBC is still predominantly structured along geographic lines and diversity is not prioritised in the structures in the same way that Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the English regions are.

All the broadcasters suffer from these same structural issues to a greater or lesser degree.

The depressing thing is that all of these issues have been flagged up to the broadcasters before. Sir Lenny Henry has given speeches in the Houses Parliament on the diversity figures. I have personally written about the issue of where the position of the Director of Diversity should sit and spoken to senior BBC executives about it. And politicians such as; Nicola Sturgeon, Sadiq Khan and Dawn Butler have all written about ensuring diversity is structurally prioritized, along similar lines to geographic diversity.

Broadcasters all make mistakes - after all they are run by humans - but unless they fix these fundamental flaws just one mistake can all too easily become the next crisis.

And when that happens I won’t be telling the broadcasters “I told you so”, I think I will just call up my pilot friend and see if I can catch the next flight to Jamaica for a nice holiday and avoid the drama.

Brief important sidenote:

On a side note there is also talk that the BBC is thinking of effectively demoting their head of HR. With the current head of HR about to leave there are rumours the position should no longer sit on the executive board. To my knowledge the only major media organisation that has a similar structure where the Head of HR does not sit at the top table is PBS in the US, which has a far smaller workforce. If true this would seem a strange restructure for the BBC, especially at a time when we see mass dissatisfaction amongst large parts of their staff openly criticising the corporation's decision over Naga Munchetty. These kind of public displays by employees criticising their workplace are usually a symptom of an unhappy workforce. This might not be the best time to give HR less power. But hopefully my sources are wrong and the rumours are false.