If you want to know the truth about diversity - follow the money

One of the most important programmes I oversaw, just before I left the BBC, was a Panorama investigation into drugs in sport. The investigation was done in collaboration with the US based news organisation ProPublica and it would have been impossible to complete without them. They are a great organisation to work with and since then I have always kept a keen eye on the work they do and how the organisation is run.

And so it was with interest that I read their latest staff diversity report published last week.

As you can imagine I have plowed through quite a few diversity reports of media organisations over the years and I must confess there is a lot to commend the ProPublica report.

First, for racial diversity they don’t just break the numbers into two broad numbers of “white” and “non-white”, which is what a lot of other media organisations do, although they don’t classify it as “non-white”, in the UK it is normally labelled BAME (Black Asian & Minority Ethnic) and in the US it is PoC (People of Colour).

The idea that all non-white people suffer from the same type of prejudice is not only simplistic but can be detrimental if you are trying to improve the full range of racial diversity. One BAME number might hide the fact that certain ethnic groups are not progressing compared to others.

Second, they broke their numbers down along editorial and non-editorial roles. This is something that media diversity campaigners like Simon Albury have been pushing for sometime for media organisations in the UK to do. It is the editorial roles which are crucial in deciding the output that is produced. So far I am unaware of any UK based media organisation or broadcaster that currently does this, and it can hide the true diversity of who makes the programmes or writes the news, as the headline figure is bumped up by non-editorial roles.

However at the same time as commending their reporting I think in many ways it, and most diversity reporting in newsrooms and media organisations, is fundamentally flawed.

Diversity for the most part is still seen as a headcount issue.

When I was at BBC Scotland we were equally obsessed with diversity - regional diversity - but the subject of head counts relative to London was rarely raised.

What we concentrated on was finances and slots.

We wanted to make sure BBC Scotland was getting its equal share of the money and programme slots.

The idea is with money and programmes slots the jobs will follow.

If you do it the other way round you can be in the position that we are currently in, that the small number of BAME directors in television hides an even worse fact that they are predominantly working on smaller budget programmes. An example of this is the number of BAME directors on the primetime BBC soap EastEnders is less than 2%, while for the far smaller budgeted Doctors it is over 20%.

On paper both the EastEnders and Doctors directors are classified as the same for diversity reports.  but there is a qualitative difference.

Simple head count diversity reports do not pick this up but financial diversity reports would.

The same problems apply in newsrooms up and down the country.

Good journalism takes time and money. Some reporters are given more time and resources than others. To not capture this in our diversity reports gives a completely misleading picture as to what is happening in the newsroom.

I am not advocating that we completely ignore looking at headcount diversity, we were aware of headcount in BBC Scotland, but in my experience it is not a useful metric if we want to achieve real long-term change.

Broadcasters, do you know who's benefiting from your Covid-19 schemes?

How much are schemes to help the TV and film industry during these unprecedented times of Covid-19 helping people from diverse backgrounds?

That is a genuine question.

Normally when I write a blog if I pose a question at the start it is just a rhetorical device to then explore an issue, it is a simple device to structure an argument - the answer to which I more or less know the answer to already. 

But this time it is a genuine question and a plea to everyone from the government to broadcasters to trade unions to keep diversity records of who is accessing and benefiting from all the schemes and financial support currently being rolled out. And adapt them if certain groups are missing out.

There is no doubt that there is a genuine attempt by everyone connected to the industry to help people pull through in these difficult times. Netflix and the BFI have announced a film and TV emergency relief fund. ITV have created a £500,000 fund for independent producers and I can't open Twitter without reading how Donna Taberer, the Head of Talent at the BBC is helping people in the industry (and that is literally just scratching the surface). 

I'm not saying more can't be done, and I support BECTU, politicians and other organisations for highlighting where the support is lacking and how some of the government policies to help freelancers are failing TV and film professionals. But it would be churlish not to acknowledge some of the efforts being made.

However, at the same time as praising the work that is being done I am reminded of an important life lesson my mother taught me.

My mother (now retired) was a manager of Willesden Citizen Advice Bureau (CAB) in North London for over fifteen years (NB: For readers outside the UK, CABs are best described as charitable organisations which do a mix of social and paralegal work). A large part of her work was helping people to access the benefits they were entitled to - for instance to claim unemployment and housing benefits.

Willesden is in the borough of Brent which in the last UK census was the most racially diverse borough in the country. What my mother found was that even though in theory the benefits were universal, and could be claimed irrespective of race or gender, who actually claim them varied widely. For various reasons, often people from the most disadvantaged groups were the least likely to claim what was theirs by right.

And so she taught me that having a welfare system that was equal in theory to all was not enough, you had to actively identify which groups were accessing them and actively help the others not doing so. 

While my mother's homespun wisdom served the people of Brent well, and provided me with an early political education, more recently there has been new strand of economics which supports my mother's experience.

Nudge theory is the economic theory that people make choices in life depending on how they are offered to them. For example, at it's simplest - you are more likely to buy food in a supermarket when it is placed on a shelf at your eye-level than food on the bottom shelf, even though in theory both are equally available.

What the economists have found is that nudge theory also plays an important role on which benefits people access and which groups of people claim them. Examples of studies of different groups not claiming what they are owed include universal free school meals, social security benefits and tax credits.

What the broadcasters and other media related organisations are fundamentally doing is creating a new welfare system for Covid-19 support. 

Most nudge economists would tell you that it would be very surprising if any welfare system is accessed equally by different groups, especially when it is first rolled out. That is not a necessarily a criticism of the different schemes - that is just a fact of life.

However what is essential is that the organisations rolling out the welfare system track who the recipients are and then either tweak the system or actively go out and target the people not benefiting.

How the UK television industry is responding to Covid-19 is admirable but it is only a first step. If we do not track and record who is benefiting it can entrench existing disadvantages and decrease diversity. 

Let's make sure, even in these difficult Covid-19 times, we keep on rising to the challenges.

Additional note: After a brief exchange with a lawyer while tracking diversity is the right thing to do, broadcasters and organisations in receipt of public funds might find its also the legal thing to do.

Not All Gender Diversity Wins Are Equal

Many years ago, as a series producer working in BBC documentaries, I once recommended a young Assistant Producer to a fellow series producer who was staffing up a primetime documentary series for BBC1. I thought she would be perfect for the gig – she was a strong self-shooter and had just finished working on an observational series following the lives of a few key characters. All qualities the primetime series would need.

She happened to be black.

She had an informal chat and a coffee with the series producer. We all know the type of thing – this is not an interview/interview type of scenario.

Afterwards I asked her how it went.

Not good – came the response.

She told me the series producer had asked her if she thought she would have problems filming and forging relationships with white contributors.

The series she had just finished working on was filming the lives of black people – this new job was more “mainstream” following the lives of predominantly white people.

I should mention at this point that the assistant producer in question worked in the BBC an had been born in and lived her entire life in the UK. White people were not an alien group to her.

She didn’t get the job.

It is impossible to say if it was due to her race that she didn’t get the job – there are a million and one reasons why people don’t get work in the highly competitive field of television. However, what was interesting is most of the final production team were women – from senior producer roles to junior researcher jobs. In fact the only senior role held by a man was the series producer.

This was over 10 years ago, but in today’s lingo it would be described as a win for gender diversity – but was it really?

I was reminded of this incident after the publication of a new study looking at gender diversity in Psychology of Women Quarterly.

First the good news…

Over the course of four experiments the new study found that white men were not only open to more gender diversity they positively embraced it.

White men thought companies that promoted gender diversity were not only more forward looking but more prestigious.

Now for the bad news…

After establishing the positive link that white men had between gender diversity and a companies success the researchers wanted to see what effect race would have on those perceptions.

In one experiment they took a company brochure that had been viewed favorably and substituted some of the pictures of white women with African-American women. The fictional company immediately went down in people’s perception.

In another experiment they attributed statements to a woman with a “white sounding” name from a company versus statements from a woman with a more typically “African-American name”, again the perception of the company went down for the company with the woman with an African American sounding name.

And a third experiment looked at how white men viewed statements attributed to a white man from a fictional predominantly white male company, versus statements attributed to a white woman in a more gender mixed but predominantly white fictional company versus statements attributed to an African-American woman in a more racially mixed fictional company. The respondents rated the statement by the white woman the highest, followed by the white man with the African-American woman coming in last.

This new study is important for a number of reasons.

In recent years there has been the concern that there has been a pushback against gender diversity generally. According to UCLA Anderson Management “In consulting firm PwC’s 2019 Annual Corporate Directors Survey, 68% of directors surveyed felt investors were paying too much attention to gender diversity, nearly double the percentage of the previous year.” What this study tells us, is if you want your company to be viewed favorably those 68% of directors are wrong. We need to pay more attention to gender diversity - not less. There is still a long way to go in television – where women still make up less than a third of television directors and every UK broadcaster has a gender pay gap issue.

However, what the study also tells us is that if we are not careful it will be white women who will be the beneficiaries of those gender diversity gains while black women are left behind. Much like my very unscientific anecdote at the start of this piece.

Championing diversity is essential and we should celebrate all diversity gains. But it is also important to recognize that not all diversity gains help all diverse people – even when they might be perceived as being in the same group.

Today We Launch the Sir Lenny Henry Centre for Media Diversity

Today, Wednesday 25th March, the Sir Lenny Henry Centre for Media Diversity is launched. It will be a virtual launch, for obvious reasons, but the work it needs to do is too important to put on hold. During times of crisis we need diversity in our broadcasters and newsrooms more than ever. When the current Covid-19 outbreak is over we will be holding  a public event.

Ever since plans for the Centre were announced I have received a lot of questions about the Centre, from asking what we hope to achieve to how people can get involved.  

As a member of the launch committee I hope I can answer some of the questions below but please feel free to post more questions in the comments section below or head to the Centre website and post a question directly to the Centre’s team. 

WHAT IS THE SIR LENNY HENRY CENTRE FOR MEDIA DIVERSITY?

The Centre is an independent body where academics and media professionals can work together to study media diversity exploring which policies have worked in the past and what has failed. Through rigorous academic research, data analysis and first hand experience the Centre will explore the reasons for successes and failures alike and publicise this information as widely as possible with the objective of media organisations, broadcasters, unions, trade bodies, regulators, employees and policy makers being able to use it to increase diversity throughout the industry. It is based and funded by Birmingham City University.

HOW WILL IT WORK?

We will have permanent staff working at the centre but we will also be working with academics from other institutions and media professionals. Initial discussions for the Centre involved academics from more than six universities and from media professionals who have worked for every UK terrestrial broadcaster as well as several who have worked for SVODs and digital platforms.

There are three major strands to our work:

• Collecting all the great work that is being done by other institutions from universities to broadcasters to trade unions so people have easy access to it – where appropriate we will give the work a platform. The importance of this work stream to the Centre is highlighted by the fact we will be giving a platform to the actors’ union Equity’s report on east Asian representation on terrestrial television at the launch event.
• We will analyse all the statistics being produced by various bodies and produce our own figures so we can track progress. 
• We will analyse policies to see which ones have worked and which ones haven’t so we can promote good practice throughout the industry. Where appropriate we will also analyse the merits and disadvantages of policy suggestions by third parties.

ARE YOU LOOKING AT EVERY FORM OF DIVERSITY?

The short answer is “yes”. The longer answer is we have limited resources so at this point we will have to focus on specific aspects of diversity in specific years. In the first year we will be looking at BAME representation in broadcasting. However we are open to talk to individuals and organisations with specific proposals that may fall outside any year’s specific focus. Also, irrespective of focusing on any specific element of diversity we recognise the importance of intersectionality and how it is impossible to look at any one aspect of diversity in isolation.

IF PEOPLE WANT TO GET INVOLVED IN THE CENTRE WHAT SHOULD THEY DO?

The best thing is to do is go online to the website and message the Director of the Centre Professor Diane Kemp https://www.bcu.ac.uk/media/contact-us. We will also be holding public meetings in April or May (although this might obviously be online now) so we can discuss with everyone in the industry what they want us to do. But, possibly the easiest and most pressing way to get involved is to help us with our current project of collecting all the UK reports on media diversity over the last twenty years. We have only just started this project and will be invaluable going forward. See the reports on the timeline here we have gathered so far and please send us any reports or suggestions.  

HOW WILL YOU BE DIFFERENT FROM OTHER GROUPS?

First of all, there are some great organisations doing great work already – like Directors UK, Women in Film and Television and brilliant academics, who are too numerous to mention, looking at these issues as well. We do not want to replace or replicate this great work instead we want to work with them – we are all stronger together. We hope the biggest difference is we are really going to focus on academics and media professionals working together. In many ways the idea of the Centre was born out of a simple idea from a blog post of academics being able to capture the institutional memory of media professionals and the two groups working together. We hope this will continue to be the underlying ethos of the Centre.

Additional note. I am just one member of the Centre’s launch committee – the article above reflects only my views. For official information on the Centre please visit its website and subscribe for regular updates.

Women in Film and Television Will Suffer More Than Men Because of Covid-19 – Here is How We Can Stop That Happening

An advantage of living and working in China is that you get a glimpse into the future of what is going to happen in other countries with regards to Covid-19.

One of the biggest concerns when it comes to media diversity is whether women will be disproportionately disadvantaged by the outbreak.

Currently numerous film and television productions across the UK have either been put on hold indefinitely or cancelled which has severely hit freelancers – both and women alike.

However, as I said earlier, working in China I get a chance to have a small peak into the future.

The fact is while these may seem like bleak times across the world eventually the virus will be overcome and normally life and work will resume. But if China is any example to go by normal life does not restart all at once. Instead it is staggered, and some parts of the economy and regular life get back to normal before others.

On the Chinese mainland the virus now appears effectively under control domestically with nearly all new cases originating from people outside of China returning home, predominantly Chinese students studying in foreign universities trying to escape the virus.

As things started to stabilize, in the first few weeks offices reopened, followed by shops and restaurants and most recently cinemas have started to reopen. But there are still some places that have remained closed including gyms and schools.

It is this last element – schools - remaining closed that has the potential to exacerbate gender inequality.  

If the UK follows a similar pattern, when things start to get back to normal this could seriously harm women’s careers.

When I was an executive producer at BBC Scotland I managed several women who worked either part-time or compressed hours (working a 40-hour week in a four-day week) because of childcare duties. I have only ever managed one male employee who worked compressed hours due to childcare.

According to the UK Office for National Statistics women still do almost three times the amount of childcare duties compared to men.  

When it comes to the virus and schools are closed women are far more likely to have to look after children.

The consequence of this are obvious and stark.

It means that when productions eventually restart, if schools do not open at the same time, men will be able to take advantage of the opportunities while far too many women might find themselves having to choose between working and looking after children.

If this happens the current statistic that only 24.31% of television directors are women could worsen.

Now, obviously the long-term solution is for family duties to be shared more equally between men and women – especially childcare.  However, this requires long term cultural changes and has proven difficult to shift over the last few decades let alone to change dramatically in time for when the worst aspects of the virus come to an end.

In the meantime, there are nevertheless a few things that can be done to alleviate this looming situation.

First, they could provide daycare and nurseries for working parents.

Second, politicians should be sensitive to these issues and see how they can open schools sooner rather than later as things start to reopen.

And third, the issue should be discussed more widely and openly now, before life starts to return to normal following the virus, so working parents can plan for the coming problems calmly rather than in the face of a crisis.

Sometimes it is difficult to see past any current crisis we might be currently facing, and the crisis facing freelancers due to the coronavirus is real, severe and immediate. I commend the great work being done by organisations like BECTU, broadcasters like Channel 4 and the BBC, and individuals such as Donna Taberer, who are all working hard to address the current problems. But if we want to make sure diversity doesn’t suffer we also need to keep one eye on the future.

Reporting of Covid-19 exposes the problem with the term BAME

The Covid-19 outbreak has exposed the shortcomings of the term “BAME” (Black Asian and Minority Ethnic) and why it is important to look at inter-group diversity. 

A very good family friend, who I have known since I was six-years-old, works in international public health. She specialises in public health matters in Africa and Asia. I remember as a teenager asking her what the maternal mortality rate in Africa was and whether it has got better or worse. (I know, I was a strange and slightly morbid teenager). 

Not only did she not answer me but the question seemed to annoy her. 

“The big number means nothing” came her response. “If you are a woman giving birth in Zimbabwe it is irrelevant if the mortality rate has got better in Egypt or Ghana. If you are giving birth in the countryside hundreds of miles from a hospital who cares what the rate is in the urban areas? All the big number does is give a useless average for politicians to use for a nice headline but doesn’t help anyone” 

Her irritated, slightly angry, reply has stayed with me for over thirty years. 

I was reminded of this conversation as two things recently came together: 

First is the global news story that is impossible to ignore - the Covid-19 outbreak. 

Second is a new report by the actors' union Equity that I was given a sneak preview of looking at East Asian representation in UK television. 

The full Equity report will be released at the (online) launch of the Sir Lenny Henry Centre for Media Diversity on Wednesday 25th March but the headlines are that onscreen representation of east Asians is negligible. Across almost a year of monitoring the report found the main broadcasters on several weeks often only had two east Asian people on-screen of any description between them! 

While the report specifically looked at on-screen representation, talking to members of BEATS.org (which represents British East Asians in Theatre and Screen) they think the numbers are just as low, if not even worse, for representation behind the camera and in positions of editorial responsibility. 

So what has this got to do with Covid-19 and the term “BAME”? 

For people, like myself, living in east Asia or with a personal connection to east Asia the UK’s reporting on the Covid-19 outbreak seemed to be woefully slow and failed to grasp the full magnitude of the problem for a long time. A senior UK journalist thought I was being "alarmist" on Twitter in February when I said the mortality rate was between 4 - 5% based on statistics coming out of Wuhan. For the record it currently stands at 8% in Italy. (Although the Twitter exchange in itself illustrates the problems of using a single number when they can differ so much from country to country and region to region - I should have remembered my family friend's advice at that point)

But the difference between east Asian reporting and UK reporting is not just about numbers but tone. I have seen UK current affairs phone-ins advertise their programmes by saying they will be able to “allay people’s fears”. I did not know a single person of east Asian descent or living in east Asia, who has been following the outbreak since January, who thinks we are in a place where reasonable fears should be allayed - and unfortunately there are reasonable fears. 

So if people connected to east Asia in Britain have known this since January why was this not properly reflected in our news output? The answer I suspect is connected to the Equity survey and my conversation with BEATS.org. There simply aren't enough east Asians deciding the news agenda in UK newsrooms. 

Which brings me to my main point - how Covid-19 has exposed the inadequacy of the term BAME. 

BAME stands for Black Asian and Minority Ethnic - it is basically a catchall term meaning “non-white”. Broadcasters and media organisations often publish their diversity figures using this term and mark their progress when it comes to ethnic diversity (or lack of) depending on whether their BAME number goes up or down. 

But using this catchall term means BAME numbers can increase while missing the fact that there might be almost zero east Asian representation. 

Newsrooms across the UK could meet their diversity targets and still not employ a single person from east Asia. 

It is not just east Asians who feel that the term can disadvantage them. I know several prominent black people who work in TV and the media who have effectively given up on the term BAME as they feel it does not reflect their reality. Also I know south Asians who feel suitably disadvantaged by the term - especially when it comes to specific issues around on-screen diversity. And there are those that feel that the term is simply to make white people feel more comfortable by not using the term "non-white" as this ensures we do not draw attention to white people's ethnicity.

Personally, I do not believe we should stop measuring ethnic diversity looking at white representation versus non-white representation, and as long as we do that we will need a name for this group and for me BAME is as good as any - although some people prefer People of Colour (PoC) - and I do not like the term non-white as I bristle at the idea of being identified by a negative. 

However reporting these overall figures without context and without reporting the figures that go into making the headline BAME number can not only be misleading but do serious harm, as we think we have made more progress than we really have. If we wanted better Covid-19 reporting from January, increasing the BAME number in newsrooms would've been of little help if the east Asian figures still hovered around zero. 

As my family friend would say, if you are about to give birth in Chad it is of little comfort if a woman in Egypt is more than 30 times less likely to die than you.


(This piece has been edited after a brief Twitter exchange with a senior UK journalist over my use of the 4 - 5% mortality rate for Covid-19 in Wuhan in February)

How to Protect Freelancers and Stop Covid-19 Devastating TV Diversity

Living in China and working for Caixin, the country’s leading financial publication, I have been reporting on and grappling with the economic consequences of the Covid-19 outbreak since January. Now as the virus has become international it is clear that it is devastating the television industry globally and in the UK in particular, with may productions being indefinitely postponed or even cancelled in an attempt to stop the spread of the virus.

Some of the people being worst hit are freelancers who survive from one job to another. Canceled productions literally mean no money in the bank and no food on the table. 

And potentially it could be devastating for diversity.

In fact, Covid-19 threatens to be the nail in the coffin for Black Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) television freelancers and BAME-led independent television companies. Here is why.

Over the past 20 years, the television industry has moved to a more deregulated market where more programmes are produced by independent companies, as opposed to in-house production departments within broadcasters. Exact figures are difficult to come by but according to Creative SkillSet between 2006 - 2012 the number of freelancers working in broadcast television grew from 17% to 26% and in broadcast radio they more than doubled from 12% to 25%.

It has often been BAME professionals who have borne the brunt of this shift. 

Historically the freelance economy in television has not served BAME people well where jobs are often found through word of mouth and through informal contacts. This has been exacerbated by the shortening amount of time between projects being greenlit and going into production. According to a groundbreaking study by Prof. Irena Grugulis, this time has decreased dramatically over the last twenty years. Previously there could be several months between a commission and needing to fully staff it, now that time has been reduced to an average of just two weeks. That means TV executives have just two weeks to find a director, assistant producer, researcher, runner and any other staff that might be needed to bring the programme to our screens. Prof. Grugulis thinks that this pressure to staff up a project in a short period of time is having a devastating effect on BAME and disabled people working in television.

The few statistics looking at the diversity of freelancers in the television industry all support the idea that BAME people are disadvantaged but the current structure. According to BBC figures for example BBC Studios (the department that makes TV programmes) has a 9.6% BAME employment rate when it comes to its staff. This drops by almost 2 percentage points to 7.7% when it comes to the diversity of the freelancers it employs.

When it comes to small independent companies that often survive from commission to commission the situation for BAME people might be even worse.  Televisual magazine publishes a list of the top 100 independent television companies every year along with the names of people in key positions in those companies.

Of the roughly 300 names listed last year only 6 people of BAME backgrounds were in key positions. And only one of the indies listed could possibly be thought of as a “BAME-led” company - Voltage TV whose CEO and Managing Director are both Asian.

All of this means that anything that hurts the freelance sector could have an even more devastating effect on BAME people who are already struggling and could push small indies into bankruptcy.

So the question is what can be done to specifically help BAME freelancers during the Covid-19 outbreak?

Here are a few ideas:

1. Even though productions might be currently on hold due to the virus, that does not mean commissions need to be halted nor the prospective staffing up of those productions. Indeed, a longer time frame between commissioning a project and the start of the production might in fact create more space for indies to be more intentional with recruiting BAME freelancers. And having the certainty of working on a production in the future will enable people to borrow against future earnings and plan their lives.

2. In China several regional governments are issuing vouchers that can be spent on specific sectors that have been disproportionately hit by the virus - tourism, catering and entertainment. Similarly, the UK government could issue vouchers or offer tax rebates to all broadcasters that commission productions that meet certain diversity criteria, including employing BAME freelancers or using BAME indies.

3. BAME-led indies should be given a minimum production guarantee for the year after Covid-19 measures are lifted - in precisely the same way regionally based indies are given a minimum production spend guarantee. Again, this would enable BAME-led indies to borrow with some level of security and see them through this tough time.

Living and working in China if there is one thing I have learnt in the last few weeks is even if Covid-19 doesn’t affect your health directly we will all feel its economic consequences. And what is also clear is that without the right policies those economic consequences will hit some communities harder than others.

Looking at my fellow media professionals in the UK let’s make sure diversity does not suffer as a result.