Donald Trump, the BBC and what happens when a woman of colour speaks her truth

On Wednesday 25th September the BBC’s Executive Complaints Unit officially found that BBC Breakfast’s presenter Naga Munchetty had breached the corporation’s guidelines by offering a personal opinion on President Donald Trump’s retort to four congresswoman of colour to "go back" to the "places from which they came".

The Executive Complaints Unit’s decision is wrong, and has three implications.

First, the decision suggests a serious lack of diversity in the organisation. It demonstrates that even with a limited increase in diversity in certain areas it does not seem to have been matched with a similar increase in inclusion.

Second, the decision, if not handled properly, could have a seriously negative effect on BAME (Black Asian & Minority Ethnic) staff working in the organisation.

Third, if the most senior levels of management do not respond publicly to the decision, it may well have a seriously negative effect on the BBC’s reputation and credibility vis-a-vis large parts of its audience for years to come.

I will now go through each of the above points in turn and at the end suggest how the BBC could turn this potentially disastrous situation to its advantage.

But before I do, a little background: I worked at the BBC for 24 years, the last eight years of those as a senior exec during which time many of my decisions would be scrutinized by the Editorial Policy Unit. Towards the end of my time at the BBC, I actually took a senior role for six months in the Editorial Policy Unit, and so have a good understanding of how both the editorial guidelines and Executive Complaints Unit work.

It is no exaggeration to say that I love the BBC’s editorial guidelines. I think they are brilliant. They offer guiding principles for anyone working in the media and they informally act as a blueprint for the rest of the broadcast industry in the UK (and globally) on how to approach editorially sensitive and difficult issues. 

One of the most important aspects of the guidelines however is that they are just that; “guidelines” - they are not rules. This can be difficult for people who are new to the BBC to get their heads around. For example, young journalists would often ask me “how many days do we have to give to a company for their right of reply?”. They wanted me to tell them the rule. And the answer was always “it depends”. If it is a very complex issue that would require a company to go through several years of tax returns then you may give them a week or longer. If it is a very simple issue, such as; “was your Birmingham branch closed on Monday?” you might give them less than a day to respond. 

The BBC’s editorial guidelines do not give you hard and fast rules. It gives you a helpful framework to think through editorial decisions. And as a framework it is literally second to none.

I say all this because it is important to understand when assessing the Executive Complaints Unit decision with regards to Naga Munchetty that we should not necessarily look at the BBC’s editorial guidelines as a set of “rules” but instead view them as principles, how they were interpreted and who was doing the interpretation.

THE DECISION WAS WRONG

So let us examine why the decision was wrong:

On 16th July 2019, President Trump tweeted that four congresswomen should “go back to the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came”. All of the four congresswomen are people of colour, all four are US citizens and only congresswoman Ilhan Omar was born overseas. The following day Naga Munchetty’s white co-host, Dan Walker, in discussing the tweet said that to him the most “telling quote” was that an unnamed woman had said that she had been told many times to “go home” back to her own country but she had never been told that by the “man sitting in the Oval Office”. 

Naga then responded to Dan by saying: “Every time I have been told, as a woman of colour, to go back to where I came from, that was embedded in racism,”. The BBC journalist told viewers: “Now, I’m not accusing anyone of anything here, but you know what certain phrases mean.”

Dan Walker then asked her how she felt when she heard President Trump use such language and she replied: “Furious. Absolutely furious and I can imagine lots of people in this country will be feeling absolutely furious a man in that position thinks it’s OK to skirt the lines by using language like that.”

Let us unpick this a little.

Dan was the first to imply that the phrase “go home” is a common insult, as the unnamed woman has heard it several times. He then went on to say that it was particularly pertinent because it was the President using this insult.  

These were both issues raised by Dan using that quote - not Naga.

So did Naga breach the BBC’s guidelines in her response?

A very simple interpretation is: Yes she did. Why? The guidelines say:

“Presenters, reporters and correspondents are the public face and voice of the BBC – they can have a significant impact on perceptions of whether due impartiality has been achieved. Our audiences should not be able to tell from BBC output the personal opinions of our journalists or news and current affairs presenters on matters of public policy, political or industrial controversy, or on ‘controversial subjects’ in any other area.”

From Naga’s response it would seem the audience can now tell her “personal opinion” on a matter of “political controversy”.

However the guidelines also make three important clarifications:

1. 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.” 

2. We should take account of the different political cultures and structures in different parts of the UK, and different cultural views in other communities.

3. Presenters “may provide professional judgements, rooted in evidence”.

I would contend that addressing racism is a fundamental democratic principle and so Naga’s response comes under the first clarification.

In addition, I think the BBC’s Editorial Policy Unit is currently struggling with how to deal with the second clarification. The BBC Editorial Policy Unit is used to dealing with “different cultural views in other communities” when those views and communities are outside of the BBC. But as the BBC strives to become a more diverse organisation it will increasingly have to deal with these very reasonable views from the BAME community being expressed within the corporation. My understanding is that the BBC is currently not even discussing this very difficult issue let alone dealing with it.

Furthermore, as a woman of colour, it could be argued that Naga was not just expressing a personal opinion but was providing a “professional judgement, rooted in evidence”, it was precisely why her white co-host asked her opinion and how it made her feel. 

For all these reasons I believe that the Executive Complaints Unit have interpreted the BBC’s own guidelines incorrectly and placed undue emphasis on the overarching principle while ignoring the caveats and clarifications put in place along the principles to help make effective judgements.

In other words - they got it wrong… Not because the guidelines are wrong but because they interpreted them incorrectly.

LACK OF DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION

The next question of course is why did they interpret the guidelines wrongly? Is it politics and censorship? Is it because the BBC cannot be seen to be against President Trump?

This is possible, but from my time at the BBC I don’t believe so. The BBC does its best to be an impartial organization. 

Instead, I think the reason comes down to a lack of diversity.

Let me explain. I do not know the diverse composition of the BBC’s Executive Complaints Unit (ECU), nor do I know which specific members of the unit were charged with assessing this specific issue. However every person I have ever known to be a member of the ECU is white.

Coincidently, I received an email from an investigative journalist who did a quick search for current members of the ECU and could only find white members. I stress that this does not mean that there are not non-white members, I just haven’t found any yet.

The ECU’s lack of BAME diversity is because it is normally made up of ex-senior programme executives, and the BBC has historically had a lack of BAME representation in these positions.

As a result it is likely that a predominantly white department was deciding whether the comments made by a person of colour about their own personal experience of racism were appropriate, and weighted different aspects of the BBC’s guidelines against one another.

The fact is none of us are 100% objective and impartial in our judgements – we often bring cultural baggage and values to our decisions. So how we value conflicting aspects against one another can be very culturally specific.

Now, it is possible that the ECU has become very diverse in the last four years since I left the BBC. It is also possible that the investigative journalist is incorrect and there are in fact a lot of non-white members of the ECU that couldn’t be found on public record. 

But even if this was true, there would still be the question of inclusion and culture.

“Diversity” is often viewed as the physical make-up of an organization – i.e. is it 15% BAME? Is it 50% women? Is it 18% disabled? Etc. “Inclusion”, on the other hand, is whether those diverse members are able to shape the culture and values of the organisation. 

The culture and values of an organisation can take a long time to change - usually longer than it takes to change the actual diversity of an organisation. And before diversity does set in and have its impact, “diverse” members of staff who are recruited or promoted can feel the pressure to conform to the dominant values of the organization.

The ECU’s decision would seem to indicate that it may still have some way to go with regards to diversity and even further when it comes to inclusion.

CONSEQUENCES FOR BBC’S STAFF

Since the ECU’s decision was announced, BBC staff have already expressed genuine anger and fright.

For instance, BBC correspondent Sangita Myska tweeted: "Right now, there is a lot of bewilderment among BAME [black, Asian and minority ethnic] staff", adding "there is unique self-censoring that BAMEs do across all industries & workplaces".

Presenter Matthew Price tweeted his "solidarity", saying: "There's a lot of bewilderment (and some anger) among non-BAME staff too... and I agree there's general concern about voicing it openly."

And  BBC presenter Carrie Gracie tweeted: “#nagamunchetty Unease among #BBC journalists for whom ‘go back’ = racist. If power trumps or bends meaning then no point in journalism, just print propaganda. There is no #BBC journalism worth the name without #BBC values. Accountability is one. Explain @BBCNaga reprimand please.”

It might not be obvious to people who have not worked at the BBC but this level of open dissent with regards to an editorial decision is possibly unprecedented.  It seems that for many the ECU’s decision tells them that this is not an organisation that accepts them, their values or understands their life experiences. For me, as a  24-year insider, who is now on the outside, this looks like an organisation that has lost its way when it comes to diversity and inclusion, and is losing the confidence of its staff.

LONG TERM IMPACT ON THE AUDIENCE

Notwithstanding BBC staff, the possible long-term impact on the BBC’s audience could be devastating.

The ECU’s decision has already gone viral on various social media platforms and has confused many. It either suggests that the BBC is not impartial in its politics – seeking to censor certain views, OR suggests that while the BBC may have improved its diversity in-front of the camera, its editorial values behind the camera are outdated and have not kept up with the changing demographics of its audience. 

This one decision erodes trust in whether large parts of the audience, including those from a BAME background, believe in the corporation’s credibility and its values. 

The BBC, as a “national broadcaster” that represents the people - as opposed to a “state broadcaster” that represents the government -  is built on that bond of trust between itself and its audience. This decision weakens that bond.

WHAT SHOULD THE BBC DO NOW?

Surprisingly I think the BBC could use the ECU’s decision as an opportunity to build trust as well as strengthen its diversity and inclusion.

Firstly it is important to recognise that the BBC is not a monolith. It is full of competing departments.

The ECU is quite separate from the rest of the BBC.  This separation is 100% essential, and very normal in large organisations – who will often have a separate audit function. These audit or investigatory parts of organisations – while directly helpful to organisations in consistently providing rules and frameworks for organisations to adhere to – have to be separated in order to be able to fairly and independently investigate and judge complaints against the organisations.

I have not yet spoken to people in senior positions of editorial responsibility in the BBC about this. But based on my previous experience I suspect quite a few disagree with the ECU’s decision. 

These – and ideally all – senior members of the BBC should make their position clear and come out internally in support of Naga. In doing so they can of course accept the decision, but in much the same way a US supreme court judge may accept the judgement of his/her fellow judges on a controversial case, s/he also has the right to write a dissenting opinion. Senior BBC staff could use the same right and take this opportunity to explain why they think the ECU has made the wrong decision.

Why? This would show the journalists working at the BBC that senior management support their views and opinions.

I also suggest senior management goes further, so as to ensure public credibility. Ideally, the most senior levels of the BBC should make a public statement about the ECU’s decision, and use this as an opportunity to reiterate the importance of diversity and inclusion at all points of the organisation.

For instance, a statement could include the idea that: 

“Whilst we accept the independent judgment of the ECU we recognise that this has raised questions about the impartiality, values, diversity and inclusion of the corporation as a whole and of the ECU specifically. We are firmly committed to impartiality within political debate, as well as the diversity of values and opinions of all our staff. We encourage them to express these values within the framework of the BBC’s editorial guidelines both inside and outside of the organisation. 

Furthermore we understand that people may be concerned about the diversity and exact make-up of the ECU and the people making the decision. We believe that the ECU is able to come to fair decisions but we also recognise that perceptions of impartiality and diversity are important for people to have trust in editorial judgements. For this reason we are from today setting a specific target that by 2022 15% of the ECU’s staff should come from a BAME background, 50% should be women and 18% should be disabled to accurately reflect British society as a whole, and we also commit to ensure other aspects of diversity from regionality to sexuality are also accurately represented.

The ECU’s decision and the public discussion that has followed it has once again shown how important diversity is to the organisation and we hope to live up to the high standards that our British and global audience expects of us”. 

WHAT SHOULD OTHERS OUTSIDE THE BBC DO NOW?

As I’ve set out above – I truly hope that the BBC will not just stay quiet on this. I hope it will use this as an opportunity to regain credibility as well as redouble its efforts to increase its diversity and inclusion. 

However, others can also respond, and encourage the BBC to respond as needed.  

Finally, as a senior exec, I have one more idea:

The BBC, should give Dan Walker and Naga Munchetty their own documentary to investigate racism and what it means to “go home”! If a brief chat on a studio sofa can generate this much interest, I am sure I am not the only one who would watch a 2-part documentary on it. And if the BBC won’t commission it I worry Channel 4 will instead… Let’s (literally) watch this space…


(Correction: When first published I refered to the Executive Complaints Unit as the Editorial Complaints Unit, this is because when working at the BBC we simply refered to it as the "ECU". The mistake has now been corrected) 

Sir Lenny Henry RTS Speech - Diversity Equals Better TV

Nice to see you all. I am Justin Trudeau, I’ll be answering your questions any minute now.

Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen.

It is a massive honour to be speaking today at the RTS. The Royal Television Society, the only place left where the word Royal isn’t followed by the words “shuts down Parliament” or “denies being friends with Jeffrey Epstein”

The RTS has consistently been at the forefront of highlighting the issue of diversity in the television industry.

I gave my first speech at the RTS over ten years ago, talking about how TV desperately needs more diversity and it’s a mark of how far society has come that I’m back today - to talk about how TV desperately needs more diversity.

INTRO: DIVERSITY MAKES BETTER TV

Today I want to address the elephant in the room.

Do we have to choose between great television or better diversity?

At least one very famous comedian, who I am sure you all know, has come out and said we wouldn’t have some of the great classic British comedy we have today if we had imposed diversity on how television was made in the 1960’s and 1970’s.

Let’s be honest, we are all here because we all love television.

I love television. I don’t know what you guys are watching at the moment, but personally I’m really enjoying the series finale of the United Kingdom. What’s gonna happen next?

I love watching television.

I love making television.

I love talking about television.

I still get goosebumps when I walk into a television studio.

I still get excited when I see a film crew in the street, and I hang-around wondering what they are filming. Then I call my agent like (on phone) “Why I aren’t I in that?? What do you mean Tena ladies incontinence pants -I can do that – I’m versatile!

And most of all I want to make the best television I can possibly make.

I want British television producers to make the best television programmes in the world.

So is there a trade-off between making great television and increasing diversity?

There are some people who think people like me would put increasing the number of black and brown people, or women, or disabled people working in the industry ahead of making amazing programmes.

That somehow I would be happy to work on a terrible production just so long as it was directed by a woman.

Or I wouldn’t mind if people didn’t watch our programmes as long as we have more gay disabled people in management positions.

There is no doubt a moral imperative for increasing diversity; society is shaped by the stories we tell ourselves and who tells those stories. Diversity creates a better society. And when I am giving evidence at the House of Lords it’s the second thing I say.

The first thing is “wake up, you old bastards!”

But today talking to my fellow lovers of television I want to stress what for me is the most important part of diversity.

I do not believe we have to choose between great television or great diversity.

The fact is diversity makes television better.

EVIDENCE DIVERSITY MAKES TV BETTER

But don’t take my word for it - here are a few facts:

In a study of 1,000 cable and network programmes the University of California found that programmes where ethnic minorities made up 31 to 40 percent of the cast had the highest ratings.

Or to put it another way, considering the study was done in the US, programmes that accurately reflect their audience have the best ratings.

You want your programme to have more social media impact? I have another study for that. The more ethnically diverse your programme the larger the twitter and facebook traffic.

And it is not just about diversity in front of the camera. The same study also found that scripted dramas and comedies that employed more women and ethnic minority writers also did better both in terms of ratings and financial returns.

I’m going to say it again.

Diversity makes TV better.

Don’t believe me?

Have you seen Killing Eve?

Have you watched any superhero movies recently?

Was it just a coincidence that the first time Dr Who finally gets a black writer it immediately wins awards? Love you Malorie Blackman! Trust me, black women have been improving doctors for years. Just go to any hospital and watch one being told off by a Jamaican nurse.

I love TV. If you love great TV like me you too will be a diversity champion.

Diversity is not the thing you do as an afterthought. It is how you make great TV.

DAMNING UK TV DIVERSITY STATS

So how is the UK television industry doing in increasing diversity?

Well let’s put it like this, the last series of Luthor was just Idris investigating why he was the only black guy on the damn show.

In the last four years the percentage of BAME people in the highest leadership positions has increased from 7.01% to 7.14% in 2019. That’s right, despite all the money that has gone into leadership schemes it has increased by nought point one three percentage points!

We haven’t got the new census data yet for the UK population - that will come out in two years time - but most people think it hasn’t even kept up with population growth.

Let’s forget leadership for a second and look at people working behind the camera more generally.

Well if we look at BBC Studios - the department responsible for making programmes - BAME representation has slowly been increasing by zero point 1 percent every year for the last couple of years. Again not even keeping up with BAME population growth.

Now I’m only citing BBC figures because they keep the best statistics but there is no reason to think that the other broadcasters have better figures.

And the BBC also has some real diversity wins to shout about. The corporation’s 50:50 project to increase women contributors on screen has been an amazing success. I also understand they are looking to increase it to cover other types of diversity. We can be so doom and gloomy when it comes to diversity we sometimes forget to celebrate our victories. Can we give the BBC’s 50:50 project a quick round of applause.

(APPLAUSE)

But it also kind of proves my point. We didn’t have to choose between good television and more women experts on TV. I don’t know anyone who says - “I used to love the news and then they had all these women experts on giving their ‘womanly’ expert opinion. I just watch repeats of Dad’s Army now instead!”

But while there has been progress in front of the camera behind it there are still major problems and not just for BAME people. According to Directors UK only 13.6% of TV directors are women and according to the BFI only 0.3% of the film industry’s workforce are disabled.

If diversity makes better television - which I 100% believe - is it any wonder that UK television is falling behind.

People are deserting us for Netflix and streaming services - especially diverse audiences. Have you seen Narcos? That show is so diverse the whitest thing in it is the cocaine. While Downton Abbey’s idea of diversity is a white dude who uses the wrong fork during dinner.

HOW WE INCREASE DIVERSITY.

Netflix, Doctor Who, Killing Eve all prove that the idea that you have to make a choice between diversity and great television is simply wrong.

I want to make the best television AND I want more diversity so how do we do that if the industry is clearly failing to make television more diverse.

OK journalists here comes the headline:

Sir Lenny Henry says it is time to scrap diversity schemes and initiatives.

They are simply not working.

So am I saying we should all just give up and go home?

Certainly not.

What I am suggesting is we need to take a completely different approach and it doesn’t involve a bunch of training schemes with no jobs at the end. Or mentoring that goes nowhere. Or a Rooney Rule that increases the number of diverse candidates we interview but don’t employ.

My suggestion today is to take all the money, all the staff and all the time and effort we currently put into diversity and simply use it to increase the diversity of the programmes we commission.

This is not revolution. This is simply copying what the broadcasters do when they REALLY want to increase diversity. Except often they don’t call it diversity

When Channel 4 and the BBC wanted to increase the programmes they make out of London, in other words increase regional diversity, they did not launch a single diversity scheme or mentoring scheme. They put their money where their mouth is and commissioned programmes and productions out of London.

When the government wanted British media companies to increase the number of Children’s programmes they produce, in other words increase genre diversity - they didn’t tell Channel 4 or ITV to send them on commissioning training schemes.

They set up a 57 million pound contestable fund for Children’s programmes. Do you have any idea what that kind of money could do to increase BAME and disability diversity?!

When we wanted to grow the British film industry there wasn’t any mentor schemes put in place. We introduced tax breaks

So let’s just be honest. We’ve been talking about this long enough. We know what works. And we know what DOESN’T work.

Let’s just scrap all these diversity schemes and initiatives and put some money where our mouth is. In fact, forget the mouth, let’s put our money where our BAME talent is.

Every time I have given a speech over the last seven years I have never advocated another trainee or diversity scheme.

I have argued for ring-fenced money in exactly the same way regional diversity has been increased.

I have argued for diversity tax breaks in exactly the same way the entire UK film industry has grown.

At the House of Lords I have argued for contestable funds in exactly the same way Children’s programmes have been incentivised.

And I have heard the most ridiculous excuses as to why these three things cannot be applied to diversity.

Let me recount an actual conversation:

Lenny we LOVE your enthusiasm but we can’t do ring-fenced funds - it’s illegal according to the Equality Act.

Me: Really? Because before suggesting it I got legal advice from Britain’s leading Equality Right’s lawyer and they say its legal. What lawyer did you talk to?

(Embarrassed silence)

It was the kind of silence I usually only get when I do jokes about television commissioners in front of a bunch of media execs who are pitching programmes - you know the kind of gig.

If it sounds like I am frustrated, it is because I am.

Now I don’t need the broadcasters, Ofcom and the government to agree with my solutions. In fact, that is something I have said that from the very start but what I have always said is, if you don’t think my solutions are any good then suggest something better. And rolling out failed policies is not better.

You all know the definition of madness as defined by Einstein: Repeating the same process and expecting a different result.

So let’s stop going crazy - let’s make diversity work once and for all and make some brilliant television.

Diversity makes TV better.

Let’s make great TV

Diversity is like a pizza. What makes it awesome is the mixture, the combination of things on top. Different flavours, different colours, all complimenting each other -so lets do that.

We ordered our pizza ages ago. It’s time to deliver.

Thanks you for listening.

(Printed by kind permission of Sir Lenny Henry)

Mission Impossible - Can Ofcom regulate TV diversity?

A year ago I found myself sitting at a table with several television execs and a few senior figures from Ofcom, the organisation that regulates the UK media industry.

The television execs were there to advise Ofcom on how they might be able to regulate television diversity better. 

During the course of the conversation it quickly became apparent that Ofcom had no way of monitoring the diversity of who makes UK television programmes. 

To explain, Ofcom DO have the power to compel the Public Service Broadcasters (that’s the BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5) to provide data to the public about the diversity of their workforce as a whole. However, in some ways Ofcom’s powers are outdated - overseeing diversity is a new responsibility. Ofcom DON'T have the power to ask the PSBs to provide data about the independent companies that make their programmes.

This means Ofcom has a very serious problem.

For example the BBC’s workforce diversity figures include a lot of non-programme making departments so Ofcom are none the wiser of the make-up of who actually makes the programmes.

At the other end of the spectrum is Channel 4 who does not directly employ any programme makers (all their programmes are made by independent companies). Ofcom cannot compel the indies to report their diversity stats so are none-the-wiser of the diversity of C4’s programme makers.  

Regulating what you can’t measure 

So sitting round the table we asked Ofcom - how can you do your job? How can you regulate something that you can’t even measure?

It was not a confrontational meeting so there was a little polite laughter by Ofcom’s officials, followed by responses which amounted to “Yeah! I know! It’s an impossible job.” 

With the way Ofcom currently tries to measure diversity and the powers that it has, it is indeed an impossible job. They have my sympathy.

Yesterday Ofcom published its annual diversity report.

Due to their outdated powers it was deeply flawed.

Misleading statistics

They effectively published diversity figures already published by the major broadcasters which do not reveal the diversity of who is actually making the programmes.

They compared the diversity of different broadcasters which is a little confusing - it is like comparing apples and oranges - as each broadcaster is set up differently (as explained by the C4 versus BBC example above).

And they used statistics from the broadcasters’ industry-wide monitoring scheme - “Diamond” - to measure freelance diversity, despite the fact that they themselves acknowledge that the sample size is so small that there is the risk of “sample bias”. Which means there’s a hogh probability that only productions with good diversity figures will report, while the majority of productions will not report giving a very skewed picture. All this means that Diamond’s figures are effectively meaningless - with time and with more productions reporting this might change, but right now they are not a useful guide to the state of diversity in the industry.

To be fair to Ofcom they mention a lot of these flaws in the report, they also used figures published by Directors UK and the Writers Guild which are extremely robust but only shed light on a small part of the overall workforce, namely directors and writers. And actor Adrian Lester has the best quote in the report saying;

“I think it’s time that the lack of information from any broadcaster not be looked upon as happenstance or a mistake; I think it’s time the failure to collect data should be regarded as a flippant and disrespectful response to everything Ofcom and many others have been trying to achieve for decades.”

What are we trying to achieve?

So why am I writing about the this and why did I tweet about it in the hours after the report was published? That is the question my wife asked me, and is the question she always asks me whenever I tweet or write about a large powerful media organisation, “What are you trying to achieve?”

What I am trying to achieve is very simple. While I think Ofcom's report is welcome in principle,  I am worried it is premature, and ultimately misleading, because of its lack of reliable data - irrespective of the caveats and small print it published.

Solutions

So what can Ofcom do?

Is Ofcom doomed forever to be made to do an impossible job without the powers to fulfil its role?

Now people who read my blog regularly should know by now that I always try and have positive solutions, so here are two:

First, Ofcom could ask government to give them more powers so they can adapt their role to the 21st century realities of the media workforce. To get credible data and compare apples with apples they need to either be able to in future a) directly compel third party suppliers to give them diversity data or b) compel the Public Service Broadcasters to collect diversity data from third parties and freelancers and give that to Ofcom. Indeed, Ofcom could do both a) and b).

There is precedent for this. In the US the state government in California have given their film regulator similar powers. Any film production which takes state funding or applies for tax relief must report their diversity figures. I would argue that making a programme for a Public Service Broadcaster is similar in principle to receiving state funding - at least in the case of the BBC.

The CEO of Ofcom, Sharon White, talking at a conference suggested that Ofcom might seek such additional powers. The problem is Ofcom’s official diversity report does not mention this, although it does mention seeking new powers from government for other aspects of diversity. 

Sharon White is also due to leave Ofcom and so what is verbally said by an outgoing CEO at a conference versus what is written in an official report might mean that it is not prioritised. And also talking to politicians, giving any regulator the power to demand workforce diversity of private companies would require new legislation and may take years.

The second solution is Ofcom could measure diversity in the same way it measures regional diversity. 

Currently Ofcom defines what is an “Out of London production”, they do this by looking at the percentage of workforce salary spent outside of London, where the production company is based, and the percentage of total production spend outside of London. It does not do a head count of how many people are employed (like the first solution this would require new legislation) but having a figure for how many productions qualify as “out -of London” gives Ofcom a very good proxy measurement for regional diversity.

If Ofcom defined what was a “diverse production” - using measurements such as salary spend on BAME/disabled/women, diverse staff in certain key roles and who is the exec - it could then measure how much broadcasters were spending on diverse productions. 

It would not be a perfect measurement of industry diversity, but just like regional diversity would be a pretty good proxy. And most importantly would not require Ofcom to have any new powers.

We all want the same thing

So next time I am sitting around a table with television execs and Ofcom officials I hope we are not talking again about how impossible Ofcom’s job is. And instead we are talking about how to make the impossible possible.

After all, as I tweeted yesterday everyone concerned in diversity in the television industry is trying to achieve the same thing: “Idealy I want to know the diversity of who is making UK TV programmes. It would be great to know the diversity of specific productions and even better if we knew their roles. With the @ofcom diversity report we are none the wiser”.