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.