BBC Radio Bosses Are All White, Soon They Could Be All Men

This week the controller of BBC Radio 4, Gwyneth Williams, announced that she is going to leave after eight years in the role.

That raises one very obvious question: Who will take Gwyneth Williams’ place?

First some facts: If one looks at the BBC website it has a section titled “Who runs BBC Radio” along with their pictures.

The Director of Radio and Music is Bob Shennan – a white man

The Controller of Radio 1, 1Xtra and Asian Network is Ben Cooper – a white man

The Controller of Radio 3 is Alan Davey – a white man

The Controller of Radio 5 Live and Live Sport Extra is Jonathan Wall – a white man

Following a restructure in 2016 Radio 2 and Radio 6 do not have controllers and so they are not listed in this section of the website nor is Director of Radio & Education – overall boss of all radio but:

The Head of Programmes for Radio 2 is Lewis Carnie – a white man

The Head of Programmes for Radio 6 Music is Paul Rodgers – a white man

Director of Radio & Education is James Purnell – a white man

In fact of the eight most senior roles Gwyneth Williams is the only woman to head any of the BBC’s radio stations. When she finally leaves that number could drop to zero.

And most people will have noticed that in the above lists there is not a single person of colour.

And so how is this senior tier of non-diversity doing?

According to the latest audience figures compiled by Rajar commercial radio extended its lead over BBC with total BBC audience down 1.6% compared to the same time the previous year.

And according to the BBC’s own report in 2015:

1.       The majority of BBC Radio’s audience is over 55 while the percentage of young people are increasingly BAME (Black Asian and Minority Ethnic)

2.       You are one and a half times more likely to listen to BBC Radio if you are white compared to if you are BAME.

3.       And unsurprisingly more men listen to BBC Radio than women.

This would normally be the part of a blog post I would argue why the BBC, and/or the media industry in general, needs to embrace diversity and inclusion. But I believe the figures are so stark they speak for themselves.

There are of course plenty of suitable women and/or BAME candidates who could not only replace Gwyneth Williams but could also refresh the other controller positions once the incumbents move on.

And so to answer my original question “Who will take Gwyneth Williams’ place?” the answer is I do not know.

But I am making a plea to the BBC:

Please consider a broad range of candidates and make diversity a priority because if we love the corporation and want it to flourish there is no way it can continue as business as usual.

(The picture at the top of the piece is a rough depiction of what the future of BBC Radio management meetings could look like if we are not careful) 

Diverse Crews Are Not Just For Making "Diversity" Programmes

What does it mean to be a black producer?

How does a woman scriptwriter differ from a male script writer?

In what way does a disabled director work differently from an able bodied director?

I know these are all ridiculous questions which are impossible to answer. But ten years ago I was in a meeting at the BBC which was asking these very questions, only not about race, gender and disability specifically, but about programmes made in Scotland.

The BBC was trying to quantify what made Scottish films different from films made in London.

My understanding was the poor people who were tasked with such a ridiculous job were also going to Wales, N. Ireland and other parts of the UK to ask the same question.

The meeting came to a few conclusions:

1.       Scottish programmes are different from London productions because they are made in Scotland.

2.       There is no easy quantifiable difference. Living in Scotland gives people different perspectives, interests, and in some cases even different values, from living elsewhere in the UK. And so given editorial control this is organically reflected in the finished programme.

3.       Everyone in the meeting fought against Scottish programmes being pigeonholed that it is only genuinely “Scottish” if people are wearing kilts, eating haggis or playing the bagpipes.

I was reminded of this meeting a few days ago when I read about a new series of eight short films which the BBC will be broadcasting called “Soon Gone” looking at Caribbean family’s arrival in Britain on the HMS Windrush in 1948 and charting their progress over the last seventy years and into the future

Talking about the series Jonty Claypole, the head of BBC arts said; “It was implicit from the start we would have a black cast and crew. This seemed like something television could do to mark the Windrush era”.

I commend the BBC and the independent production company for seeking out diverse cast and crew to work on the production. I am sure the films have a different sensibility due to the how they were staffed.

However at the same time I disagree with Jonty Claypole that having a black cast and crew “seemed like something television could do to mark the Windrush era.”

What I would have liked to see to “mark the Windrush era” is for television to reflect how black people are now woven into the fabric of the UK and this would mean productions with majority black staff producing programmes that have nothing to do with explicitly black subject matter.

Whilst I was in Scotland I oversaw award winning news and current affairs programmes about drugs in sport, illegal puppy farming and the financial crisis – all issues that effected Scottish people but were not “explicitly” Scottish. These programmes were crewed by majority Scottish staff and I am 100 percent sure that they were qualitatively and quantitatively different from anything a London based team would have made.

Just like my colleagues in Scotland who did not want to only work on programmes with kilts and shortbread. Black directors, scriptwriters and crew equally want to make programmes that have nothing to do with the Windrush, Nelson Mandela and slavery. Given the opportunity I am also sure black teams would create award winning films on “non-black” subject matter that would have a completely different feel than if a non-diverse team produced them.

Therefore my Windrush plea to the all British broadcasters is: We are now part of British society so remember we can make programmes about everything, we are not just there when you have a black programme you want to make.

This year marks the 50^th anniversary of the first man on the moon. Let’s commission a series of short films about that – but crewed by a majority black team. That might be the best way to really honour the Windrush legacy and get a unique perspective on a subject which has been covered hundreds of times before. How about it Jonty?

48 hours in the campaign for Diversity Tax Break for TV and Film

Last week (Jan 8^th and 9^th) the campaign for tax breaks for film and television productions, which meet certain diversity criteria, took another step forward. With several important meetings in the space of 48 hours.

BIGGER THAN JUST THE PEOPLE IN THE MEETING

I strongly believe that we will only achieve “Diversity Tax Breaks” if there is mass support in the industry for them. Which is why even though the meetings involved relatively few people it is important that I keep as many people as possible informed on the developments.

The first meeting was on Tuesday8th January at The Department of Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS). Present at the meeting were the actors Sir Lenny Henry and Adrian Lester, the film producer Nadine Marsh-Edwards, the former head of BBC Productions Pat Younge, former commissioner Angela Ferreira and of course I was also there with my experience of regional diversity as former editor of current affairs programmes at BBC Scotland.

I’d like to think we all brought very practical experiences to the meeting of exactly why diversity tax breaks would make a real difference to our work. This was most definitely not an ideological meeting but one where people were trying to look for practical solutions to a problem that has plagued UK film and television for far too long.

THE GOVERNMENT ARE SERIOUS

Over the years I have been to several government meetings about diversity but I have never been to one with so many senior officials representing so many different departments. Representatives from DCMS were obviously there but so were representatives from the Treasury, HMRC, Department for International Development (as UK women and equalities comes under their remit) and representatives from No 10.

My fear had been that after Lenny Henry and others had delivered the open letter, signed by over 80 prominent industry figures and bodies, calling for diversity tax breaks, this meeting was just going to be a polite chat with coffee and biscuits. But many departments sent two representatives and a senior Special Advisor. It wasn’t quite standing room only but extra chairs definitely needed to be brought in. This was not a polite coffee and biscuits chat!

WHAT CAME OUT OF THE MEETING

The debate covered a number of issues on the actual practical implementation of a diversity tax break and a small discussion on possible alternatives to tax breaks to increase diversity in film and television.

Without going into detail of the actual discussions two things came out of the meeting:

1.       The need for another meeting with all the major industry bodies to discuss diversity tax breaks specifically, as well as the issue of film and TV diversity more broadly. Such a meeting would include the BFI, all the entertainment unions (BECTU, Equity and Writers Guild), some of the major film studios and broadcasters as well as other interested parties such as Directors UK.

2.       Economic modelling to inform future discussions. This would answer serious questions as to how much how much a diversity tax break would cost the Treasury in the short run. Whether diversity tax breaks would be able to incentivise new UK productions to be made, as well as attract new productions from abroad, which would all obviously bring in new money to the Treasury. The modelling should also cover the different effects a diversity tax break would have depending on the level it was set.

We left the meeting optimistic that a second larger industry meeting will be held – hopefully before the end of March.

The government officials present at the meeting however informed us that it was their policy not to make possible tax modelling public unless and until a new tax (or tax break) had been agreed upon. Which means we are now looking at trying to commission some independent economic modelling ourselves.

AFTER THE GOVERNMENT COMES THE OPPOSITION

The following day a smaller group of us met with members of the opposition, specifically Dawn Butler MP, the Shadow Equalities Minister, and John McDonnell, the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer.

We felt it was very important to meet with the Shadow Ministers because the issue of diversity tax breaks must be bigger than Party politics. It is a solution that should be implemented irrespective of whoever happens to be in government. The fact it was a smaller group was no indication of how important we all felt this second meeting was but more to do with pre-existing diary commitments, and the fact I was only in London for 48 hours did not help matters.

Again the meeting was incredibly constructive. But what became very obvious was that independent economic modelling is essential to take the issue further. Otherwise the debate quickly becomes people either asserting support for the idea or criticizing it with little or no evidence.

After seeing the Labour shadow ministers it also became clear amongst ourselves that we should be discussing the issue with the SNP if we really want this to transcend Party politics, and setting up a meeting with the SNP was added to out “to do” list.

On a personal level I also met with people from the Film Diversity Action Group (FDAG) for a quiet cup of coffee. The FDAG are also campaigning for a version of diversity tax breaks. It was the first time I had met with them since they launched in November and although we differ on some important points talking to them and hearing what they are doing made me feel that there is a real head of steam gathering for diversity tax breaks in one form or another.

After 48 hours and three long meetings there have been no concrete commitments by anyone and at best we might have another larger meeting in a few months’ time. We have also made more work for ourselves recognizing that we now need to commission some economic modelling and try and set up a meeting with the SNP. So why am I so optimistic?

WHY AM I OPTIMISTIC?

I have been campaigning and following the issue of diversity in film and television for longer than I care to admit and in those years I have never experienced meetings where so many senior officials have given up their time to discuss these issues.

The level of debate was higher and more detailed than anything I had ever experienced before. This was not mere lip service to “how bad diversity is behind the camera – can we set up another training scheme”. These were discussions probing the practicalities of implementing the policy both the positives and negatives.

The next two to three months will be essential to see if my optimism is well founded but whatever happens I will keep everyone informed via my blog.

Please keep supporting the campaign – the good will we have all received personally and via social media has been overwhelming.

Why Economics Should Not Be Used To Justify Diversity - or what Dr. J, Larry Bird, Michael Jordan and old school basketball can teach us about diversity

About six years ago I started to hear a new argument when it comes to diversity and it is an argument I am hearing more and more often now.

The argument is a simple one: Companies should increase diversity because it is good for business. In the last few years study after study has been published that argues that if companies increase their diversity they will also increase their profits. According to a McKinsey report the most gender diverse companies outperform their competitors by 15%. For ethnic diversity the figures are even bigger with the most ethnically diverse companies outperforming their competitors by 35%.

When it comes to film and television recent studies seem to come to the same conclusion that productions which are more diverse both in front and behind the camera bring in larger audiences and are more profitable.

Now most people know that I love economics. I studied economics at university and I am married to one of the leading economists on China-Africa relations. And so when they hear about these studies they often assume that I support the argument that companies should increase diversity because it is in their financial interests.

But you may be surprised to hear that I do not support this argument and that is because of my other love – Basketball.

In 1988 two economists, Lawrence Kahn and Peter D Sherer, looked at the contracts of different NBA basketball players depending on their race.

They discovered that black players were paid significantly less than their white counterparts who were equally skilled (same shooting stats, turnovers, assists etc). And black players with the same skill level were less likely to receive a contract from a team. For those of you who love basketball like me this is roughly the time when Dr. J and Larry Bird where having their epic battles. 

And now here is the surprising thing – the racism made complete economic sense. In fact the team managers would have been going against their own financial interests to have paid the black and white players equally and here’s why:

The fact of the matter is that basketball is a business and even though as spectators we think the business of teams is to win games it is actually to increase their profits.

The two economists found that replacing one black player on a team with an “identical” white player raised home attendance by 8,000 to 13,000 fans per season.

Or to put it another way; if the Boston Celtics employed just one black player that would be the equivalent of playing one game a year to a completely empty stadium.

It made economic sense for basketball teams not to value ethnic diversity.

Now remember this is the 1980’s and the way most teams made their money was through ticket sales. But in the 1990’s something started to happen across all major sports.

Sports teams started to make their money from television revenue – ticket revenue started to become less important. No longer was it important to pack out a stadium with richer white spectators, attracting large numbers of fans who were willing to watch the games on TV -  irrespective of skin colour – so broadcasters could sell more advertising was suddenly a priority.

Or to put it in a way some basketball fans can understand more easily - this was the era of Michael Jordan - and it didn't matter any more if Jordan could pack out the United Centre in Chicago what mattered was whether people across the whole world would tune in to watch him play.

The economic model had changed. And the profitability of diversity had also suddenly changed. All of a sudden black players started to earn a lot more money.

It is precisely because I am basketball fan that I am very weary of people using profits as a justification for diversity. The NBA is a prime example of how things can change. And change in ways no one can predict.

Now let us take the example of the television industry.

The economics of television are currently undergoing a revolution as the major players in the industry switch from an advertising source of revenue to subscription based revenue.

Who is willing to pay the subscription? How can broadcasters attract new subscribers? And how can you retain the subscribers they have?

How these questions are answered will effect how profitable diversity is to broadcasters.

I actually suspect that in an effort to reach niche subscribers the subscription model may actually increase the financial imperative to increase diversity. But in ten years’ time there might be a new economic model that means diversity is not profitable just like in the bad old days of the NBA in the 1980’s. It is impossible to predict.

By using economics as a justification for diversity and arguing that we should increase diversity because it is good for the bottom line we are implicitly saying that we should not increase diversity if it is bad for the bottom line. That the NBA in the 1980’s was correct to discriminate against black players.

I believe diversity is morally the right thing to do.

Paying women, BAME (Black Asian and Minority Ethnic), disabled, LGBTQ+ and any other groups of people the same wage based on their skills should be the aim. Ensuring that everyone has equal access to have their voices and stories heard creates a better society.

Broadcasters should not do the “right thing” in increasing diversity because it makes them more money today because who knows doing the “wrong thing” might be equally profitable tomorrow.

It sticks in my throat to say but diversity might be even more important than my first two loves: basketball and economics.

Why Black People Get Paid Less – And What We Can Do About It

Have you ever wondered how media companies work out how much to pay you?

It is an important issue for everyone, but has become a pressing issue for BAME (Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic) people right now due to the issue of ethnicity pay-gaps.

This week the think tank, the Resolution Foundation, published their findings on the UK ethnicity pay-gap and they make for bleak reading. Black male graduates are paid 17% less than their white counterparts on average. British BAME people (Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic) in general lose £3.2bn a year in pay gap differences compared to their white counterparts.

In July 2018 ITN revealed an ethnicity pay gap of 20.8%.

PUT SIMPLY THE CONVERSATION THAT NEEDS TO CHANGE

  

Well here is an example of a typical conversation I used to have as a BBC exec with Production Managers (PM) that may have inadvertently perpetuated ethnicity pay-gaps.

Me: I want to employ a new Assistant Producer I’ve just interviewed – I think they will be great for the new Panorama we have just been commissioned to make.  

PM: Great what is their name?

Me: Joan Smith, she has done some great work, she has never done a network program before but has worked for the BBC before and she will be great.

PM: OK let me look up the BBC payroll records and see what they were paid last time she had a contract at the BBC. And then that is what we will offer her.

Me: Great – let me know how it goes and when you chat to them.

A few days later Joan Smith (not a real name) would turn up and usually be paid the same, or just slightly more, than the last time she worked at the BBC.

If the person had not worked at the BBC previously the Production Manager would simply call them up and ask them “what was your salary for your last job?”

TWO BASIC ECONOMIC CONCEPTS

Economists have two terms for what is happening in these conversations: “Anchoring” and “Asymmetric Information”.

Let’s start with the concept of “anchoring”.

“Anchoring” was first described by two psychologists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky in 1974 to explain the idea that an initial number (regardless of how large or small) can act as a reference point and influences subsequent judgments about something’s value.

Behavioral economists have recognized its particular importance in pay negotiations. Even though there may be subsequent adjustments on the initial number the first number will heavily influence the final outcome. If the initial number is high the final salary will be high, if the initial number is low the final salary will be low.

The concept of “asymmetric information” is also an important concept in economics and it is where one party has a lot more information than another party. Unsurprisingly economists have found that the people with more information have a massive advantage in any pay negotiations.

As the old saying goes; “knowledge is power”

WHY ANCHORING IS BAD FOR BAME PEOPLE

Anchoring your current pay negotiations on past pay is particularly bad for BAME people for a number of reasons. Statistically in the UK BAME people find it particularly hard to land their first job, this is true even for recent graduates who are more than twice as likely to be unemployed compared to their white counterparts

The high unemployment level often leads BAME people to take lower paid work. This initial low pay can then follow them throughout their careers as subsequent pay negotiations are then based on it.

WHY ASYMMETRIC INFORMATION IS BAD FOR PAY-GAPS

Asymmetric information gives the employer the upper hand. While they know exactly how much you earn the chances are you do not have a clue how much other people in the organization in your same position earn. This means the employer has a good idea how much you will settle for while you have next to no idea how high you can bargain for

According to David Burkus, a professor in management studies, this means that “during initial hiring or annual raise or promotion discussions, that information asymmetry gives an employer the advantage—and they can use that advantage to save a lot of money. Imagine how much better you could negotiate for a raise with all that information.”

WHAT IS THE SOLUTION?

The combination of anchoring and asymmetric information massively increases ethnicity pay gaps. So what can we do to try and solve the problem?

One possible solution is to change the law. Across the US from; New York City to San Francisco, it is now illegal to ask a prospective employee “What’s your current salary”.

The idea is to make sure that people who may have accepted a lower salary previously are not penalized throughout the rest of their careers.

For the policy to work in the media industry, where a few large organizations dominate the market, (see my previous post on monopsony) you would have to build Chinese Walls that would prohibit Production Managers and execs from just calling up pay roll records to see how much prospective employees earned previously.  

While this would combat the problem of anchoring, some people have gone one step further and think pay-gaps will only be eliminated once you get rid of the problem of asymmetric information.

David Burkus, who I quoted earlier, thinks there should be complete transparency of everyone’s salary in a company from the CEO to the office junior. This would force managers to be fair and transparent about how they decide people’s pay. It would also empower employees in salary negotiations

Other people have argued that companies may not need complete transparency but should publish the average salaries and range of certain positions so people can have discussions as to whether they should be paid more or less than the average. This would level the playing field in negotiations and would also act as a fairer anchor in pay negotiations.

WHAT CAN I DO AS AN INDIVIDUAL?

While we wait for that glorious day when new laws are implemented so employers can’t ask about your previous salary. Or enlightened HR departments decide to give up their asymmetric advantage in salary negotiations by creating more transparent salary information about their workforce, is there anything individuals can do now?

One suggestion is to simply ask a new employer what the average salary of the position is they are offering you to try and address the information asymmetry.

Another idea is to simply ask them why they need to know your current salary to offer you a new one and ask them to come up with a figure so they set the anchor.

However the most important thing is to recognize the importance of asymmetric information and the power of anchors. As a BBC exec I often didn’t fully appreciate the powerful position I was in and how simple conversations I had with Production Managers could have long lasting consequences  

Good luck and happy pay negotiations!

  

Additional note: 

I mentioned my time at the BBC at the beginning of the piece and so I thought I should briefly talk about its ethnicity pay gap. The BBC revealed a ethnicity pay-gap of -1.1%. The idea that the BBC actually has a negative ethnicity pay gap and pays BAME people more than white people is thought of as “strange”, to put it politely, by most people I have spoken to who work in the organization. Please read my blog post on why this figure is highly unreliable.  

Black Journalists Collective UK - 4 Point Representation Manifesto

On the 22nd December 2018 over 100 black jouranlists signed an open letter by the the Black Journalists' Collective UK ( @BJCUK1 ) calling on newsrooms across the UK to adopt their "4 Point Representation Manifesto" to increase diversity, inclusion and representation in journalism.

I am proud to have been involved in its drafting and a signatory.

Please find the letter in full below:

Dear news editors

The poor and misleading quality of reporting related to people of colour in the UK has been brought into sharp focus in recent days by Raheem Sterling and Jamelia Davis. These are only the latest in a long litany of inadequacies in newsroom coverage of race and how stories of non-white people are covered.

We, as members of the Black Journalists’ Collective UK (BJCUK), believe that there is a direct correlation between the ethnic makeup of the staff in a newsroom and how issues are covered.

There is a chronic underrepresentation of black journalists across British newsrooms. The December 2015 survey of 700 journalists, conducted by the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism revealed that only 0.4% of British journalists are Muslim. The same survey also revealed only 0.2% of working journalists are black.

The evidence shows this is not due to a lack of available graduates from ethnic minority backgrounds. 2017 research by the NCTJ revealed that only 8% of black journalism graduates were able to obtain jobs in journalism, compared with 26% of white journalism graduates.

We need journalism that better serves all communities in the UK and therefore we need newsrooms that reflect the society they serve. We do acknowledge that news providers like ITN and the BBC have already published their intentions to improve recruitment and close the ethnicity pay gap. However, there are some who have not been so forthcoming.

It is clear there is much more progress to be made, therefore the BJCUK is calling on all newsrooms to urgently show their commitment to improving their reporting of racial issues and subjects, and to increasing the diversity of their staff by signing up to the points outlined in the manifesto below.

THE REPRESENTATION MANIFESTO

Based on four guiding principles, the BJCUK believes newsrooms should commit to undertake the following essential actions:

1. REPRESENT SOCIETY

Newsrooms should commit to the long-term goal of their staff at every level, accurately reflecting the society in which they operate. They should also commit to short-term goals set against specific deadlines by which progress can be measured.  

To this end, newsrooms should openly commit to measurable and easily understood goals and implement and publish methods by which they intend to recruit, retain and advance diverse journalists and editors.

2. TRANSPARENCY

Openness and transparency are essential to measure progress and for people - both within the and outside any organisation – to be able to trust the actions of the newsroom.

To this end,
newsrooms should publish detailed diversity figures within their organisation – both in functional areas and seniority levels.

3. FINANCE

Finances are a clear signal indication of the priorities of an organisation. Financial commitments build credibility and - if no organisation wants to waste money - helps to focus the actions of the organisation.

To this end, organisations should make clear financial commitments to increase diversity within their organisation and output by publishing percentage total salary spend on different diverse groups to training budgets.

Organisations should also commit to delivering and providing more robust unconscious bias training amongst its senior decision-makers and management.

4. EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY

We can only ensure that people are promoted on talent if everyone is given an equal opportunity to compete for jobs. Therefore, ensuring that as wide a pool of people have access to important information is one of the best methods to ensure equality in an organisation.

To this end,
as many employment opportunities as possible should be open to as many people as possible with information about job opportunities advertised as widely as possible.

Annually the number of job opportunities which were advertised (externally and internally) compared to the number of actual new jobs, moves and promotions made should be published.

We want any news organisation that believes it is serious about improving representation within the British journalism industry, and is serious about halting the steady stream of careless reporting of stories around race and diversity, join us to formulate plans for ensuring this industry is fit for right now and fit for Britain’s future.

The quality of journalism depends on reporters and commentators who have access to a comprehensive and varied set of sources and perspectives.

Freedom of Speech dies

if only the powerful and majority culture is given a platform to be heard

Democracy dies if

only the powerful and majority culture is given the means to voice their reality and experiences

Society is poorer

if we are deprived of the creativity, stories and vision of any one section of that society

Diversity and Inclusion are not luxuries

but essential elements of a functioning, free and equal society

Equal representation across newsrooms is key

to achieving better journalism and a better society

=========================================================================

Note to Editors:

Direct all BJCUK Media enquiries to

Marverine Cole, Journalist, Broadcast & Academic

marverine@marverinecole.co.uk

Black Journalists’ Collective (UK) – BJCUK - is a newly-established, and fast-growing, support network which represents the views of over 100 black and minority ethnic journalists and broadcasters, working in newsrooms across the United Kingdom.

OK Computer? Artificial Intelligence and TV Diversity

Being in China, I’m constantly discussing and covering news about Artificial Intelligence (AI) . And although “Alexa” doesn’t work so well in China because of the great firewall, I still love the fact that because of AI I can just shout and Alexa will pick a playlist that perfectly fits my mood. Somehow, I feel like my standard of life is improved. A few months ago, however, In October 2018 a small story broke about Amazon’s use of AI technology in hiring staff.

Don’t feel bad if you didn’t hear about it, most people didn’t.

But the story potentially has huge consequences and should send shivers down the spines of everyone who cares about diversity in television.

In 2014 a team at Amazon.com started developing a computer programme to review job applicants’ applications with the aim of mechanizing the search for top talent. The Artificial Intelligence (AI) employed in the computer programme would be devoid of human emotions and prejudices and objectively evaluate potential candidates.

In many ways you would think this is exactly what people who campaign for employment for people of more diverse backgrounds have been clamoring for. No more bosses just emplooying their friends and employing in their own image.

But by 2015 the bosses at Amazon started to realize that something was going wrong.

The AI programme was weeding out all the women.

The computer programmers had given the AI system over ten years’ worth of successful employees' CV’s and so the AI programme had “learnt” that one of the biggest indicators of whether a candidate would be successful in the future was whether the candidate was male. Hence all women were got rid of straight away. Far from getting rid of prejudice the computer programme only amplified the prejudice of previous employment practices combined with the possible subconscious innate prejudices of the programmers (who happened to be predominantly men).

For people interested in diversity in television this case potentially has far wider consequences than just employment practices at the online retailer.

In May 2018 Broadcast magazine published a piece explaining how AI could be used in the television industry to analyse scripts and decide which ones get green-lit or not, or at the very least which ones commissioners get to see from the mass of scripts which are submitted.  

AI could also be used to tweak scripts changing the gender or race for example of a particular character if its machine learning has taught it that a woman or white man are viewed more favourably by an audience.

In 2017 the BBC announced it was partnering with eight British universities to use AI to "better understand what audiences want from the BBC."

The publication Engadget reported that “The BBC hopes machine learning can help it build ‘a more personal BBC’ with tools that could allow employees to make informed editorial and commissioning decisions.”

Looking at the example of Amazon the potential pitfalls of using AI to decide who to employ and what programmes to commission are obvious and scary. But more importantly the problems might be far harder to spot than the Amazon example.

In America right now people are so worried about the potential prejudices being imbedded into AI models that journalists and lawyers are arguing that AI programmes should be open to be reviewed and challenged for prejudice. That means people should be able to independently analyse the computer codes that are used to teach the AI programme and make sure there aren’t any assumptions baked into the programme that might discriminate against certain groups. Just as any human decisions can be challenged in court if someone is suspected of sexism or racism for example computer programme should also be subject to the same type of challenges if prejudice is suspected.

I love AI – it improves my life in so many ways and I am not arguing for a return to a world where it doesn’t exist. Nor am I arguing for a return to a world where scripts are green lit and people are employed just on a nod and a wink. However, I personally side with the US lawyers and journalists who are making sure that we subject all decisions to scrutiny. Whether those decisions areat is made by a humans or ca computers.

Now after writing this blog post I need to relax. - Alexa play me some 90’s R&B