Lenny Henry Centre for Media Diversity - Second Anniversary Gala Speech

(Speech by Sir Lenny Henry delivered at the second anniversary of the Centre for Media Diversity on 20th May 2022)

Hello my people. Don’t you all look fantastic! Everyone having a good time?

 

Big up the Midlands massive! Anybody here from the black country? Can I have a lift home?

 

I am so thrilled to be celebrating two years of the Lenny Henry Centre for Media Diversity. Can I get a hell yeah?

 

This is literally a dream come true.

 

It was a dream to set up a Centre dedicated to increasing diversity in the media industry. And here we are two years in and going from strength to strength, thanks to all the hard work and support we’ve received from so many of you in this room.

 

Now I’ve been speaking about racism and the lack of diversity in the media since… well, biblical times. Jesus had twelve disciples, the brother can’t have one black friend?

 

When I started my career in the 1970’s there were hardly any Black people on our screens or behind the camera. When I first went to work at the BBC it was me, Floella Benjamin and Moira Stewart - all picking cotton in the Blue Peter garden.

 

I was the only Black person on the Black and White Minstrel Show – which, for the younger people in the room, was a racist TV programme where white people sang and danced in black face. I still struggle with that, but it illustrates the lack of options available to young black people in those days.

 

Fun fact - the UK kept their version of the Black and White Minstrel show - long after the US had dropped its. Americans were like “if we’re gonna get a white guy to wear too much makeup and say racist stuff on TV, let’s at least make him President”

 

I have heard racial slurs.

 

I have been the only black person on a film set.

 

I have been stereotyped.

 

But this isn’t a sob story - I’m simply illustrating how far we’ve come and reminding us progress can, must and will happen.

 

And what I have learnt is that we must turn protest in progress. We need to transform  our complaints about the lack of diversity into real tangible results. And that is what the Centre is all about.

 

Let me tell you something about the key ethos of the Centre. Like I said I’ve been talking to people about diversity and racism for years, and no one paid too much attention. Occasionally it would make the news, but it’s actually not that helpful when ITV runs the headline “Ainsley Harriot calls for more diversity”

 

But in 2014 something changed. In addition to talking about diversity, I also began to address the structure of the film and television industry.

 

I still talked about a lack of Black and Asian people, but now I also addressed how much power we have – or, crucially, don’t have.

 

As well as talking about the number of disabled people on our screens or the lack of women behind the camera, I focused on how many of those people were in the positions that control the money.

 

Because money is power, commissions are power. I learnt that first hand when I started appearing on TV. After growing up poor, suddenly I had money.

 

I bought my mum a new telly, new carpet and eventually a house. In Caribbean families, having money brings huge respect and when I bought her the house, she moved Dad from the head of the table and put me there instead. And then she gave me the biggest cut of meat.

 

That must have been tough for my dad. All day long he had to listen to bigots at work complaining about black people coming over here and taking food out their mouths – then he came home to find one of them was his son!

 

It was when I started thinking about diversity as a structural problem that everything changed.

 

And that for me is what this Centre is all about.

 

It’s not about hunting out the unconscious bias or playing eye spy the racist - it’s something beginning with Boris Johnson by the way - the centre is about how we change the way the industry is run so we can make it more inclusive for everyone.

 

The genesis of this can be traced back to an open letter in 2014 where I teamed up with the likes of Doreen Lawrence Amma Assante Kwame Kwei Armah and Idris Elba to ask broadcasters for ring-fenced money for programmes directed by black people. We also asked them to put more money into programmes directed by women.

 

From that moment on I have always recognised the importance of financing in trying to achieve real diversity and inclusion.

That letter also taught me another important lesson. The power of allies.

We felt that if it was just non white people who signed, we could be dismissed as a bunch of angry black actors with an open letter in their hands.

 

It was a simpler time - these days if an angry black actor is holding something in their hand, it’s usually Chris Rock’s face.

 

So we added Richard Curtis CBE, Russell T Davies OBE, Harry Hill, Sir Richard Eyre CBE, Lord Alan Sugar, Matt Lucas, Emma Thompson and a raft of other people to the letter. It was magic

 

So having the support of allies is key in giving you strength - and even cover from possible push back from the powers that be.

 

Let me illustrate with a section from the book Access All Areas, which I wrote with Marcus Ryder.

 

“If we want to create a culture where people are not scared to speak their truth, we need to create a culture of allies. If you are a Black man, you need to support your female co-workers when she is calling out sexism.

 

If you are a White woman, support your Black co-worker when they are advocating policies to combat ethnicity pay gaps.

 

And White men? Well, you guys just have to support everyone!”

 

After we sent that open letter in 2018 I took things up a level - and with Marcus Ryder again, as well as some of the other people on the letter, we campaigned for diversity tax breaks for films and certain TV programmes, that meet key diversity criteria.

 

We went to Downing Street, the Mayor’s office, we met with Nicola Sturgeon and even went to the treasury. Luckily this was before the only way to get a tax break from them was to be married to Rishi Sunak.

 

And this is when we hit a big hurdle – while politicians paid lip service to supporting the idea, we were told by the Treasury that we didn’t have the evidence that diversity tax breaks worked. We hadn’t modelled it.

 

 

 

And that my friends, is why we are all here today – because in 2020 we set up the Centre for Media Diversity at Birmingham City University – so we would always have the academic work to support all of our diversity policies.

 

Two years in and this centre is doing great work, including consultancy for the Financial Times, Channel 4 and the BBC.

 

And I’m very proud to announce this evening that the Centre is now in the process of doing the hard academic work of modelling those tax breaks. We will get there.

 

This Centre has proved that change will happen – people are taking notice, broadcasters, newspapers and trade unions are all using our work to improve their policies and increase diversity.

 

I’m so proud of the achievements this centre has made, but more importantly I am so excited about the road that lies ahead.

 

I can’t wait to see where that road takes us and I’m delighted to have each and every one of you on the journey.

 

Thank you for listening.

(Printed with kind permission by Sir Lenny Henry)

 

Beyond the Tick Box - A New Way To Collect Diversity Data

Diversity data is fundamentally flawed because it is based on an old idea of identity that people are increasingly turning away from  - and seems almost completely broken when it comes to Generation Z.

The other day I was at a conference and during a coffee break got into a conversation with a group of young students about identity. One of the students talked about their sexual identity and told me how they do not see themselves as “heterosexual” but at the same time does not think of themselves as part of the “LGBTQ+” community.

After gently interrogating this apparent contradiction, it didn’t seem like someone who was “in denial” which is how older generations might have labeled the situation. Instead it seemed as if the student basically viewed identity in two ways: Their “personal identity” and their “group identity”

Their “personal identity” was “not heterosexual” (although I can see a problem of defining yourself in the negative I will leave that for another blog post).

However they viewed their “group identity” as “heterosexual”. They said that for all intents and purposes they presented as heterosexual, for the most part lived a “heterosexual lifestyle”, and benefited from “heterosexual privilege”.

The conversation reminded me of a recent episode of the Red Table Talk, in which the singer Janelle Monáe opened up about their identity, saying they are “so much bigger” than the binary. Interestingly she went on to say; “I’m non-binary, so I just don’t see myself as a woman, solely... But I will always, always stand with women. I will always stand with Black women. But I just see everything that I am. Beyond the binary.”

In the context of my conversation with the student about her sexuality I interpreted the singer’s statement to mean their “personal identity” is “non-binary”, while their “group identity” is “Black women”.

The problem with most discussions and forms that ask you about your identity is that there is no distinction between “personal identity” and “group identity”.

The forms ask how you “personally” identify and then assume that is also the same as your “group” identity. 

The irony is in trying to address issues around the lack of diversity and representation organisations are normally trying to address perceived “group identity” not “personal identity”.

The vast majority of the diversity collection forms make little distinction between “personal” and “group” identities assuming they are one and the same. There is however one important exception - the Scottish National Census when it asks about National identity.

One question on the Scottish census is around whether you feel “Scottish”, “British”, both, or another nationality altogether. Importantly your national identity has nothing to do with your nationality, passport or where you were born, the official information states; “National identity is not tied to ethnicity or country of birth. A foreign citizen living in Scotland is free to choose 'Scottish' as their national identity.” 

For me this is an attempt to separate “personal identity” (the fact you might have been born in Pakistan) and your “group identity” (the fact you associate with the label of being Scottish). Interestingly in this example over 50% of people of Pakistani origin identified themselves as “Scottish”, while only 21.2% of people with African heritage identified as Scottish. 

The question on the Scottish census recognises that where you were born and your passport might not be the same as your group identity. Your personal identity might be Pakistani, but your group identity is Scottish.

We see examples of how the group identity and personal identity often break down.

The other day I  was talking to a senior BBC executive who I have known for over twenty years. When I first met them they identified as “working class” but in our most recent conversation they confessed to me that they now felt like "a bit of a fraud” calling themselves “working class” as their lifestyle and their community now are not working class.  

On a diversity form they would still be seen as working class due to their schooling, and parental occupations, but they did not feel that this represented their present “group identity”. Just like 50% of Pakistanis in Scotland who identify as Scottish as opposed to Pakistani - the senior exec might have been born working class but they see themselves as middle class.

You can even see examples of this when it comes to race and ethnicity with people feeling they should tick the “mixed” category but may see themselves as part of a different “group identity”. Whether a person of mixed heritage (for example Black and White) sees themselves as Black, White, Black and White, or mixed (the group identity they feel best describes them) is just as important as their "personal identity" - especially when thinking about issue of culture.

I believe this one question on the Scottish census on identity might lead the way in how we should collect diversity data. It is still important to measure your personal identity; how many people from Pakistan (and other nationalities) live in Scotland, but we should also find a way to capture group identity (which group they identify with). 

What Scotland has got right is thinking that simply by adding up everyone’s “personal identities” you can measure the “group identity”.

Understanding the difference between “individual identity” and “group identity” is also critical when it comes to thinking about “inclusion” - the culture of an organisation -  and not just diversity - the simple headcount of people who have ticked a certain diversity box.

In a world of increasing identity complexity it is important that we measure both.

How we view identity is changing - how we record it and measure it needs to change too.

Twitter, diversity and the existential threat to democracy

(Speech for the Digital Czech Republic 2022 Conference - delivered by Marcus Ryder on 13 May 2022)

Dear friends and fellow Europeans,

Thank you very much for inviting me to speak today. 

I have been scheduled in today’s programme to talk about media diversity and digital democracy.

I fully recognise that for many people on mainland Europe that diversity, and the political rhetoric that surrounds it, is often seen as an Anglophone import from the US and the UK and not relevant to the political realities and culture of the rest of Europe.

Diversity can be seen as a politically correct agenda only relevant in societies obsessed with so-called “identity politics”.

Therefore I do not want to use the word diversity today and instead I will be using another term today instead - “democracy”.

Let’s start with a simple thought experiment.

A lot of people are concerned about the prospect of a single person controlling Twitter - one of the most important mediums of communication on the planet - influencing elections and political discourse. 

Now what would we think of it being a single billionaire would it be OK if it was two people?

What about 100 people?

What about 1,000?

Now imagine it was a million… but they were all white men in Europe. Or - given the current war in Ukraine - maybe all white men in Russia.

How would we feel about that?

All of a sudden it becomes less about quantity and more about quality. While the number of people controlling Twitter is still important - the idea of that degree of concentration of power and control into a single person is alarming - the problem is not solved simply by increasing the number of people. It is also about the qualities of those people. 

With the current Ukraine crisis the problems are obvious if it was controlled by a million Russians. But let’s take another example; how would you feel if you were a Black person and you knew Twitter was disproportionately controlled by White people - White people in the US who overwhelmingly voted for a presidential candidate who made comments supporting white supremacist groups. 

This is not a hypothetical of course.

This is the reality - in the 2020 US presidential elections almost 60% of White people voted for Donald Trump.

We see variations of this reality being played out all the time with one powerful group in charge of social media platforms making decisions that affect another group.  

Last year Facebook, who owns Instagram, apologised after it was revealed it had been blocking Instagram posts which contained the hashtag #AlAqsa or its Arabic counterparts #الاقصى, or hiding them from search results. According to Facebook the mistake occurred due to the Al-Aqsa name, a famous mosque, being associated with terrorist organizations.

A few days earlier Twitter blamed technical errors for deleting posts and suspending accounts mentioning the possible eviction of Palestinians from the East Jerusalem neighbourhood of Sheikh Jarrah.

The question that Facebook or Twitter did not answer was, what was the demographic of the people making these decisions on which hashtags to promote or block?

The suspicion of course is that the people making - what are effectively editorial decisions - are disproportionately based in the US, white and male -  although the people implementing the decisions might be based in Kenya or anywhere else in the world. 

Social media and other digital platforms are increasingly deciding the flow of information and what makes up our political discourse. The problem is the people deciding which conversations and which issues to prioritize are from a small global minority. 

One of the core principles of a representative democracy is equal representation. Unless we have equal representation of who decides what we should be talking about we do not have democracy. 

The lack of equal and fair representation in the editorial decision making on the social media platforms is an existential threat to our democracies in the same way as if they were controlled by a single billionaire.

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.