Why TV Should Listen To Black People

Do people listen to you? I mean really listen to you. 

Do people hear what you are saying? Respect your point? And finally after weighing up what you have said do they act on it?

A few weeks ago I attended an EU conference on diversity in the media. There were delegates from all over Europe and numerous issues came up from; what is the right way to describe immigrants to whether the fast pace of news works against diversity?

But one issue that ran through many of the discussions was who do we actually listen to and whose opinions do we respect? This is most obvious when it comes to on-screen representation. For example why are there not more female experts on TV and radio (in a 2011 study only 28% of guests on BBC’s Question Time  were women and the figure fell to 16% of reporters and guests on the BBC’s flagship radio news programme Today). I do not have the statistics for the number of Black and Minority Ethnic and Disabled experts on our screens but a report conducted in 2009 highlighted that of the 104 regular presenters on Radio4 none were black and only two were Asian. There is undoubtedly a problem of on-screen and on-mic under-representation. I believe this is an indication of whose voices matter and who is really listened to.

But it is not just on-screen and on-mic that we have to worry about this issue. Let me give you a scenario that I think most of us have experienced at one time or another:

You are in a meeting and come up with a great idea. You offer your amazing idea to the group and are duly ignored. Five minutes later and the person next to you voices the same idea and everyone listens to them and takes up “their” great idea! They are a star and you are left fuming into your Americano.

According to feminist philosopher Miranda Fricker you have just experienced a “Testimonial Injustice” or to put it another way you are suffering from a “credibility deficit”. Although everyone at different times in their lives can suffer a “credibility deficit” you are more likely to experience this problem if you are not part of the “in-group”. Nine times out of ten that usually means the victim is from a diverse group: the only woman at a meeting, the only black person at the news debrief or the single disabled member of the production team.

I believe that credibility deficits are one of the largest factors behind the lack of diversity in the media.     

Credibility deficits go to the very core of how much someone in valued by their colleagues and peers. The media is an industry where ideas and creativity are all important and good editorial judgement is often valued more than any technical abilities. Having your opinion valued is possibility the most important factor in being employed or your career progressing.

There are numerous reasons why there might be fewer female, BME and disabled experts on TV and radio. It might just reflect wider prejudices in society generally. For example all the major political party leaders (with the exception of the Greens) are men, it is not the media’s fault if this skews the gender ratio of the political experts they use. However my fear is the explanation the media merely reflects inequalities in wider society is only part of the story. The concern is the lack of on-screen representation of diverse expert opinions is the physical manifestation of how much opinions from diverse backgrounds are valued in general. If that is the case then it does not bode well for the employment and career progression of large swathes of the population.

However I don’t believe all is lost and we should not just give up hope. Nan Winton was the first woman to read the BBC news on 19 June 1960, but BBC Audience research concluded that viewers thought a woman reading the late news was "not acceptable” in other words she suffered from a “credibility deficit” and was removed from the role in less than a year later. The view that women lacked the credibility to read the news persisted until 1975 when Angela Rippon was appointed to read the news. Nowadays I don’t think anyone would question the credibility of the news because a woman was reading it.

The experience of newsreaders proves “credibility deficits” can and often do shift. I just hope we are at the Angela Rippon stage and not the Nan Winton stage when it comes to all diversity representation in the media.

Diversity Vs. Difference

When I am not working in television or blogging there is a fair chance I will be running. Anyone that knows me will be able to vouch that I am a little bit of a running junkie  - I completed 4 marathons last year and I’ve got my eye on two more this year. So when the Boston Marathon bombing happened I remember exactly where I was when I first heard about it. From every comment on twitter to the Runner's World magazine special edition I have followed every twist and turn of the story. My obsession with the story has not only surprised me but has taught me an important lesson when it comes to how we cover diversity in the media.

Although the marathon bombing was terrible it is far from the worst terrorist attack in recent history. More deadly bombings occur in Afghanistan and Iraq regularly. 

So why the obsession with the Boston Marathon?

The answer to that question highlights the lesson the Boston Marathon has taught me.

Similarity breeds sympathy.

The Boston Marathon bombing targeted runners and I am a runner. I feel an affinity to runners. When running in the park I often greet (or at least nod at) fellow runners - I don't greet all the dog walkers I pass. I look at the Boston bombing and I see the victims and wonder if that could have been me. I read the articles about the injured runners and my heart bleeds.

What my interest in the Boston marathon demonstrate is that the more points of similarity one can see with other people the more sympathy one feels. 

But what does this mean for people trying to increase diversity in the media? If similarity breeds sympathy does that mean difference literally begets indifference?

And in TV language “indifference” translates as smaller audiences! 

Luckily I am not the first person who has worried if people care less about people who are different from themselves:

In 2005 Prof. Mark Levine devised an experiment where a jogger pretends to fall and needs help. He conducted the experiments in Manchester. Half the time he put the runner in a Manchester United football shirt and the other half of the time he put the runner in a Liverpool football top. The results were striking. When the runner was wearing the "local" shirt he was helped 80% of the time, while pretending to be a Liverpool supporter he was helped only 40% per cent of the time.

Now I could be depressed about this and think this is a strong argument against championing on screen diversity. But there is a very large silver-lining from the grey cloud that we feel more sympathy for people who we think are more similar to ourselves.

The silver-lining is it doesn't seem to take a lot to feel a sense of similarity with someone. And once we feel that connection all the differences don't seem to matter. 

The other part of Prof. Levine's experiment was to see if the runner was helped if they were wearing just a plain white "neutral" shirt. In the experiments they were helped marginally more than when he was wearing the rival Liverpool shirt. So the Manchester United shirt was all it took for bystanders to feel a connection. Just a shirt! 

I feel a real connection to other people if they are fellow runners but the great thing is I then feel connected to them regardless of any other differences we might have. I have sympathy with the victims of the Boston bombings regardless of their race, nationality or any other characteristic that we sometimes categorise people by.

The challenge for those of us producing television programmes who want more diversity on-screen is to actually find the similarities that our viewers’ can connect with. In other words the viewer wont care less about a person if they are of a different race, gender, disability etc if we can find that metaphorical “Manchester United Shirt”  

The paradox is that often when promoting diversity we concentrate on the differences, what Prof. Levine’s experiment might teach us is maybe the less we look at the differences the more on-screen diversity we can achieve.

(The original version of this blog appears on my running blog http://thesoundofrunning.blogspot.co.uk . I told you at the start that I am a running junkie)

What Should We Call Immigrants?

Last year the conviction rate for rape prosecutions that went to court in England reached an all time high. In 2007/8 58% of cases that went to court ended with a guilty verdict last year the rate was 63%. The conviction rates for domestic violence also increased, in 2005/6 it stood at 60% and last year it had jumped to 74%.

That still means that last year 38% of the people who go to court claiming they were raped saw the person they were accusing walk free. And for people who claimed they were victims of domestic violence a quarter of them saw the person they thought had subjected them to domestic violence found not guilty.

I have a special term for those people who unsuccessfully accuse people of rape; “Fake Sex Victims”, my name for unsuccessful domestic abuse claimants; “Cry-Wolf Partners”.

OF COURSE MY LAST SENTENCE IS COMPLETE NONSENSE.

Labelling unsuccessful accusers as “Fakers” or “Cry-Wolf’ers” would be offensive and objectionable. But what it illustrates is how we label people (or don’t label them) is important. We wouldn't dream of emotively naming possible rape victims because they had an unsuccessful legal experience. But are we as sensitive or as aware when it comes to other groups of people who are unable to convince a court of their story? 

A quiet battle has been raging in America in the last few months over the labelling of some immigrants. The big question is what do you call someone who has immigrated to America but does not have the legal right to be there?

In April Associated Press decided to stop their journalists from using the term “illegal immigrant”. They told everyone writing for them to “use ‘illegal’ only to refer to an action, not a person: illegal immigration, but not illegal immigrant.” I think the thinking behind this is that it is hard to report objectively and dispassionately on someone if the first word you use about them is the emotive word “illegal”. Almost by definition an “illegal” anything is a bad thing. Soon after Associated Press updated its style guidance the L.A. Times did the same.

In a memo to its newsroom they said:

Immigration is one of the most contentious and compelling subjects of our time. In our coverage, we aim to report with authority and balance — to be fair, nuanced and precise. We know that language matters and that our word choices must likewise be fair, nuanced and precise… "Illegal immigrants" is overly broad and does not accurately apply in every situation. The alternative suggested by the 1995 guidelines, "undocumented immigrants," similarly falls short of our goal of precision. It is also untrue in many cases, as with immigrants who possess passports or other documentation but lack valid visas.

A few weeks later and the New York Times also sent out a new directive to their journalists. They didn’t go as far as AP and the L.A. Times in banning the term “illegal immigrant” but they discouraged it and said careful consideration should be exercised when using the term.

Words have power and how we describe people from marginalised and minority communities is extremely important. For anyone interested in issues of diversity in television how we cover immigration and immigrants must be of importance. In Britain immigrants are one of the most marginalised groups in our society and one only has to look at UKIP’s recent poll ratings to realise immigration is easily one of the most politically charged issues right now.

Before the recent actions by certain sections of the American media I had never even thought about the use of the phrase “illegal immigrant”. American culture and politics are different from British culture and politics and so I am not arguing that we should necessarily follow in the footsteps of our cousins across the pond. But we should be very careful when reporting on people from diverse backgrounds that might not have the same access to the media as other people. And we must recognise that labels are powerful.

Now where’s that headline about “Bogus Asylum Seekers”?

UPDATE: Since writing this blog post my friends on twitter have pointed out that the debate surrounding illegal immigration is not confined to the States. Cecelia Malmstrom the European Commissioner for Home Affairs feels that all official EU documents should follow Associated Press' lead and drop the term "illegal immigrant". So far I have not found any major UK newspaper or broadcaster seriously considering re-labelling "illegal immigrants" but I trust my readers and twitter friends will let me know if they have any examples.

UPDATE 2: The Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford published a study on 8th August 2013 showing that the UK press are most likely to use the word "illegal" when describing immigrants. The report is a fascinating read for anyone interested in this subject http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/reports/migration-news 

Why Black People Need To Smile More

I have been working in television now for over twenty years and if there is one thing I have learnt is that we are a competitive bunch. We might try and hide it and in typically middle-class fashion conversations between my TV colleagues are sprinkled with self-deprecation but the competitive edge is never far away. We all know who has won which award, we know the ratings of our programmes and we know who is hot and who is not.

I’ve recently been thinking if there is a way to turn that natural competitiveness to our advantage when it comes to increasing diversity in the media?

I think we could increase diversity in front and behind the camera with something as simple as a smile.

Four years ago the Sacramento Municipal  Utility District in America had a problem. They wanted people to reduce their energy consumption. They had been trying for years trying all different tactics but nothing had worked and people’s energy consumption had slowly kept creeping up.

But it turns out TV people are not the only naturally competitive people. Residents in Sacramento want to keep up with the Joneses - or in this case quite literally keep up with their neighbours.

To tap into this competitive nature the Municipal Utility began sending out statements to customers rating them on their energy use compared with that of neighbours in 100 homes of similar size that used the same heating fuel. The customers were also compared with the 20 neighbours who were especially efficient in saving energy.

Customers who scored high earned two smiley faces on their statements. “Good” conservation got a single smiley face. While customers whose energy use put him in the “below average” category, got frowns.

The results were amazing. Not only did the customers who received a frown reduced their energy to try and earn a smiley face, the customers with smiley faces reduced their energy even further. They clearly enjoyed the feeling “being in the lead”.

Right now most broadcasters keep records of Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) employment of their in-house production departments and of the larger independent companies. Some of the broadcasters also keep figures for on-screen representation.

Despite these figures being kept, as an editor of a department I have very little empirical evidence of how well I am doing compared to other departments within the BBC and with indies. I have anecdotal evidence by just walking around other productions but to be honest it is more guess work.

I think most editors find themselves in a similar situation. We actually don't know how well we are doing - let alone whether we need to improve or not.

Therefore could TV take a leaf out of Sacramento's book with one small simple change potentially having massive consequences:

When a programme is green lit by a broadcaster the production company could receive a simple note with a smiley face or a frown indicating how well they have been doing for the last twelve months in their diversity employment and representation in front of and behind the camera.

The smiley rating should come at the green lighting stage as this is the point that productions then begin to staff up.

I believe that most people in television want to do the “right thing”. We want to be seen as good employers. With our natural competitiveness we also don’t receiving a bad grade or 'frowny' face for anything - especially when we know it’s in comparison to our colleagues.

In theory a smiley face or frown should not change how grown people behave. But if it works for electricity bills I think it is worth a shot when it comes to increasing diversity in the media.

So let's all smile a bit more and avoid those frowns :-)