An open letter on the reporting of Ukraine: Do not let diversity be a casualty of war.

Dear newsroom editors and journalists reporting on the current war in Ukraine,

First may I thank you all for doing an incredibly important job under incredibly difficult conditions.

I am sure you are all aware of the old adage; “The first casualty of war is truth”, first attributed to US Senator Hiram Warren Johnson in 1918. In 2022 it is important that diversity, and our principles of anti-racism, aren’t the second casualty.

We must separate the relative importance and global strategic significance of a war in Europe, compared to other conflicts, from the relative importance of the victims of different conflicts around the world.

I fully understand why a war involving a Superpower (Russia) on European soil may be deemed (rightly or wrongly) as more significant than other conflicts. Evaluating the importance of different wars and conflicts are by definition the difficult editorial decisions editors and journalists need to make almost every day.

However a conflict’s  relative global importance must not be confused with the relative importance of the victims of these conflicts.

All human life should be viewed as equally important. European lives should not be viewed as having more value than African, Asian, or any other lives around the world.

Deaths in times of war are tragic wherever they occur and we must avoid linking their importance, or how much sympathy we have for them, to their ethnicity or where they are based in the world.

While the direct reporting of valuing European lives as being more important may be relatively easy to avoid, journalists must also guard against doing it indirectly.

Reports that try to increase an audience’s emotional connection to European victims by drawing comparisons to how the victims are just like people “like us” , when this type of comparison hasn’t been used when reporting other conflicts, sends out the signal that we should value them more because they are European. 

Also reporting that draws comparisons to the civilian Ukranian victims to how similar they are to British victims of WWII (during the blitz) when similar comparisons have not been made to civilian victims of bombings in other parts of the world sends out a similar message.

Not clearly, and explicitly, explaining your news values and why you believe this conflict is strategically and politically important because of its geography and the parties involved, as opposed to the people involved also sends out a potentially dangerous message. Simply saying it is important “because it is in Europe” can easily be misinterpreted that it is because the people involved are European.  

We must also be careful of the experts and pundits that we put on our broadcasts when reporting on the news. I fully appreciate that some pundits may have different values when it comes to diversity and anti-racism, but they may be an expert in the field and necessary to interview. However when an interviewee stresses the importance of the civilian victims by drawing attention to their race the presenter can just gently remind them that “obviously their lives have value irrespective of what they look like” and move on in a non-confrontational manner.

The current war in Ukraine could be a seminal moment in how newsrooms respect diversity and incorporate anti-racism into their work.

I implore all journalists to continue your excellent work while remembering our core values. 

Please stay safe.

Yours faithfully,

Marcus Ryder. 

All Work and Little Pay - The truth about working in TV

On Wednesday 19th January 2022 the Screen Industries Growth Network published a groundbreaking report "The Time Project - Understanding working time in the UK television industry" a report exploring the hours worked by media professionals.

Working practices, and the work environment, directly impact on issues of diversity, inclusion and inclusion in the industry.

I was asked to write a forward for the report which I republish below:

INTRODUCTION - TIME PROJECT

There are some memories that never leave you.

I first met my wife-to-be in 2002. A few months after we started dating we went on a romantic weekend to Rome. As I sat across from her at a beautiful small romantic restaurant my phone rang - it was work. I took the phone call and started discussing the latest edit of a programme I was overseeing.

My wife-to-be burst into tears.

At the time I was a young series producer, eager to progress my career, and throughout the short holiday I had been taking calls and emails from producers, researchers and my executive producer.

As someone who did not work in television my future wife was frustrated and could not understand how I could be working throughout this supposedly romantic break.

As someone who had only ever worked in television I was unable to understand how I couldn't work throughout this “romantic” break.

Having a career in television can be brilliant, but all too often it carries a cost that we should not have to bear.

I have missed funerals, significant birthdays and key family events.

There have been times when I have gone into the office with a toothbrush and a spare set of underwear, in the knowledge that I might be “pulling an all nighter”. And worse yet I have sometimes told people these things not as a sign of a bad work environment but as a badge of honour.

The truth is these types of working practices have adversely affected my close relationships and affected my mental health. And while I am proud to say that I have won several awards for the programmes and films I have been responsible for, the vast majority of the long hours I have worked have been to produce programmes that were literally forgotten the next day (or following month - if I am being kind).

The Time Project Report confirms what many of us already knew instinctively, that stories like mine and working these types of hours are not isolated cases, and far too many of us have difficulty separating home life and work life.

The report is full of shocking, although sadly not surprising, facts and figures from the number of hours people work on average - 10 hours per day - to the lack of breaks people are able to take - often ranging from just 30 minutes per day to none!

And while these statistics cover the industry as a whole we should not fool ourselves that we are “all in this together”. These working practices impact different people in different ways. They disproportionately impact people with caring responsibilities, pay gaps show that we are not all paid the same for the long hours we work, and people who live outside of London have a harder struggle finding their next job as they literally do not have the time to attend interviews.

This affects career progression and the diversity of who can work in the industry.

We cannot continue to work in this way. And most importantly we do not need to.

These working practices are the result of conscious choices made by people around budgets, delivery deadlines and management culture.

And while I can recount the long hours and bad working practices I have worked under, I have also been lucky enough to work on productions that did not cause me to work these types of hours, to give me decent breaks, and still produce award winning television shows.

As an industry we must do better. The bottom line is while we might use terms such as “long working hours” what much of this report is actually detailing is exploitation. And exploitation must never be normalised.

With the new information that this report has brought to light and the raft of constructive ways to tackle these problems I look forward to an industry that is world beating not just in the product it produces but how it treats everyone who works in it.

Fear, Diversity and Journalistic Impartiality

On the morning of the 9th November 2021 I received an MBE for Service for Media Diversity. In the afternoon of the same day I met the BBC's Director General, Tim Davie, who alleged blocked me from a senior journalistic appointment due to my work on media diversity. 

In the evening of the same day I then delivered a speech addressing concerns and misunderstandings around journalistic impartiality and championing the ideals of diversity.

News organisations who do not champion media diversity, and make diversity and inclusion part of their core "news values", are not only poorer for it but are hurting ll journalists from underrepresented groups.

Read my speech in full here... 

Good evening, friends and fellow journalists, media practitioners and academics

Before I start I want to start by thanking Simon Albury and the Campaign for Media Diversity for organising tonight’s event, Manori Ravindran the international editor of Variety for taking part and of course the Right Honourable Matt Hancock for hosting this event - which was originally meant to take place in Portcullis House in Parliament before an outbreak of Covid struck.

But most of all I would like to thank all the people who have shown me so much support over the years, and especially in the last few weeks, as I have became a centre of a small but significant media storm – I especially want to thank the Sir Lenny Henry Centre for Media Diversity for all their support.

Today I want to briefly talk about the issue of media diversity and journalistic impartiality.

Firstly, as imperfect and problematic as the concept of journalistic impartiality is - it is something I deeply believe in. Like many principles in life it is more of a journey – something we strive for – rather than an absolute destination. But I believe it is something worth striving for and an ideal worth fighting for.

Without it we cannot trust our news and the information about the world. As a society we become more fractured and divided as competing groups just believe in their own partial facts.

And just like justice, not only does our journalism need to be impartial, the people delivering it need to be seen to be impartial.

That does not mean there isn’t a place for comment and opinion, but for reporting of facts we need impartial journalists who are seen to be impartial – especially when it comes to our national broadcaster like the BBC - or anywhere there is only a few news providers that people rely on to get their facts – and in the UK that means broadcast news in general.

Evidence of how dearly I hold this idea to my heart - in 2014 I oversaw the BBC Scotland’s current affairs programmes covering the Scottish independence referendum. I voted in that referendum because I believe in the democratic process - but with the exception of my wife - I have never revealed to anyone how I voted in that referendum – to this day.

Similarly, even though I had left the UK and was no longer working at the BBC by the time the Brexit referendum took place I have never tweeted or publicly said whether I am a 'Brexiteer' or 'Remainer' because I have always thought one day I may return to political journalism in the UK.

I am an avid user of social media but you would struggle to find anything overtly party political in any of my tweets.

And yet despite this, despite the fact I have never been a member of a political party, despite the fact that I can count Conservatives, SNP, Liberal Democrats and Labour members among my friendship circle.

The news broke that my impartiality was being questioned and whether I could be a senior journalist at the BBC.

Now I am not going to go into my particular case because the BBC has publicly denied that I was ever blocked. But what I do know to be the case is hundreds of journalists of colour fear their careers being blocked, being disciplined by their employer, or even fired for breaching impartiality guidelines, for doing exactly what I have done.

And what have I done?

I have spoken out and championed the need for greater diversity, inclusion and equity in the UK media industry. I have spoken out for the need for more women in positions of power as according to Directors UK only 25% of TV programmes are directed by women. I have given evidence to the House of Lords for more programmes to be made out of London, I have published academic studies looking at how to increase the number of disabled people in our industry which for the uk film industry currently stands at less than 5% according the BFI. And I have advised the BBC, Channel 4, and the Guardian on how to increase ethnic and racial diversity in their organisations - and without breaking any confidence if you were around London Bridge three weeks ago you might have seen me walking into the News UK offices.

Today I even received my MBE for services to media diversity. The work I have done and the values I have championed are being recognised in the highest places of the state.

And so why are journalists – and specially journalists of colour frightened to speak out about the need for greater media diversity?

It is because there seems to be a fundamental lack of understanding by many people about what impartiality really is.

The truth is news organisations are not trying to achieve impartiality but they are – correctly – trying to achieve “due impartiality”

Let me read to you what the BBC’s own editorial guidelines say about “due impartiality”

Quote “Due impartiality… does not require 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.” End quote - That is from BBC Editorial Guidelines: Section 4 Impartiality - Introduction

Take climate change. This week we are in the middle of Cop26 - due impartiality means we report on climate change as an accepted scientific fact. Our journalism and reporting on climate change is better because we do not look for “absolute neutrality” on the issue - balancing climate change fact with climate change deniers.

For me, and millions of people in the UK the principle of being anti-racist, anti-sexist, anti-disablist also does not require; quote unquote “absolute neutrality” .

Championing the need for a more representative, diverse and equitable media is not an impartiality issue – it is why Ofcom - the media regulator who passes judgment on matters of broadcasters’ impartiality - also champions these ideals. It is why the BBC and ITN can state them as core values without compromising their ability to deliver impartial objective news.

It is what we teach journalism students are “news values” and without news values any media organisation is morally bankrupt.

So let me tell you - journalists of colour are scared – I have spoken to journalists who literally - and I am using the word literally correctly here – literally look over their shoulder when they talk about diversity - on Zoom at home because they are so scared. They are scared of losing their jobs. They are scared of being backlisted as a trouble maker.

And what are some of the activities they are scared of being exposed about.

They are scared of being exposed as one of the millions of people who went on a Black Lives Matter protest in the summer of 2020. They are scared that they liked a picture of an England footballer taking the knee during the Euros. They are scared that they did not delete their black square in memory of George Floyd on Instagram quickly enough. These are all real and specific examples.

They are worried they liked a blog post by me analysing the BBC’s or Ofcom’s publicly available data highlighting the industries failings when it comes to diversity

They are worried that doing any of these things will bring their impartiality into question and by extension be used against them when they go for promotion or worse be used as ammunition against them in a disciplinary hearing.

These fears are real.

It is why irrespective of the facts around my particular case my story struck a chord with so many because it played right into these fears. And these fears cannot be dismissed by simply saying – the Daily Mail, the Guardian, the Times, and the Independent all got it wrong. And the rumours around Marcus Ryder aren’t true.

They can only be dismissed when broadcasters send out a very clear message that they believe in media diversity - and do not believe individuals championing media diversity impacts on a journalist’s ability to be impartial any more than championing the right to vote or any of our basic human rights.

Broadcasters can do this by saying – yes journalists can cheer the England football team taking the knee.

Broadcasters - like the BBC can achieve this by publishing the diversity figures for their Editorial policy teams and Editorial complaints units who decide on these matters and most importantly their seniority by salary.

And lastly broadcasters can do this by appointing people who have publicly championed the values I have publicly championed, people who look like me, to senior editorial roles in news.

Actions speak louder than denials.

Journalists of colour need to hear and see their employers champion diversity not just in their public statements but in the way their journalism covers stories and the appointments made in their newsrooms.

Because fundamentally more diverse and inclusive newsrooms will deliver better news for everyone.

Thank you to all the journalists of colour who work tirelessly to produce amazing journalism despite the challenges they face.

Thank you to all the journalists from under-represented groups who live the values of inclusion and diversity.

And thank you to all journalists - irrespective of their backgrounds - who recognise that diversity is not additional to their journalistic objectivity but key to them achieving the goal of due impartiality.

Why We Must Go Beyond Anti-Racism and Aim for Empowerment

(From an original speech delivered on 8th September to 'Inc Arts' and 'What Next')

Good afternoon everyone,

I am the Head of External Consultancies at the Sir Lenny Henry Centre for Media Diversity and the Chair of RADA.

First of all I would just like to thank Amanda Parker, Inc Arts and What Next for inviting me, and giving me the opportunity to speak today. What Inc Arts is doing is incredibly important and much needed.

I am however going to be just a little bit controversial today, and I hope people will listen with an open mind, especially considering the fact I am speaking at an event titled “Arts Against Racism”.

So here goes...

After 25 years working in the media industry I am not sure I am “anti-racist”, or at least I am not anti-racist in the way it is usually discussed, and how policies are usually shaped in order to address it. And a lot of my approach to the issue is shaped by my experience of eight years as a senior BBC executive based in Scotland and attempts to address poor representation in regional and out of London productions. And my experience of hitting a glass ceiling and leaving the UK and living in Asia for over five years.

So let’s talk about racism.

A simple definition of racism is prejudice plus power.

In my experience far too many policies have focused on the first bit of the equation “prejudice” and not enough has been focused on the second part, the question of “power”.

We have unconscious bias training.

We have active bystander training.

Companies commit to implementing the Rooney rule of having one ethnic minority shortlisted on interview panels. 

Companies commit to employing more widely to identify and attract talent from a broader range of backgrounds.

Organisations set employment targets for Black, Asian and minority ethnic staff throughout their organisations, and at senior levels.

We see all this and yet we have seen very little progress.

Most importantly we have seen even less progress in terms of who is commissioning our arts, and who ultimately wields power.

And until we change who wields power. The fate of ethnic minorities are at the whims and vagaries of White people’s values, prejudices and beliefs - good and bad. So even if we make progress today, it is rarely sustainable in the long run.

We have seen this repeated time and time again.

Which is why we must ultimately change the power part of the equation when it comes to addressing racism.

And this is where my Scotland experience is invaluable.

While not equating any animosity between the Scots and English as being the same as historical slavery and racism, what we can learn from my experience of working for BBC Scotland is how do you address under-representation and differences in power differentials.

The answer for the BBC when it came to addressing underrepresentation outside of London was not to try and convince English commissioners to be nicer to Scots, or the Welsh or Northerners. Or even for bases in London to employ more Scottish or Welsh commissioners - in their London offices.

The answer was to tackle structural issues that lead to power differentials.

My discussions with my BBC Scottish colleagues were rarely predicated on whether English people in general, and Londoners in particular, didn’t like them.

But there were a lot of discussions on who controls the finances, who has editorial control, and how do we restructure organisations to make them more equitable.

This involved metrics that went far and beyond simple headcounts.

It was looking at programme hours, programme spend, percentage share of salaries spent in each region. There was even physical infrastructure spend and working with local governments to build new bridges (over the river Clyde) and extend tram lines (in Salford).

That is why in working with the Lenny Henry Centre and before, I have always tried to address structural issues and how the television industry is set up.

I have looked at ring-fenced money, as this was the primary mover for increasing regional diversity.

I have looked at contestable funds as this has been used to address the market failure in television when it comes to children’s programmes.

And I have advocated for diversity tax breaks, as tax breaks have been instrumental in stimulating the film and high end TV industry in the UK in general.

We have seen intiative after initiative fail to change our industry over the last thirty years despite the lack of good will and the best intentions.

If we are to achieve a better more equitable media and arts industry we must recognise that diversity is not the same as anti-racism, and anti-racism is not the same as empowerment. 

We need all three if we are going to make real progress.

I believe we are currently in a unique time and we are all hungry for change now.

Now is the time to think structurally.

Now is the time to push through real change.

Now is the time to bring about real equality and fairer representation throughout media and arts.

Children's TV needs to see diversity through children's eyes - not adult standards.

A few years ago the hashtag #FirstTimeISawMe started trending on social media.

The hashtag was part of an awareness campaign by Netflix focusing on diversity and inclusion, and highlighted seminal TV moments and characters of when people from under-represented groups first felt their own reality and personality was accurately portrayed on screen enabling them to feel included and seen.

The hashtag primarily focused on ethnicity but soon grew into a wider discussion on issues around gender, sexuality and disability. The social media conversations vividly illustrated what it meant to people to feel represented for the first time. Tweets, Facebook updates and Instagram pictures all built up to give deeply personal accounts proving how important onscreen diversity is for people.

However, while much of the debate centred on the “ISeeMe” part of the hashtag, which is all about diversity and representation, there was little debate about the first part of the hashtag; “FirstTime”.

Considering we all watched television as children this was implicitly a debate about representation (or lack thereof) in children’s programming whether people realised it or not. If the first time people “saw themselves” was in adult programming this implicitly meant they did not see themselves represented throughout their childhood. Conversely, if they cited examples from children’s programmes or family programmes this was a powerful endorsement of representation in programmes aimed at children.

Interestingly the examples that people gave of the #FirstTimeISawMe were rarely about their race, gender, disability or sexuality alone. It was always a lot more complex and nuanced. If one looks at ethnicity for example, while black people usually gave an example of a black character for the first time they saw themselves, it was rarely the actual first time they had seen a black character on TV. Ethnicity alone did not guarantee that people felt “seen” or saw themselves in the character.

People’s race plays an important part of them seeing themselves reflected on-screen but it is just one part of a far larger whole. This complexity is almost taken for granted in representation of white characters for a white audience… no one expects a white child to identify with every white character they see on screen. Obviously a raft of other factors come into play such as gender, class, regionality and more. However, when I speak to people about on-screen black representation with senior television executives this complexity is often overlooked.

Yet it is crucial.

I remember the first time I “saw myself” on television.

John John was a small black boy with an afro counting to twenty with Herry Monster on Sesame Street. For a small black boy living in a predominately white London suburb, I had found my place in the world. It also didn’t hurt that my full name is actually Jon-Marcus and my family often called me “Jon Bon”, it was close enough to “John John”.

There were other black children on Sesame Street but only John John was me. His afro, his age, his name, and the fact he loved counting all added up to enable me to see myself.

I saw my own 5-year-old son go through the same experience a few months ago.

He is an avid watcher of the CBeebies series Go Jetters, a cartoon of four intrepid adventurers guided by a disco loving unicorn who rescue global treasures from being destroyed by the evil Grandmaster Glitch. The four adventurers are of different races, three of the four are boys and the one is a girl.

One of the characters, Lars, is black. But for the whole first series my son, who is also black, did not seem to notice him any more than any of the other characters. If anything, he seemed to identify most with the unicorn.

Then, in series two something interesting happened.

Throughout the first series the four adventurers wear one-piece uniforms with hoods covering their hair. I have never produced animation but I assume it is a lot cheaper to have characters that don’t have hair. But with a successful first series the creators started to do a few scenes with the adventurers’ hair exposed.

All of a sudden, my son saw Lar’s curly hair and that moment of recognition was almost electric.

At five-years-old my son does not have a strong understanding of race, quite understandably and possibly thankfully. But currently he seems to mediate his own race, and any racial differences and similarities he has with friends, through his hair texture.

The second he saw Lar’s hair he identified with the black character. He did not identify through the different skin tones of the different characters. His perception of self and (I suspect) race is seen through the prism of hair not melanin.

Representation matters and my son saw himself.

Why do I bring this up?

It is because when we discuss diversity and race we often see it through categories recognised through our adult perspective. If we were to objectively assess the on-screen diversity of Go Jetters series one vs series two nothing had changed: Four different characters, one of them is black.

But for my son, and perhaps for countless other children it went from four characters of different hues to suddenly seeing themselves.

This also illustrates a point I’ve made before that too often diversity is seen as an end in itself - however diversity is just a means to an end.

If diversity was the end goal Go Jetters accomplished its mission in series one, when in reality it only hit the mark (as far as my son is concerned) in series two.

If our goal is to ensure that children can personally connect to the characters in the story and feel positive about themselves, we need to ensure that we explore how children racially identify themselves, not how we (as adults) identify them. There is literally no point in getting the brown paint boxes out if skin colour is not how they identify themselves. Put another way, we can’t just stop at the brown paint box.

The same goes for any number of identifiers, from accents to family structures, and from disabilities to genders.

Identity is multi-layered.

Which brings me to my main point. If we are to achieve effective on-screen diversity that connects with our children then better representation behind the camera is essential.

Having grown up as a black child and now raising a black boy gives me a completely different perspective of what “genuine representation” looks like and what small points need to be brought out.

For example, before my son became an avid Go Jetters fan he loved Bing (an animated bunny who lives in a neighbourhood with other anthropomorphic friends and their carers). Again, there is little doubt that the creators of Bing are sensitive to issues of diversity with many of the characters seeming to have different accents. But in all the episodes I have watched (there are a lot and so I will not pretend to have watched them all) not once did I see Bing, or any of his friends, have “non-Western” food. Food is often a central theme in children’s stories and in a wider context food is often one of the easiest ways to convey different cultures. And yet representations of food frequently become exclusionary for children of different ethnicities and cultures. Samosas, jollof rice, and jerk chicken are relegated to non-experiences or are exoticised in “special” episodes which primarily focus on ethnicity.

Irrespective of how many black or brown characters directors and storytellers create if children view their identity through food the nominal racial diversity will do little in helping children connect with these characters and “see themselves”.

Similarly knives, forks and spoons in children’s cartoons seem to be a given. I have never seen a parent serving food with chopsticks or children characters using them despite the fact that by some estimates a third of the world uses chopsticks on a daily basis. From Ethiopia to Indonesia, millions of people mark family time or special occasions with shared food, in many cases eaten with hands.

If we want children to recognise themselves we need to constantly strive to normalise different cultural experiences and recognise that ethnicity goes way beyond simple signifiers of skin colour.

Another example are shoes. I have lived in Asia for just over five years, first in China, briefly in Thailand, and currently in Malaysia. In all those years I have never seen anybody wear shoes in their house. When I visit another home, I am expected to take off my shoes before entering and may be offered slippers to use inside. And yet, like the example of chopsticks, I cannot recall ever seeing a child take their shoes off in children’s cartoons when they go into someone’s house.

In the simple act of keeping their shoes on a character goes from being an Asian character that Asian children may be able to relate to, to yet another character who simply has different skin colour. This is of course despite the best of intentions the director behind the camera might have had to represent a multicultural audience.

The examples of how we can undermine our best intentions are too numerous to cite and almost impossible for someone who is not immersed in that culture to recognise. Which is why diversity behind the camera – and specifically in editorial positions - is so important. It is the small nuances that can make all the difference. What kind of food would the character eat? Why is their hair important? What do they do when they enter a house? How should they address their parents? Would their grandparents live in the house or nearby? Do they eat with their hands or chopsticks or knives and forks?

It is literally too exhausting if we have to think through every one of these questions consciously, and elongate the list too. Which is why ultimately you need content creators from a range of backgrounds who do not have to think about these issues consciously but are just second nature if they are trying to represent their own culture and drawing on their own childhood for reference.

If I have not yet been able to convince you of the importance of diversity behind the camera when it comes to kids shows I have one last point:

One is not enough.

If we accept that our identities are multi-layered with things such as race or gender only playing a part then the idea that a single black character or female character will be able to capture all the representational needs of children of that gender or ethnicity runs contrary to common sense. And yet all too often we still see the single black or single female character in a larger group majority white or male group.

Returning to my experience of “seeing myself” for the first time in John John in Sesame Street it is important to remember that Sesame Street had a range of different black characters. I didn’t “see myself” in Sally (another black child in Sesame Street) for example.

We must break free of the idea that diversity and representation can be achieved through a single character in a story any more than we think every white child can identify with every white character.

Diversity is not the same as representation and is only part of a far larger whole.

To achieve true representation in front of the camera which children can relate to we need true diversity and representation behind the camera.

If the hashtag #FirstTimeISawMe was able to open up a whole discussion about on-screen diversity, maybe those of us working in the media industry need to start a new hashtag #FirstTimeISawMeWorking. Now that would be real progress!

This article was first printed in The Children's Media Yearbook published by the Children's Media Foundation https://www.thechildrensmediafoundation.org/the-childrens-media-yearbook-2020

Why I’m No Longer Talking to Media Execs About Privatisation of Channel 4

Lack of diversity in the television industry is due to market failures.

It is not due to a lack of good intentions or the actions of individual racists and bigots.

Which is why so many people love Channel 4 and why we are fighting for it.

Channel 4 was set up to directly address market failures in terms of diversity of programming, diversity of talent, and diversity of suppliers.

When it launched in 1982, Channel 4 operated under a remit that demanded that it serves the "tastes and interests not generally catered for" by other UK broadcasters and had a professed "commitment to diversity".

More importantly it recognised that diversity without inclusion was meaningless. Which is why it realised it was not just about increasing the level of melanin when it came to ethnic diversity, but increasing the different voices from Black Asian and minority ethnic communities. It is why in the 1980s it directly funded the Black film collective Ceddo founded by the late Menelik Shabazz.

It is why from 1985 to 1991 it broadcast the current affairs series The Bandung File, and employed Darcus Howe and Tariq Ali, both controversial figures. The former a prominent Black rights activist seen at one point as public enemy number one, and the latter an overtly political figure who campaigned against both US imperialism and Israeli imperialism.

The question is would Channel 4 fund the equivalent of Ceddo now, and would it employ the equivalent of Darcus Howe and Tariq Ali now?

I will leave that for others to answer, but here are some potential indications of what that answer might be.

The truth is for the last 15 to 20 years with some important notable exceptions, such as the Paralympics and the championing of under-represented talent like Michaela Coel, Channel 4 has unfortunately been addressing the market failures it was set up to address less and less, and has not – at least not recently – led the charge in increasing diversity.

Of the old triumvirate of BBC, ITV and Channel 4. Channel 4 is now the only broadcaster not to have a separate head of diversity on its executive committee - although it should be noted Channel 4's Chief Marketing Officer is also its Director of Inclusion and Diversity, and does sit on the executive committee.

It has arguably been the BBC, not Channel 4, who has been at the forefront of increasing regional diversity and growing the regional indie sector.

And, Caroline Hollick is the sole black representation on Channel 4’s CEO Committee, Executive Management Board and the different genre commissioning heads combined – (although happy to be corrected on that).

So what happened over these 15 to 20 years - between Channel 4’s inception of being seen and being expected to be a radical catalyst for change to now, with this highly mixed and diluted record?

The answer is simple; the 2003 Communications Act happened.

Now, before I continue, let me pause because I know I am here to discuss privatisation. And I genuinely want to discuss it. But here is the issue.

Fighting Channel 4’s privatisation may actually be the wrong battle. The call for Channel 4’s privatisation is a response to a symptom of a problem, and not the cause of the problem.

Let me explain, and why I’ve mentioned the 2003 Communications Act.

Over the period from 1982 to 2003, Channel 4 was highly regulated, or at least monitored and managed. The list of license requirements kept on growing in what is commonly referred to as Channel 4’s “remit”.

By 2001, Channel 4 was required to broadcast every week 4 hours of peak-time news, 4 hours of current affairs, 7 hours of formal education, 3 hours of multi-cultural content and 1 hour of religion. Most of these quotas were comfortably exceeded (education by 5 hours a week): the obligation to supply 330 hours of schools programmes a year was over-subscribed by 235 hours.

But then came the Communications Act, which brought in the creation of a new regulator - Ofcom - and with that began a period of a completely different regulatory environment for Channel 4 and all the other broadcasters. And let me be more specific, it was not just different. What I mean was – the environment became a more relaxed environment. Over the ensuing period, we saw the gradual reduction in license requirements.

And by 2016, Channel 4 had a very different version of “the remit”. Nearly all of the fixed quotas had disappeared: education, multicultural, religion and training just vanished.

And where the quotas remained they were either enforced more loosely, for example the case of News and Current Affairs, or were massively reduced - as was the case for Schools programming.

This gradual shift in relaxation, led Farrukh Dhondy to write, and I quote; “a few weeks watching Channel 4 in 2016 leads inexorably to the conclusion that the ‘remit’ does not exist”.

So why do I bring this up? And what does this have to do with privatisation?

Well, I would argue that it is not Channel 4 that was special but the regulatory environment that it operated in that was special and Channel 4’s place in it.

The fact is, the idea of privatising Channel 4 is not new – there were headlines about doing so back to 2016. Why? Well, I would suggest that privatisation is in fact just the natural progression of the more relaxed regulatory environment it has been operating in since 2003.

And so you might ask; “why am I fighting against Channel 4 being privatised?”

And the answer is quite simple.

Publicly owned bodies are far easier to regulate and are far more accountable to the public.

The fact is I want Channel 4 to return to its “remit” – its roots of addressing the industry market failure that is diversity and inclusion - in all its forms.

And I believe the best way to do that is through better regulation, public ownership and accountability.

But to discuss Channel 4’s privatisation without addressing the regulatory failure over the last twenty years is doing a disservice to all the people whose interests the previous regulation sought to protect.

I want a public Channel 4 and a new regulatory environment to formally introduce ring-fenced funds for diverse-led productions.

I want Channel 4 to restructure its commissioning structure so that ethnic diversity is on par with regional diversity – the “Out of London” quota is one of the few areas where Ofcom has actually increased the channel’s license requirements over the last 20 years.

I am definitely behind the fight for Channel 4 not to be privatised - but not on any terms. We cannot maintain the status quo of the last 15 - 20 years. Yes, I expect privatisation could lead to even worse outcomes. But the bottom line is if the debate begins and ends with whether Channel 4 should be privatised it is a serious missed opportunity.

Together we need to avoid privatisation – but we also need to keep our eye on the real prize – which is to restore Channel 4 to the broadcaster with a “remit” that we all know and love.

Correction 31/07/2021: In an earlier version it was not acknowledged that Channel 4's Chief Marketing Officer is also Director of Inclusion and Diversity and does sit on the executive committee

Until the BBC respects the UK's diverse communities, it will never be able to represent the country's diversity

Essay from anthology: "The BBC at 100: Will It Survive?" edited by John Mair.


“I want to be Head of BBC Diversity”

I was talking informally to a very senior executive of the corporation over a coffee in a restaurant just off Carnaby Street in London a few years ago.

The executive’s response was direct and to the point.

“Why on earth do you want to do that Marcus?”. The exec took a sip of their drink and explained their thinking by way of a compliment, “I see you as having a really bright future at the Beeb. You are one of the few Black people with news and current affairs experience at an executive producer level, you’ve overseen some really complicated investigations, and you’ve had to make some really tough Political calls in Scotland.”

Then came the killer punch.

“Head of Diversity will take you away from all of that - it will lead your career up a blind alley. It’s not where you want to be, if you want real power.”

I have no delusions of grandeur regarding my career in British broadcasting in general, and the BBC in particular, but I had heard his argument before and given it some thought.

I responded with what I felt at the time was a power move:

“I guess you and I see diversity slightly differently,” I replied. “Think of it this way; Kenny (I was referring to Ken MacQuarrie) is a major player on the BBC’s executive board as Director of BBC Scotland. He is effectively in charge of one of the most important parts of the BBC - and overseeing over a thousand members of staff and millions of pounds worth of programming budget.

“I don’t want to be Head of Diversity if it’s just as an extension of Human Resources, or Head of Diversity simply advising on how to get a few more Black people or women on screen, or even behind it. I want to be Head of Diversity at the BBC in the same way Kenny is head of Scotland - with real power.

“The BBC needs to restructure - it is not only vital for media diversity, it is essential for the corporation’s survival”.

My power move that day was unnecessary.


Restructuring the job…Widening the core.


Needless to say, I did not become Head of Diversity, and although the BBC did go on to raise both the profile and position of the Head of Diversity role it did not restructure in the way I believed was so vital.

That said, I still believe that restructuring is necessary. To understand why, we first have to understand the BBC’s current structure and charter.

The BBC’s Charter in 2007 states that one of the core purposes of the corporation is to represent “the UK, its nations, regions and communities”.

But this is not new. The BBC has always recognised the importance of representing the UK’s different Nations and the Regions. The 1952 Charter formalised the idea of National Broadcasting Councils and Regional Advisory Councils. These represented the interests and culture of Scotland, England, Wales, Northern Ireland and different geographic regions both in terms of output and in the running of the corporation.

The importance of the Nations and Regions is seen as so intrinsic to the structure of the BBC that Ken MacQuarrie (then Head of BBC Scotland who I spoke about earlier) who was later promoted to Head of Nations and Regions, described the role he left in 2020 as “one of the BBC's largest and most high profile divisions”.

Then, when Rhodri Talfan Davies took over from MacQuarrie in December 2020, the BBC Director General said Davies “brings considerable editorial and strategic experience [to the role]” (my italics). Note the word “editorial”.

This was precisely the quality that the senior BBC executive in the restaurant told me the BBC Head of Diversity lacked, and why they saw it as a “dead-end” for my career.


What’s missing from the job description?


Now if you hadn’t noticed it already, let me point out the glaring omission from Ken MacQuarrie and Rhodri Talfan Davies’ job titles. Despite the BBC Charter explicitly highlighting the importance of the UK’s “nations, regions and communities”, the job which is meant to be specifically in charge of ensuring this, only includes two out of these three areas: the nations and regions.

Despite it being written into the charter since 1952 there is (still) no one explicitly responsible in the BBC for the UK’s communities.

Many people working in the field of diversity and inclusion have previously seen reference to “communities” in the charter to implicitly refer to diversity.

In 2017, after campaigning and lobbying by Sir Lenny Henry, myself and others this implicit understanding was made explicit when the Charter was updated to include the principle of “diversity”, stating one of the corporation’s core public purposes is, “to reflect, represent and serve the diverse communities of all of the United Kingdom’s nations and regions” (my italics).

While the BBC Charter correctly identifies diverse communities on par with the nations and regions, the corporation seems to have consistently overlooked them. Diversity at the BBC is fundamentally framed as either an HR problem, or one of influencing the creativity of the corporation. People working in diversity have little or no editorial power, and importantly there is no diversity role on the BBC’s News board. Yet, no one would ever suggest taking this approach to how the BBC oversees the nations and regions.

This is a mistake.


Accept the reality of Britain in 2021.


The reality is that in 2021 the UK’s diverse communities are increasingly and possibly as important to British people’s identities than their nationality (English, Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish) or IN which geographical region they live.

While the BBC’s structure embedding the importance of the nations and regions, while overlooking communities, might have made sense 50 or even over 15 years ago, it looks increasingly arcane and out of touch with the needs of a modern public service broadcaster in the UK.

The fact is, Britain is a fundamentally different society to the one it was when the BBC was born, in a multitude of ways.

Let’s look at this chronologically.

In 1971 the UK census recorded ethnicity for the first time. That year, the White population made up roughly 97.7 percent of the population. According to the 2011 census the non-White population in the UK is 13 per cent, and the 2021 census is expected to show that it has grown even larger.

In 1980, homosexual acts in private between two men in private were finally de-criminalised in Scotland, despite the Sexual Offences Bill 1967 de-criminalising homosexual acts between two men in England and Wales.

It took until 1995 for the many of the rights we now take for granted of disabled people to be recognised in the UK under the Disability Discrimination Act.

Put simply, how Britain now formally recognises these different communities both in terms of law, and in general public discourse has undergone a rapid transformation over the last fifty years.

Yet, the BBC structures still places communities as an afterthought at best, and completely ignores them at worst.

The BBC has survived, and even thrived, over the last 100 years because it has recognised the importance of reflecting how society and its audience view themselves. Without an organisational structure that prioritises the UK’s diverse communities it is failing to do this.

This is not just my assertion. An Ofcom report in 2018 suggested that many communities in the UK are increasingly dissatisfied with the broadcaster and simply switching off. While another report, Mind the Viewing Gap, in 2015 by digital.i showed that non-White people made up only 6% of PSB viewing despite making up 14% of the population.

Reflecting on my conversation that day in the restaurant with the senior BBC executive I think I made just one mistake. I do not want to be head of BBC Diversity.

I want to be head of BBC Diverse Communities. And when the BBC creates the position - which I believe it will have to one day in order to survive - I hope I will be just about young enough to send in my CV.


This essay originally appears in the anthology: "The BBC at 100: Will It Survive?" edited by John Mair, and is available to order now.