Black Journalists Should Not Be Silenced To Talk About Black Lives Matter

Over the last two week I have heard senior figures at the BBC make both public and private statements about the corporation's editorial guidelines when it comes to racism and how staff members should express their opposition to racism publicly.

I worry that the BBC has misjudged the public mood, are putting undue pressure on its Black staff and will undermine its own journalism.

But first a little recent history.

In September 2019 the BBC Executive Complaints Unit (ECU) found that Naga Munchetty had broken the BBC’s editorial guidelines - speaking about a tweet by Donald Trump and effectively calling it racist. I wrote a blog post articulating why this was a mistake and contributed to an open letter published in the Guardian calling for the decision to be reversed.

The entire BBC Executive Committee came out in support of the ECU’s decision. Only for that support to be unilaterally reversed by the Director General. 

The problem is the BBC has still not explained its editorial reasoning as to why it came to the erroneous judgement around Munchetty talking about racism in the first place nor explained what changed its editorial position.

I bring this up because a few days ago the Director of BBC News, Fran Unsworth, issued a statement to all BBC news staff about the current protests in regards to Black Lives Matter. In the statement she said that in order for the BBC to be perceived as impartial and objective; “we have the editorial guidelines which say that if you are a news journalist you should not publicly express views in support of campaigns or causes. That means on social media, in articles, in speeches and you should not attend demonstrations.”

A few days later the BBC then sent out an email reiterating the specific parts of its editorial guidelines that cover staff activities in public and how they could affect perceptions of impartiality.  

People who know me well know that the BBC editorial guidelines is the closest thing I have to a bible. It is a living breathing dynamic document that has helped shape my journalism for over 25 years. That is why I take the use of them, and senior BBC executives’ interpretation of them, so seriously. 

It is why I was able to identify how the BBC had interpreted its own guidelines wrongly when they initially sanctioned Naga Munchetty for stating that one of President Trump’s tweets contained a racist phrase last year. Importantly she did not state an opinion but stated a fact based on her own personal experience.

There is currently a lot of discussion within the BBC whether the editorial guidelines are currently fit for purpose. For me the Naga Munchetty affair proves that they are. What was found wanting was how senior executives, many of  whom have not tackled complex editorial issues regarding race previously, have problems interpreting them when they come to the actions of Black and Brown people. 

So, do I think that BBC executives are all racist and simply do not understand their own guidelines - curtailing the human rights of ethnic minorities?

If only it were that simple, and there was a clear baddie to point the finger at.

The fact of the matter is the BBC is trying to balance two conflicting principles both embedded within the guidelines and the email it sent out.

The BBC editorial guidelines quite rightly state that they do not require its reporters - public facing or otherwise - to show “absolute neutrality on every issue or detachment from fundamental democratic principles, such as the right to vote, freedom of expression and the rule of law.” And the email said opposition to racism is one of these principles.

The problem is the guidelines go on to say “We must take particular care to achieve due impartiality when a ‘controversial subject’ may be considered to be a major matter. ‘Major matters’ are usually matters of public policy or political or industrial controversy that are of national or international importance”

And this is where it gets “interesting”. 

The third most used word in the email the BBC sent out - after “BBC” which comes up 29 times and “impartial” (or variations thereof) which comes up 12 times, is “controversial” (and variations thereof) which comes up 10 times.

The issue is how do you tackle racism now it is a “major matter” of “national” and “international importance” and importantly seen by some as “controversial”.

Opposing racism however is not a controversial matter in need of due impartiality and all staff, according to the BBC’s guidelines, should be able to express a view on this without having to “balance” their opinion. However the BBC seems to have decided that some forms of opposing racism are “controversial”.

What seems to have happened, talking to BBC staff, is the BBC executive have prioritised the “controversial” part of the guidelines, effectively telling staff not to express views on “social media, in articles, in speeches and you should not attend demonstrations.” And in so doing have deprioritised upholding the “fundamental democratic principles” part of the guidelines.

Now there is an obvious problem with the word “controversial”.

“Controversial” is by definition subjective and invariably culturally specific. Take a simple issue such as employment discrimination against people because of their sexuality. Most people would not view the idea that it is wrong to discriminate against people because they are LGBTQ+ as controversial. However it was only on June 15th that the US Supreme Court ruled that workers can’t be fired for being gay or transgender, and importantly this was a 6 - 3 decision, which meant a third of the judges disagreed with the decision. 

Does that mean that being against homophobia is a “controversial” subject?

And if it isn’t a controversial subject when did it stop being a controversial subject. 

And was it ever viewed as a “controversial” subject by members of the LGBTQ+ community. And if it was never a controversial issue to advocate for LGBTQ+ rights by gay people then how many LGBTQ+ people should be involved in any editorial group that gets to judge what is or is not “controversial”?

One person posting a picture to celebrate Martin Luther King Jr’s birthday as part of a US public holiday might not be seen as controversial but is posting a picture of him on social media “taking a knee” with fellow civil rights campaigners opposing racism controversial? 

Is denouncing historical slavery controversial? 

Is denouncing historical slave owners controversial?

Is denouncing statues celebrating historical slave owners controversial?

I suspect you will get a very different set of answers to those questions if you have a group  of senior black journalists in a room as opposed to a room full of senior white journalists.

So, do we just give up and decide that everything is relative - controversy is all in the eye of the beholder - let journalists just say what they like - perceptions of impartiality be damned?

Not quite - journalistic organisations do need to stand for some core principles and deciding what is and isn’t “controversial” is a key part of that.

However what the BBC, and all news organisations, need to do is be explicit about what they think is “controversial” and what their key principles are. And importantly they need to be transparent as to who is making these decisions in order for the staff and the public to have confidence in their judgement. 

The reality is it is hard to have confidence in an organisations’ editorial judgement around certain issues if people affected by those issues are not transparently part of the editorial process that makes decisions around them. 

Gone are the days when a group of all men can decide what is and isn’t controversial when it comes to sexism. And hopefully this is increasingly the case when it comes to racism and disability and other underrepresented groups. 

Let us return to the Naga Munchetty affair. For the staff and the public to have confidence in how the BBC balances these difficult editorial issues it needs to show how it has moved on from the Naga Munchetty affair both in terms of who is making the decisions, (it is widely thought no people of colour were part of the original ECU decision that found against Munchetty) and in terms of its editorial reasoning.

Naga Munchetty was right to give her opinion on President Donald Trump’s tweet and the BBC later admitted so. It would be wrong if the lessons of Naga Munchetty were not learnt and Black and Brown journalists did not feel they could speak their truth about racism or act on it.

Black people talking about racism and connecting with the current debate only strengthens the BBC and its journalism.

Lucas, Walliams, black face and “Little Britain”. What a publicly funded comedy show tells us about the BBC - by Elena Egawhary

On Saturday Matt Lucas and David Walliams released identical statements apologising for having “played characters of other races" in their wildly successful comedy sketch series Little Britain. Celebrity friends, like actor and writer Rebel Wilson, have since come out in force to defend them, describing her friend Matt Lucas as “the kindest, most decent human being ever”. I have never met either Lucas or Walliams but by all accounts they are genuinely “nice” people - the antithesis of what people think of when they talk about stereotypical racists. So how could these very nice people have got it so very wrong?

Over the weekend I sat down to watch the BBC’s Little Britain and Come Fly With Me – it was a very long 72 hours. Little Britain offers at least one joke about race per episode. In the first episode of the first series you have the discriminated against Minstrels.  

Then you have recurring racist characters like Marjorie Dawes, the leader of a weight loss support group who routinely victimises brown people in her class. In the UK, her victim is Meera who she occasionally calls Mary or Moira. In Little Britain USA, the American version of the show, her victim is a Mexican woman who Marjorie refers to as “my illegal friend”. Perhaps the writers’ intended subtext was “look how silly the racist person is” but in most of the sketches those targeted by the racist abuse have no power or agency and are mere 2 dimensional foils for the humour. 

In Little Britain USA we encounter the American equivalent of Marjorie, Blanche Chuckatuck, who visits the UK group. She also abuses Meera then says she’s got to go to her next meeting, and dresses up in her Ku Klux Klan garb. Again the black and brown characters are just foils for the real stars of the show - the racist characters. 

Another Lucas and Walliams character, Maggie Blackamoor, vomits if she discovers that anyone involved in the preparation of the food she has eaten isn’t white or is married to a black person while Linda Flint, a university counsellor, describes students using racial slurs including ching chong Chinaman and Ali Bongo. In Come Fly with Me we’re introduced to Chief Immigration Officer Ian Foot, who targets black and brown people as well as “foreigners”. When his colleague Taaj Manzoor rightly accuses Foot of racism, Foot has the last word, accusing Taaj of being “anti-white” and puts his name on a list of people he feels threaten the security of the country (which he says also includes Hardeep Singh Kohli, Mark Ramprakash and Konnie Huq).

Another rib-tickler: police racism. Officer Lindsay, a retired-police-officer-come-driving-instructor, tells his white learner driver student “now on yer way yer black bastard”. Series regular Andy, in his wheelchair steals a child’s coin operated ride from a store and is caught on CCTV. But the US police facial composite shows Andy with black skin. “Black fella did it”, says Andy.

And then there’s the black face. Lucas blacks up to play Reverend Jesse King, an American pastor on foreign exchange from Harlem. Walliams blacks up for Desiree DeVere who gets into fights with Bubbles, her (white) husband’s white first wife. In one such scrap Desiree loses her wig. Bubbles snatches it up and wears it as pubic hair. 

Ting Tong Macadangdang is a Thai bride who was "ordered" via a magazine by Dudley Punt. One by one Dudley discovers Ting Tong's secrets: she's a ladyboy called Tong Ting from tooting, her mother has come to live with them and is hiding in a kitchen cupboard, she has more than one husband. Each time Dudley threatens to send Ting tong home. Each time she begs him, "Pwease Mr Dudwey", on her knees, her face in his groin.

The examples I’ve cited are just a few of the most memorable. Even the gallery below is incomplete.

Little Britain’s amazing success is charted by Walliams, Lucas and their friend Boyd Hilton in the book Inside Little Britain: from BBC Radio 4, to BBC television, to HBO, with merchandise deals, film rights and an Australian tour.

According to their book, in 2005 Little Britain was in the top five watched shows, with more than ten million people tuning in. They sold 3.5 million DVDs. The Little Britain: Live UK tour sold out a year in advance: 800,000 ticket-holders, 211 shows. 

And then, in early 2007 Little Britain: Live came to Australia with over 150,000 ticket-holders, a 32 arena show. 

I’ve watched film footage of Little Britain: Live shows; it’s striking how overwhelmingly white the audience is.

What about the production team? Why had nobody realised how racist some of these sketches were?

During my Little Britain weekend marathon I examined the show credits and noted people Lucas and Walliams thank in their book. I’ve listed people involved in script writing and at producer level or above here. I was struck how those at the upper levels of the production process mirrored Lucas and Walliams’ overwhelmingly white audience.

In Inside Little Britain (page 36) there’s an uncomfortable moment when Matt Lucas tests out his character Sir Bernard Chumley on the audience at Comedy Café on London’s Rivington Street: “what Matt didn’t expect was booing. A joke about Sir Bernard having curry was misinterpreted by the Comedy Café crowd as racist”.

In the documentary Little Britain Down Under, Lucas gets “suddenly quite nervous” about whether the audience will “get it” just before he goes on stage in Melbourne to perform his character Ting Tong live. What does he think it is they might not get? 

Walliams is quoted in their book saying “the days when white comedians portraying black characters automatically meant they were being racist were long gone”. 

This insensitivity is something Walliams has owned up to. He confesses in Little Britain Down Under that he likes things to be shocking. Speaking directly to camera about a segment of the show that sees him exposing an unwitting member of the audience’s backside he says: “yeah I love cruelty, it’s my favourite thing in the world. It didn’t start off like that, it kind of grew. You know as I became greedy for laughs. But you’ve got to know the boundaries. I mean that’s funny but if I started you know exposing their penis or something it would not. I don’t know it would just be horrible then. It would just be abuse.”

During the same documentary Walliams is handed a letter of complaint from a fan who had been sexually molested as a child and was motivated to write to him about his shock, dismay and disappointment at witnessing Walliams’ portrayal of the Little Britain character Des Kaye. Des Kaye is a children’s presenter who in the live show plays a game of “hide the sausage” and goes on to attempt to molest the younger of two unwitting audience members on-stage. 

Reacting to this complaint Walliams rationalises with “I suppose you know if it was a child it wouldn’t be funny but because it’s an adult on stage. To me there is no subjects that you can’t make jokes out of. Because if you make that line then you have to get rid of all comedy. Because you have to say that you know, there’s no point. Comedy can only do this, this, and this, and therefore you might as well not have it”.

Dr Simon Weaver, Senior Lecturer at Brunel University in his book The Rhetoric of Racist Humour: US, UK and Global Race Joking finds that “racist humour is a form of racist rhetoric that supports serious racism”. As far back as 1946, Dr John H Burma published an article in the American Sociological Review describing ethnic humour as a conflict device:

“Any persons or groups who are the butt of jokes thereby suffer discriminatory treatment and are indirectly being relegated to an inferior status. This is, in turn, typical of conflict in general and gives additional support to the fact that humour is one of the mechanisms rather frequently pressed into use in the racial conflicts of America.”

Over decades, academics have shown how racist humour is a powerful communicator of prejudice, how it validates belief systems, supports stereotypes and how comic repetition can reinforce and lock in prejudice and malice. 

All these things were known and understood, especially among the people who are the targets of racism. How on earth did the BBC think it was alright to invest so heavily in these shows?

Comedian Gina Yashere offers an answer: "the problem with comedy in the UK. It's all made by white people, commissioned by white people, for white people. If they allowed for black writers, producers, executives, or any black people ANYWHERE along the process, none of this shit would be happening now".

Yashere goes on: "this is how you judge whether your material is racist, people. If you can't do that material in a room full of the people you're talking about then your shit is racist, and you know it. And if you feel uncomfortable, you're uncomfortable because your shit is racist."

Apologies from Walliams and Lucas, while nice to see, don’t really cut it. The BBC needs to retire some of its comic talent and commissioners, refresh production and writing teams with people who have a different sense of “audience”. Had they done this decades ago, we might have enjoyed more of Gina Yashere (who found huge success instead in the US), more of Felix Dexter (a comedy genius wasted in Absolutely Fabulous before his early death). We might not have had to wait so long for Man Like Mobeen. 

Like comedian Judi Love said on Twitter the other day “can you just bring back Real McCoy…Get the original cast who started it and paved the way for some of us now to come back and create a new one! Join together old school and new school they can produce it, write it, direct it… And just in case you’re worried that it’s only going to be black people watching it, if you look at the marches you’re going to see there’s a lot of people that actually love the black culture.”

By guest writer- Elena Egawhary, PhD Candidate in Communications at Columbia University

With input from Clare Sambrook

How Channel 4 Can Lead The Industry in Becoming a Truly Anti-Racist Broadcaster

Let me start by saying that Channel 4’s 6 point commitment to anti-racism is much needed. It is the first UK broadcaster to come out with such a statement, and as such it should be strongly welcomed. Every Public Service Broadcasters (PSB) should follow Channel 4’s laudable example.

 

However (you knew there was a “but” coming…) as a black executive producer with over 25 years of experience in this industry, my reading of the commitment is that it is not strong enough to weather the storm of racism that sadly infects our industry, here in the UK and elsewhere.

 

And so I turn to the substance.

 

What I’m going to do below is lay out the problematic aspects of the statement. At the end of their own statement Channel 4 state they are “committed to acting on feedback from the industry and continuing to review these commitments and will update further on our diversity strategy this autumn as part of a detailed new diversity plan.” I hope this blog will constructively feed into this process.

 

I will finish by sharing what I believe Channel 4 should have published to achieve real diversity and culture change in these new times.

 

The result should be part of an ongoing process not a finished statement, and there will be pros and cons to my suggestions too, but what I would like readers (including those in Channel 4 and elsewhere) to be left with is a real sense of the possible. What is needed at this time is not merely a way of increasing BAME involvement in the existing structures but how do we reshape the entire industry to make it fairer and more equitable for everyone. My overall message to Channel 4 is you have consistently shown leadership but “you can do more”.

 

Channel 4’s original statement is in bold my suggestions come underneath each section.

 

So here is how Channel 4 could do more. Step by step.

 

Channel 4’s six-point commitment to anti-racism:

 

1.      Anti-racist: We commit to being an anti-racist organisation

• We are wholeheartedly committed to being an anti-racist organisation – and to calling out and acting upon racism wherever we see it.
• We will use our position as a public service broadcaster, our content and our platforms to educate our audience on anti-racism, and drive positive change – in our organisation, in the creative industries and in society.
• We will always act where concerns about racism are raised in our organisation or on our programmes.

 

Any new commitment of “what we will do”, must also be balanced with “what we won’t do”. This is missing in Channel 4’s commitment. Here in point 1, I am left wondering – what does this mean in practice? Will Channel 4 still commission “The British Tribe Next Door” which New Statesman described as, “lazy, exploitative and offensive TV” and the charity No White Saviors described as, “dehumanising and harmful… making a mockery of African lifestyles”? 

 

I am also left wondering – what practical measures are Channel 4 putting place so that when black actors and staff have an issue around racism on one of their productions they do not have to go to social media to raise their concerns as Rachel Adedeji felt compelled to do with regards to Hollyoaks?

 

The current discussion around Black Lives Matter means we should not continue with business as usual. This involves the very difficult practice of explicitly stating how business has changed and how it is a departure from the business practices from before.

 

Point 2. 

2.                  Our Staff: We commit to strive for BAME equity as an employer

• We are committed to the target that 20% of Channel 4 staff, and 20% of the top 100 paid staff, will be BAME by 2023. 
• Today we are at 17% of total and 14% of top 100 and we must go further and faster to hit this target.
• We believe that by having diversity amongst our most senior decision makers we will unlock change.
• We will launch a new mentoring programme for our diverse staff in 2020 so that they can develop their careers.
• We will continue to voluntarily report our BAME pay-gap as we have done since 2019 and we are committed to continuing to narrow it.  Channel 4’s BAME pay gap was 15% in March 2020.
• We are committed to the Race at Work charter.
• We commit to ensuring that The Collective – our employee representative group for black and minority ethnic staff – will help us deliver positive change within the business.

With the exception of the launching of the mentoring scheme, here Channel 4 re-states the “employment-related” goals and policies it had in place before the current Black Lives Matter protests and unrest. That’s laudable - it is important to keep these in place, especially in the context of Covid-19 when there are concerns that companies could go backwards in their commitment to diversity.

However, I would have liked to see Channel 4 use this opportunity to strengthen these goals and policies, beyond mentoring, to really show they are actively trying to change the culture of the broadcasters. In particular, to recognize that the all important issue is not a simple one of overall head count, or even the headcount of the top paying positions. The issue is the diversity of those people with editorial power – the commissioners.  Channel 4 could have added a separate diversity target in terms of commissioners – possibly making this a target related to a percentage of salary spend OR of programme spend to avoid BAME commissioners only being recruited at the junior level or for less important programmes.

Point 3.

3.                  Our Content: We commit to commissioning relevant and authentic content – that reflects the lives of BAME audiences on an ongoing basis

• A new commitment to double the number of BAME-led independent producers that we commission from by 2023. On the main channel there were eight BAME-led indies commissioned in 2019, and a further 12 were in paid development – in total making up 11% of suppliers.
• We have commissioned a series of short films by black British film-makers responding to George Floyd’s death and exploring the profound resonance with Black Britons.
• We are commissioning a series of longer films exploring different aspects of the black experience and questions about race in modern Britain.
• We commit to ensuring that the lives and experiences of BAME audiences are reflected in programming across all our genres.
• We will drive up genuine BAME authorship of our output by increasing the number of black directors, execs and writers we work with.
• We will strive to ensure all our shows meet Channel 4’s commissioning diversity guidelines.
• We are committed to DIAMOND reporting on diversity and will use the data to improve our representation.

Again, here Channel 4 provides a welcome list of new commitments and programmes they are now going to make, which I am very sure will make a difference and help people understand why the issues being raised by the Black Lives Matter movement are important. We must ensure that any changes being proposed today change the overall culture in the long term.

Take the first sentence – about commissioning “relevant and authentic content - that reflects the lives of BAME audiences on an ongoing basis”. This can only be achieved with commissioners in place that actually know what this experience is, day in, day out. 

Therefore Channel 4 should use this opportunity to mention the key BAME commissioning appointments they have made recently and how they intend to build on this. 

One final point here. DIAMOND diversity monitoring is a divisive issue throughout the industry, with it coming in for heavy criticism by all the UK’s Entertainment unions and its flaws being highlighted by OFCOM the industry regulator. I would urge Channel 4 to work with other independent stakeholders to achieve effective diversity monitoring including Directors UK and the Sir Lenny Henry Centre for Media Diversity.

Point 4.

Our Faces: We commit to fair BAME representation on screen

• We commit to BAME representation being at or higher than the national average in our on-screen presenters, talent and stars.   In our last wave our tracking in 2019, our representation was at 14%.
• We are committed to providing new opportunities for diverse new talent across our content and we have a clear strategy to deliver this.
• We are committed to BAME diversity in our ‘new faces of E4’ talent search which is underway in 2020.

If any aspect of BAME representation was improving over the past few years before the BLM movement it was on-screen representation. So, it is good for Channel 4 to reiterate this commitment. However, it would be even better to see Channel 4 increase its commitment and also make it more specific to where the industry has seen challenges – for instance in the types of roles that BAME on-screen talent get.  That would show that Channel 4 is using this opportunity not to just restate its current industry leading best practice, but to show it’s ready to continuously push itself.

5.                  Our Supply Chain: We commit to fair BAME representation in our supply chain

• We are making a new commitment to tracking and reporting our content spend with BAME-led independent producers.  
• We will launch a new BAME-led Indie Accelerator Plan in which each commissioning genre will identify two BAME-led indies to champion and nurture with a bespoke accelerator plan.
• We are committed to 50% of our remaining commissioning development spend in 2020 being with BAME-led, Nations & Regions or small indies.
• We will continue to be part of the Commissioning Mentoring Network, as part of our effort to grow BAME talent in the industry.
• We are partnering with The TV Collective to support the BAME creative industry through the Covid crisis.

The new commitment to commission from BAME-led independent companies is excellent and the first I’ve seen of its kind in the industry! Yes!.  With Viacom (Channel 5) also publicly working to improve BAME-led indies it feels as if this is an important time for the UK Television industry as a whole and I hope all PSBs follow both Channel 4 and Channel 5’s leads.

But the question remains - how is Channel 4 (and for that matter Channel 5) defining BAME-led indies?

While definitions may ultimately be an issue for the regulator OFCOM and public consultation, Channel 4 could have used this opportunity to propose a set of usable criteria of how they define a BAME-led indie, to give clearer signals to indies about who is covered by the schemes, and make sure all Channel 4’s commitments are measurable and accountable.

Similarly, for the development spend commitment made here – it’s great in principle. However, it is important to learn from the experience of the BBC who, back in 2014, did something similar and committed £2.1 million of its annual development spend to BAME productions. But still today the BBC cannot say anything about its results. Why? Poor definitions, but also the BBC did not track how much of the development spend translated into production spend and production hours. I hope Channel 4 will avoid this mistake.

Point 6.

6.                  Our Business Model: We commit to use our influence as an advertiser-funded broadcaster to ensure BAME representation in advertising

• Our £1m Diversity in Advertising Award for 2020 will be focused on BAME representation within advertising.

The fact that Channel 4 is re-affirming its commitment to the £1m Diversity in Advertising Award should be applauded during these incredibly tough economic times due to Covid-19.

Final note:

We are committed to acting on feedback from the industry and continuing to review these commitments and will update further on our diversity strategy this autumn as part of a detailed new diversity plan.

There is no doubt that Channel 4 has been an industry leader in many ways in terms of diversity. This statement – the first of its kind in the UK media industry – is very welcome. But, having seen broadcasters try time and time again to reiterate their commitments, under various guises, what the BLM movement is calling for is real change to the way the industry works, not just tinkering or scaling-up.

In the spirit of being constructive, and to make it easier for broadcasters – and Channel 4 itself – to see what a statement that might indicate real change looks like, I’ve taken the time to make a strengthened version of the 6 point statement, set out below, which also responds to the key points I made above. I do not believe any one broadcaster or body has all the answers which is precisely why I helped set up the Sir Lenny Henry Centre for Media Diversity to help broadcasters and media organisations when it comes to diversity. I am writing in the capacity of an individual and not in my role as the Acting Chair of the Centre but I am sure everyone at the Centre would welcome the opportunity to constructively work with such an important broadcaster.

Please find my revised statement below.

Thanks Channel 4 for being the first to issue this kind of public statement. My message to channel 4 today is that I hope this is only the start and together we can do even better.

 

UK Media Cannot Report on the US Properly Without More Journalists of Colour

In 2008 my mum was angry and she wanted me to personally take a message to the head of BBC news.

She was upset by the way the BBC was covering the US Democratic primaries of Barack Obama versus Hilary Clinton. She felt the BBC was framing its coverage more as a coronation for Clinton to become the next Democratic presidential candidate combined with a slightly amusing story that a black man had got so far.

Working out story framing and unconscious bias is notoriously difficult to do and best left to academics, but anecdotally her perception chimed with the views of the various BBC colleagues I spoke to about it at the time. None of them really took Obama’s candidacy seriously at first.

The rest, as they say, is history. The BBC, and much of UK media, was wrong footed and Barack Obama went on to become not only the first Democratic Party presidential nominee but the first black President of the United States of America. 

The BBC and the majority of UK mainstream media was wrong footed again in 2016 when Donald Trump won the US presidential election.

Both times British media failed to fully appreciate the racial nature of US politics and US society in general. 

The vast majority of correspondents covering the US for the main British broadcasters and newspapers are white. The few times journalists of colour are sent to cover US stories is usually only when a white editor or executive has decided it is an overtly “racial” story.

The problem with this approach is it fails to recognise that race is an element that runs through every part of US society. If you only recognise race when it is overt you will often miss important elements of the story. This was commented on by a brilliant piece by Jelani Cobb, an associate professor of history and director of the Institute for African-American Studies at the University of Connecticut, in a piece for the Guardian two years ago. 

This is not to say that only journalists of colour can report on issues of race but it is generally acknowledged that a diversity in the background of journalists will be able to give different perspectives to a story and provide richer content.

The importance of having journalists of colour reporting on events in the US was made very clearly by the editor of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Kevin Riley, when he spoke to the Nieman Reports in 2015, “As a white man, I can avoid race if I want. I live with that white male privilege. Unless you are exposed to the idea that people of color do not have that option, and race is in front of them all of the time, you don’t have that awareness.”

To illustrate his point Riley pointed to the example of a column by Gracie Bonds Staples, a black journalist, about comments made by Michelle Obama at her Tuskegee University commencement speech and at the dedication of an art museum in New York. “I’m not prepared to say a white reporter couldn’t do that [story],” Riley told the Niemen Reports “but I just think that when you can comfortably get into a topic like that with some perspective and voice, you’re better off.”

Previously British media news outlets have recognised the importance of race in covering some international stories. For example the BBC regularly sent black journalists, including Clive Myrie and David Dunkley Gyimah, to South Africa both before and after the country held its first post apartheid elections, as they recognised how understanding race was central to its journalism.

It would be naive to suggest that the US is the same as apartheid South Africa but what we have seen time and again is understanding of race is central to understanding America, however British news organisations have often been slow to acknowledge this.

If we are to see one good thing come out of the current events in the US I hope we see an increase in the racial diversity in the journalists British media use to cover all stories coming out of the country not just ones it perceives as having a “racial component”.

One last thing, in case you were wondering…

I always try and do what my mother tells me to do and in a meeting with the head of news at the BBC in 2008 I raised my mother’s concerns. The head of news listened and said she would think about it. The BBC can be a difficult organisation to change and so I do not know what happened after I left the meeting but I hope 12 years later we see real substantive action, and not just at the BBC.

An Open Letter in Solidarity with Journalists of Colour Working in the US

Dear Your Excellency Robert Wood Johnson, Ambassador of the United States of America to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,

We are a collection of journalists and broadcasters of colour working in the United Kingdom. Between us we work for every major British broadcaster, numerous news outlets and a range of media.

We unreservedly condemn the arrest of African-American correspondent Omar Jimenez and his fellow crew members, including producer Bill Kirkos and photojournalist Leonel Mendez, reporting for CNN on the unrest in Minneapolis following the brutal death of  African-American George Floyd at the hands of police in Minneapolis.

While Jimenez and his team were released following the intervention of the president of CNN and Governor Tim Walz, we note that CNN’s white reporter Josh Campbell, who was working close by with his team, was not arrested. We do not believe this is a coincidence or that the difference in race between the two reporters was incidental.

It is crucial that journalists be able to conduct their work without fear of arrest or harassment by officials. It is important that this applies to all journalists irrespective of their race, gender or religion in order for the journalism that is produced to truly reflect the US’s rich diversity. This is even more important when reporting on issues that specifically pertain to the country’s people of colour. 

We believe that the arrest, seen across the world, sets a worrying precedent for how countries treat journalists, especially those perceived as coming from racial minorities, and how they can be detained and stopped from doing their important work. We seek reassurance from you, in your position as Ambassador, that British journalists will be able to work in the US without fear of arrest and that you will do everything in your power to ensure that this potential international precedent is not set.

To this end we call for an immediate condemnation of the arrest by the US Ambassador, and all American officials based in the UK.

We also call for an immediate inquiry, not only into the arrest of Omar Jimenez but also into the treatment of all black journalists and journalists of colour by American authorities.

We call for the immediate suspension of the police officers involved in the arrest of Jimenez and his team until this inquiry is complete. 

We stand in solidarity with Omar Jimenez and all journalists of colour who are reporting on racism in America.

Yours sincerely,

Marcus Ryder (Acting Chair of the Sir Lenny Henry Centre for Media Diversity)

Aaqil Ahmed, Aaron Akinyemi, Abu Hamza, Ade Adepitan, Adrian Lester, Afua Adom, Afua Hirsch, Andrée Massiah, Aina J Khan, Alex Murray, Alex W. O. Enahoro, Amy Hall, Angela Ferreira, Angelica Udueni, Anisa Subedar, Anjula Singh, Ann Marie Goodwin, Annissa Warsame, Anthea Lee, Antoine Allen, Arti Lukha, Ashionye Ogene, Ashley John-Baptiste, Ayo Akinwolere, Ayshah Tull, Barnie Choudhury, Biz Pears, Catherine Byaruhanga, Charlene Chan-Popo, Charlie Brinkhurst-Cuff, Claire Clottey, Claire Rutter, Clive Myrie, Daniel Henry, Danny Vincent, Darren Lewis, David Olusoga, Derek Bardowell, Dhruti Shah, Diane Evans, Dr David Dunkley Gyimah, Egon Cossou, Elaine Dunkley, Emma Ko, Eno Adeogun, Faisal A. Qureshi, Farhana Haider, Gary Younge, Genelle Aldred, Gillian Joseph, Girish Desai, Girish Juneja, Greg McKenzie, Hannah Ajala, Henry Bonsu, Hewete Haileselassie, Hila May, Hugh Muir, Hugh Woozencroft, Husna Rizvi, Jaja Muhammad, Jameisha Prescod, Jamsheda Young, Jasmine Dotiwala, Jatinder Dhillion, Jay Davidson, Jayson Mansaray, Jessica Phillips, Joanna Hall, Joice Etutu, Jones Awuah, Jordan Jarrett Bryan, Joseph Izzard, Juliana Olayinka, K. Biswas, Kaamil Ahmed, Karen Gabay, Katie Mark, Kavita Patel, Keme Nzerem, Kiri Kankhwende, Krishnan Guru-Murthy, Kuba Shand-Baptiste, Kumail Jaffer, Kurt Barling, Lee Jasper, Lenny Henry, Liliane Landor, Lincoln Hooper, Liv Little, Lola Okolosie, Lovejit Dhaliwal, Lynda Smith, Maaiysa Valli, Marc Wadsworth, Marcia Mascoll, Marcus Ryder, Marverine Cole, Marvyn Harrison, Matt Kay, Maxine Watson, Maya Davis, Maysaa Jankara, Meera Syal, Michelle Matherson, Miriam O’donkor, Misan Harriman, Mohamed Madi, Mugabi Turya, Nadine White, Natalie Rose, Nels Abbey, Nike Jonah, Nike Komolafe, Nisha Lahiri, Nora Fakim, Omega Douglas, Oruj Defoite, Pat Younge, Priscilla Nwikpo, Ramzan Karmali, Rebecca Omonira-Oyekanmi, Rene Bissohong, Reya El-Salahi, Ria Chatterjee, Rianna Croxford, Rodney Hinds, Ronke Phillips, Roohi Hasan, Rowena Twesigye, Rubia Dar, Saadeya Shamsuddin, Saidata Sesay, Sajjid Kharodia, Sangeeta Kandola, Scarlette Douglas, Sean Fletcher, Sejal Karia, Seren Jones, Serena Barker-Singh, Settit Beyene, Shaista Aziz, Sharmaine Lovegrove, Shoku Amirani, Shola Mos-Shogbamimu, Simone Pennant, Sohail Shah, Sola Renner, Soraya Auer, Suhail Patel, Swarzy Macaly, Symeon Brown, Talah Kaddourah, Tali Ramsey, Tam Hussein, Tamala Caesar, Tamanna Rahman, Tanya Motie, Tarah Welsh, Tej Adeleye, Thamsanqa Zhou, Thomasina Jordan-Rhodes, Tokunbo Salako, Tola Mbakwe, Tolu Adeoye, Toyin Amusan, Warren Nettleford, Zing Tsjeng, Zubeida Malik.

The following organisations also co-sign this letter:

BECTU Black Member’s Subcommittee, National Union of Journalists’ Black Members Council, British East Asians in Screen & Theatre TV Collective, The Race Beat, EMPower –  ITN staff group of BAME journalists and technicians.

THIS LETTER WAS ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED IN HUFFPOST UK. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SHOW YOUR SUPPORT PLEASE LEAVE YOUR NAME IN THE COMMENTS SECTION AND I WILL ADD YOU TO THE LIST OF SIGNATORIES ABOVE.