What Does BBC's Restructure Mean For Diversity?

Confession: I am a “running bore”.

I have run 11 marathons on 5 different continents and I have lost track of how many half marathons I have taken part in.

Running influences almost every part of my life. When I plan a holiday I make sure the hotel has a running machine in the gym or I work out a running route near where I am staying. Running weighs heavily when deciding what to order at restaurants; pasta and rice the night before a long training run, protein after doing a series of sprints. And it was definitely the deciding factor in which pushchair I recently bought for my newborn son.

Running is definitely not the most important thing in my life but its influence can be felt in almost every part of it.

And I can talk about it all the time, given the opportunity.

There’s no doubt about it, I am a “running bore” and I am proud of it.  

BROADCASTERS NEED TO BE “DIVERSITY BORES”

But if I am a “running bore” I want broadcasters to get to the point where they are “diversity bores”. Where diversity influences everything that they do and they can’t help but talk about it all the time. And judging from an important announcement last week, even though there is no denying that broadcasters are taking diversity, seriously they haven’t achieved the title of “diversity bore” yet.

Last week the Tony Hall announced a major restructure of BBC management.

The restructure is important and is seen by most media observers as critical as the corporation enters the new Charter period. There’s little doubt that the restructure will have a big effect on TV diversity, the concern of many media observers is that no one at the BBC seemed to think it was important enough to mention it.

DIVERSITY AND THE NEW BBC CHARTER

Diversity was a major part of the recent Government White Paper on the BBC Charter Review with it being written into the Charter for the first time. So how will the BBC’s restructure address this central part of its charter requirements?

A quick ‘control f’ for the word “diversity” of the press release put out by the BBC’s Media Centre press office of Tony Hall’s announcement of the new leadership structure comes up with zero results.

But that does not mean that the restructure will not have a major impact on diversity in the organization.

GENDER WOMEN

The most obvious impact of the restructure is on gender diversity at the top of the organisation. Women have landed arguably three of the most important jobs in the BBC.

Anne Bulford has become the BBC’s Deputy Director General with many newspapers now tipping her as the next Director General when Tony Hall leaves office. Charlotte Moore will become Director of Content - arguably the most powerful position in British television. And Helen Boaden is unquestionably the most powerful person in British radio as she now, not only oversee the BBC’s radio output, but will now have responsibility for 5Live as it moves into BBC Radio. 

REGIONAL DIVERSITY

Some BBC watches have expressed concern that the restructure might harm regional diversity as the directors for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland – Ken MacQuarrie, Rhodri Talfan Davies and Peter Johnston – will no longer be part of the executive team. Instead a single role of Director of Nations and Regions has been created and will effectively take their place on the new streamlined board.

It is also unclear how important this new person will be in overseeing diversity. The BBC has previously talked about the importance of BBC Birmingham in promoting diversity throughout the corporation. With this in mind whoever is in charge of the Nations and Regions could be the most important person in the BBC when it comes to diversity.

IN PRAISE OF BOREDOM

There is no doubt that the restructure will affect diversity in other ways, many of which may not become clear for months or even years to come. But the most surprising aspect of the announcement regarding the restructure so far is the fact that diversity was not mentioned at all.

When it comes to marathon running I cannot help but bore the people around me talking about as I it has some kind of impact in most areas of my life. I look forward to the day when broadcasters can be as boring about diversity.

Oh and by the way I will be running in the Budapest Marathon in October.

#BlackJournalismMatters

Yesterday I watched the video that may well have changed race relations in America for a generation. But the video also reminded me of the power of journalism and the importance for diversity in our journalism. 

I am sure everyone is familiar with the video by now.

But for those who have not yet seen it, a black man’s head slumps backward in a car slowly dying, while next to him in the passenger seat a woman looks into the camera and explains that a Minnesota police officer just shot her fiancé four times. The black man is Philando Castile and the woman is Diamond Reynolds.

The video is shocking and its repercussions have only just started to be felt. Many people - from heads of state to international celebrities - have been suitably moved, and the hashtag #blacklivesmatter has grown in prominence - it’s even been used by the Chinese State Broadcaster CCTVNews.

I was moved too. However, when I watched the video I saw one of the most powerful and most professional pieces of journalism I have ever seen in over twenty years of working in television.

In the immediate aftermath of her fiancé being shot Diamond Reynolds becomes a journalist broadcasting to the world what has just happened. She remains calm, she captures all the right shots and describes the events in a clear linear narrative. 

Essentially, she uses all the basic principles and tools of journalism that are taught to student journalists all around the world: The 5 W’s: Who, What, Where, When and Why (and How).

And it’s this that is powerful. What the video demonstrates is that it is not simply the truth that changes the world - it is strong journalism that changes the world. Philando Castile’s killing was far from unique - it comes in a long line of black deaths at the hands of US police, and there have been videos of some of those deaths previously - a few even catching the shooting as it occurred. But there has never been this quality of journalism covering a death before.

And what should not be lost is the fact that it was a piece of journalism by a black woman.

In newsrooms across the US, and here in the UK, there are far too few black journalists working in them.  And the latest data from American Society of News Editors show that things are getting worse. The number of black journalists working at U.S. daily newspapers dropped 40% between 1997 and 2013 - that is almost 1,200 journalists who no longer write about events from a non-white perspective.

Diamond Reynold’s journalism proves the need for black journalists to tell news from their own perspective. The perspective of a reporter literally at the barrel of a gun is fundamentally different from the perspective of a reporter standing behind a policeman that is using or has used that gun.

If we want strong powerful journalism that can change the world we need to embrace diversity and the range of different perspectives that can give us.

#BlackLivesMatter is a globally trending hashtag that has become a defining political movement for millions of people. I hope that the editors of newsrooms and journalists around the world will start to realise that #BlackJournalismMatters too.

Are We There Yet?

Last week, I participated in two meetings about diversity that could not have been more different from each other.

The first meeting was sombre.  It was at the BBC –and focused on regional diversity. 

Seven years ago the BBC rolled out its plans to increase regional diversity. By any objective measure these plans have delivered some great, successful results. The quality and quantity of the programmes that are now produced outside of London by the BBC are at their highest levels ever.  It has been great for my team and me as a member of the BBC’s senior management in Scotland. However, at the meeting it was clear that these results were not enough. Some of the targets the BBC has set itself are very difficult and do need constant vigilance to meet. Indeed, despite the absolute success of leaders and senior management in the regions and London, not a single back was being slapped during the meeting.  It was a serious, somewhat painful and practical meeting.
 

Perhaps thankfully, this was in sharp contrast to the second meeting I attended. The second meeting was a “diversity roundtable”, convened by the Minister of Culture, Media and Sport – Ed Vaizey.  It was the 4^th in a series that I’ve been invited to – in my role as the Chair of the Diversity Committee for the Royal Television Society.  And what struck me immediately as I grabbed a free coffee from the servers outside the very nice NFT viewing theatre where the roundtable was to be held – was that I could hear… laughter.  

Indeed, this plush setting and laughter were a surprise, based on past experience. The 1^st ever roundtable – back in 2013 had been convened in a rush, and attendees were cramped into a conference room in the House of Commons. There were high-level participants of course, but the meeting can only be described as fairly messy and inconclusive. The image of Pat Younge perched on a chair squeezed into the corner of the room has been burnt into my memory. 

This 4^th session was entirely different. The official DCMS press officer was taking pictures for their twitter feed, and each broadcaster – from Stuart Murphy from Sky, to Ralph Lee and Baroness Oona King for Channel 4, to Charlotte Moore for the BBC and ITV commissioner Asif Zubairy – confidently outlined all the initiatives and money they had recently rolled out to increase Black Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) diversity. John McVay – representing the Indies – set out similar initiatives and they all even discussed how many of the initiatives were pan-industry with them all working together. Mutual backslapping was the activity of the hour.  

But despite the jovial mood, my concern was, unlike the regional meeting earlier in the day,  nothing has yet been achieved by these initiatives. None of them have yet shattered the glass-ceilings, and there is no evidence yet that the number of BAME people employed behind the camera is not still woefully low.

My concern – and I believe others in the BAME industry hold this – is that the top management in broadcasters will feel “mission accomplished” when in reality we have only just started.

There’s currently a joke between black people working in the TV and film industry which goes like this:

“Have you seen ‘Selma’ yet?”

“No, what is it?”

“It’s a film about one black man taking on the entrenched racism of an entire system. Proving you can overcome prejudice and overwhelming odds.”

“Oh, you mean the story of David Oyelowo moving from the UK to the States?”.

It’s hardly the funniest joke in the world – and indeed Martin Luther King’s struggles and achievements are nothing to joke about… But the joke does to a good degree highlight the ongoing struggle for BAME people to get work both in front of and behind the camera in Britain. The initiatives are very welcome, but many non-white people still feel they are not getting the breaks they deserve.

That is why, in and amongst all the good cheer at the roundtable, there was one remark made by the BBC’s Charlotte Moore that struck me as critical. In responding to a question from the floor, Charlotte said it was highly likely that diversity will be “part of charter renewal”. It might have been an off-the-cuff remark, I’m not sure. But in actual fact, if BAME (and other) diversity is part of charter renewal it might well mean that the voluntary initiatives we are welcoming now might become ingrained, somewhat like the 7 year old BBC out of London targets currently are or the targets C4 regional targets set by Ofcom.

While that might mean less jovial meetings, it might also mean that sufficient time is being put aside to evaluate their success and ensure they deliver, and we can all focus seriously on making them do even more for deserving BAME people across the country.  Now that would be success to laugh about.
 

(This post was originally written for Broadcast Magazine. Since writing the original article Broadcast published a freedom of information request to the BBC revealing that resignations by BAME employees are at a five year high at the organisation. It might even be a ten year high or even an all time high, we don't know because the magazine only asked for figures for the last five years. So in answer to my question in the title of this piece; Are we there yet? Unfortunately the answer is still No)

What Unfulfilled Potential Looks Like

Last year my friend and colleague Jay Mukoro died and life is not fair.

A few times in life something happens that puts everything in perspective. An event so dramatic that it shocks the system and either forces you to re-evaluate your beliefs or spurs you on to redouble your efforts.

Last April I was on holiday in America when my personal phone started ringing at 3.50am in the morning. It was my Production Manager and I knew instantly something was wrong. Back in the UK it was still only ten to nine.

"There's no easy way to say it, so I'm just going to say it" was all the warning I got by way of preamble. "We think Jay is dead - drowned in Barbados". Just typing this conversation still makes my lip quiver. He was in Barbados for a wedding but he was also directing a film for me about the 1986 Commonwealth Games. One of the interviewees happened to live in Barbados and so the day before he had shot an interview with him. Work done the following day he had gone back to enjoying his holiday. My understanding is that he swam out to sea and simply never returned.

There are supposedly seven stages to grief and now nine months on I think I have gone through them all, but if I think too much about it I am quickly transported back to the “anger stage”.

Jay was a brilliant Assistant Producer. He had worked on numerous high profile landmark Current Affairs films. Everything from The History of Modern Britain with Andrew Marr to Mixed Britanica. But like hundreds of black people working in television before him he felt he had hit a glass-ceiling.

No one would give him the break he needed to direct his first film.

I've lost count of the conversations we would have in Pret A Manger or Costa Coffee by the BBC where we'd discuss the problems of the glass-ceiling. Part career advice, part therapy session they were fundamentally just two black people discussing the obstacles we face. But no matter how difficult the issues were Jay would always be laughing and smiling.

Everyone I spoke to who worked him all said the same thing;

“Jay is brilliant”. “He should be directing”. “He deserves a break”.

Last year I was finally in a position to give him that break. BBC Scotland - due to the Commonwealth Games and The Referendum - had more opportunities than usual. I didn't give him the break out of some act of goodwill but because I knew he was perfect for the job. The film was about the 1986 Commonwealth Games, a fascinating story of an African led boycott due to South African apartheid. Jay had a great track record in history docs, understood how to distill complex race issues to a mass audience (in this case apartheid) and had brilliant visual ideas.

                                

He had to move up to Glasgow to direct the film but he didn't hesitate. The first month he moved into my spare bedroom while he looked for a place to stay. That's when I'd like to say the professional relationship became a friendship. I found out he loved Radiohead (although knew the difference between a Tribe Called Quest track and a De La Soul song) and I discovered how he proposed to his wife Olivia and about his relationship with his Nigerian father.

It is trite when someone young dies suddenly to talk about "what a loss it is", "a waste of talent" or "how we lost him in their prime". But with Jay these oft quoted phrases have an added edge that literally fills me with anger and sorrow.

Jay may have been finally directing his first broadcast film but there was no way this should have been his directing debut. His talent was so immense and obvious, not just to me but everyone you spoke to, he should have had a plethora of directing credits. I shouldn't have been "giving him a break", he should have been "doing me a favour" to direct a film I was exec'ing.

We often talk about "glass-ceilings" in the abstract. Jay's death exposes the cruel reality behind such an innocuous phrase. It is about wasted talent. It is about people being held back despite amazing talent. It is about the fact that for far too many black people working in the media fundamentally life is unfair. Jay's tragic and untimely death just brings that into focus.

Jay was never able to fulfil his potential. The same is true for too many people from diverse backgrounds working in television – although rarely as obvious or tragic.

I will miss Jay terribly, as I am sure will everyone who ever worked with him. It might be almost a year later but I am sure all our thoughts and prayers are with his wife Olivia and the family he leaves behind. 

Is It Because I'm Working Class?

“It’s not about race, it’s about class.”

I’ve heard variations of this statement at the last few events I have been to about diversity in the television industry. Sometimes the idea comes from the audience other times it can come from the invited guests on the panel or giving a speech.

The idea is that when we talk about the under-representation of BAME people in front and behind the camera we are actually confusing race and class together.

The argument normally goes as follows:

It is in fact working class people who are under-represented in the television industry. For example only 37% of BBC executives went to comprehensive or secondary modern schools. Because black people are more likely to be working class (see statistics on black unemployment and the number of black people in managerial positions) that is why they are under-represented in the media. The fact they are black is almost coincidental. Solve class diversity and everything else will follow.

So do BAME people only reach a certain point in their careers because they are black or because they didn’t go to private school? And does this mean BAME middle-class people do not experience racism and glass ceilings at work?

The leading expert on race and class in Britain is Dr Nicola Rollock of the University of Birmingham, she recently wrote a very interesting paper on this issue called “Race, Class and ‘The Harmony of Dispositions’”, (it’s only 5 pages long and well worth a read).

In it she points out that class is so much more than just the money you earn. It is about where you live, your interests, your tastes and your circle of friends. To use the academic terms class is about your “financial capital” and your “social capital”. (The BBC also did an online survey in which you could find out your class based on these factors). Ultimately the life opportunities which are available to you are usually a result of your social and financial capital.

But here is the interesting part of Dr Rollock’s work; at each stage race plays a part in how much your social and financial capital are worth and which doors they are able to open. Her work is littered with examples of BAME people who would be termed “middle-class” experiencing racism. Also race also plays a role in which class other people perceive you to be in and therefore how you are treated. To put it crudely a white man driving an expensive car might be middle-class but a black man driving the same car might be thought of as a drug dealer.

So how does this help us when we are trying to tackle issues of diversity in the television industry?

Firstly it tells us a reductive approach is not helpful when talking about diversity.There is no doubt class diversity needs to be tackled but so does ethnic diversity, gender diversity, disability etc. There may be “overlap” on some of the issues but solving one issue does not necessarily solve the other.

Second the vast majority of BAME people - irrespective of their class - will experience racism and glass ceilings in their careers. Not to acknowledge this can often be insulting to the very BAME middle-class people are both simultaneously victims of racism while being told they have “escaped” problems associated with their race.

And finally when the next person tells you that “it’s not about race, it’s about class” just tell them to read some of the work of Dr Rollock.

Denying anyone the challenges they face due to their gender, race, class, sexuality or disability is rarely the best way to solve their problems.

Breaking The Glass Ceiling Is All About Belief.

A channel controller.

The head of BBC drama.

The Director General of the BBC.

These are all great, aspirational jobs for anyone at the BBC.  But the sad reality is that for Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) people working in television such lofty ambitions are completely unrealistic. For the vast majority of us, even reaching management positions is a pipedream. The glass-ceiling faced by people of diverse backgrounds has been described as a “concrete-ceiling”, and the problem is openly acknowledged by all the major broadcasters.  

In an effort to address this issue the BBC has launched a “Senior Leadership Programme” with the specific aim to identify and promote BAME people. A few weeks ago, after rigorous testing and interviews, the BBC finally identified which lucky six colleagues they will support, develop and mentor to break through the “glass-ceiling”.

But how does an organisation identify the right people to break through the glass ceiling? How do you pick the leaders of the future?  

Well, I am quite sure the BBC has picked the right people.

But research suggests they could have picked almost anybody and they would probably have been the “right people”. Let me explain:

In 1963, the Harvard psychologist Robert Rosenthal led a seminal study on how to identify future genius. He went to an elementary school in San Francisco and tested children from five to eleven on a cognitive ability test. He then shared the test results with the teachers showing how 20% of the students “had shown the potential for intellectual blooming, or spurting” – even if they might not demonstrate that ability now.

A year later, all the students took the cognitive ability test again and the “bloomers” improved more than the rest of the student body. In fact, on average, the “bloomers” increased their IQ by a staggering third more than their counterparts.

The results were conclusive and irrefutable. Prof. Rosenthal had identified future genius. Only… he hadn’t.

The 20% of future geniuses Rosenthal had identified had been picked completely at random, and the other 80% were a control group. The only difference between the two groups was the teachers believed one group was full of future geniuses and the other group was not. The teachers’ beliefs created self-fulfilling prophecies. Once a group had been identified as “bloomers” the teachers treated them differently and they did indeed “blossom”.

But children are impressionable and a teacher’s actions can have massive consequences on them.  So is the Rosenthal study relevant to adults in the workplace?

The answer is “yes”.

Variations of the seminal study have been conducted in different workplaces around the world with management – instead of teachers – being told whom their “potential bloomers” were. Management researcher Brian McNatt conducted a comprehensive analysis of these studies involving almost 3,000 employees. When managers were assigned random employees as “bloomers” they invariably “bloomed”.

So how does this relate to fulfilling ambitions at the BBC?

Well, through the new Senior Leadership Programme the BBC has now identified six potential BAME “bloomers”. As I said earlier, to be identified the lucky six had to undergo rigorous testing and interviews and I have no doubt they are extremely talented. The thing is, based on the above, I suspect whichever of my BAME colleagues were picked would “bloom”.

Nevertheless, that does not negate the huge impact this “picking of six” can have. The reality is that management in the BBC, and throughout the TV industry, identify “bloomers” and future leaders every day - formally and informally. But outside of a few special schemes, the employees who are usually identified are nearly always white, and far too often male. And the rest becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

That’s why I am so pleased to see my six colleagues get into the scheme, and I wish them all the best in it.  Research suggests they have a very exciting future ahead.

But there is a bigger lesson for those in the BBC and other broadcasters in management positions, which goes beyond the special six.  We must always make sure we don’t just look for potential in the usual places. We should believe in all our employees. Almost everyone can have potential if they are nurtured and treated right.

Indeed, if we really believe in the potential of diverse talent, management in the BBC must not take its eyes off the ball now that six people are being nurtured. However much we try and identify potential leaders all the research shows "bloomers" are invariably made not born. Our job is to make sure we make a few more leaders from diverse backgrounds and not just wait for diversity schemes. And then hopefully more black and Asian people will be joining the lucky six as channel controllers, genre heads and even Director Generals. 

In fact according to the academic studies all management needs to do is believe the diverse talent is good enough to break the glass-ceiling and the rest will follow.