Tony Hall Is Leaving The BBC But Increasing Diversity Is Not A Simple Matter Of Changing The Gatekeepers

The BBC needs to worry less about changing its gatekeepers, and more about changing the structures behind them.

On Monday 20^th the BBC’s Director General, Tony Hall, announced he would be stepping down.

WHO SHOULD REPLACE TONY HALL?

Following the announcement I have received the usual messages from people asking me who I think should replace him. As I write so much about diversity people have asked me if I think there are any suitable women, disabled or ethnic minority candidates. And of course there are several; from Sharon White and Alex Mahon who are being touted by the trade papers, to Paula Kerger (the current CEO of PBS in the US) to Channing Dungey (the President of ABC) if we wanted to cast our net a little wider.

But implicit in these questions is the argument one often hears, that if we were only able to change the gatekeepers then we could solve diversity.

In many ways when it comes to British broadcasting there is no more powerful gatekeeper than the Director General of the BBC, and so we just need to find the right gatekeeper.

This is not an argument I subscribe to, and it doesn’t standup to scrutiny.

GATEKEEPERS MATTER LESS THAN YOU THINK

Gatekeepers do matter but to extend the metaphor the structures the gatekeepers are guarding matter more.

Take for example the various commissioners at ITV, Channel 5, BBC, Channel 4, Sky and Netflix. All very important gatekeepers deciding which programmes are made and broadcast.

The different broadcasters have very different rates of diversity, both behind and in front of the camera. However the pool of commissioners that all the broadcasters draw from is very small.

It is common for a gatekeeper to move from BBC to ITV to Sky to Channel 4 and back again.

If gatekeepers really mattered as much as people seem to think, then diversity rates of the programmes would follow the commissioners who are good at diversity and fall accordingly. But this doesn’t seem to happen.

Instead the gatekeepers commission according to the structures and demands of the broadcasters they find themselves working in. ITV is poor at diversity and the gatekeepers commission accordingly. Channel 4 and Netflix are better at diversity (relatively speaking) and the gatekeepers act accordingly. What is interesting is the gatekeepers are the same set of people moving between the different organisations.

To underline this point Mark Thompson was the head gatekeeper at Channel 4 as CEO from 2002 – 2004 and was then the head gatekeeper of the BBC as the Director General from 2004-2012.

STRUCTURES MATTER MORE

In my experience at the BBC gatekeepers did not commission more programmes out of London because they were more enlightened about regional diversity. Channel controllers did not broadcast more high-end drama in prime-time because they had a particular love of drama.

The gatekeepers were fulfilling their duties within the parameters of the organisations they were guarding (excuse the extended use of this metaphor). And those parameters are set up by negotiations (directly and indirectly) between Ofcom, the broadcasters, government departments, trade bodies and unions. They also take into account the commercial realities and models the broadcasters are operating under.

It is precisely this argument Sir Lenny Henry, Simon Albury MBE and I made at the House of Lords select committee when giving evidence about diversity and streaming services like Netflix and Amazon. We did not concentrate on the individual gatekeepers but how the organisations differed. (One quick example; Anne Mensah is the Vice President of Original Series at Netflix, but has also been an important gatekeeper at Sky and the BBC. Her ability to champion diversity seems to have grown now she is at Netflix compared to her time at the other two broadcasters - I doubt her views on diversity have changed).

DO GATEKEEPERS MATTER AT ALL?

Gatekeepers matter.

Everyone who works in television has stories of good and bad exec producers, good and bad commissioners, and even good and bad director generals.

And working within the confines of the organization good gatekeepers can deliver better results than bad gatekeepers.

For this reason I will be cheering on the people I genuinely hope would make great director generals of the BBC - and my list is replete with great women and people of colour. 

But I will be dedicating more of my efforts to creating structures that will enable good gatekeepers to make positive change and limit the bad gatekeepers from messing up too badly. 

Diversity Burnout is Real - Here's How to Fight Against It

I run marathons.

I started running marathons in 2012 and have so far run 19. I’ve run a marathon on every continent except Antarctica and run one sub-3 hour marathon. I am currently in training to run my 20th marathon in Rome at the end of March.

Lots of people like to exercise and have hobbies. So why am I writing about my marathon exploits on a blog about media diversity?

Because I want to write about doing work around diversity and protecting your mental health.

The truth is I would not be able to do any of my diversity work if I did not run.

Every marathon I complete gives me a simple sense of achievement. The process is incredibly linear -  I put in the training, I am then able to run a marathon. Running gives me a sense of control

When it comes to diversity work it can feel like the exact opposite.

Ethnic diversity behind the camera has hardly budged in the last ten. 

Disability numbers have increased in some media organisations but most people think that is more down to recategorization of people as opposed to actual real increases. 

And while there have been some substantial gender gains one only has to look at gender pay gap issues to question at what cost have these achievements have been gained.

This lack of linear progress was brought into sharp focus less than two weeks ago when Bafta announced its nominations shortlist and not a single person of colour was nominated in any of the male or female acting categories.

The next day Samira Ahmed won her gender pay dispute against the BBC. Instead of simply apologizing the BBC issued a statement implying the employment tribunal had reached the wrong decision.

This was then followed a few days later with the ongoing public debate around the Duke and Duchess of Sussex and whether sections of the media had been racist in their coverage of the couple.

And then just a few days ago the BBC announced it was planning to move major parts of its workforce from areas with a high BAME concentration to parts of the UK with low BAME concentrations. The statement failed to address how it might mitigate any detrimental effects on their BAME numbers.

These four events occuring in less than two weeks highlighted just some of the major obstacles we face when it comes to media diversity

I’ll be honest with you, for someone who campaigns to increase media diversity the last two weeks felt like I was being physically beaten up.

And so I am writing about running.

I am writing about running because I have received a number of WhatsApp messages, emails, Tweets and even good old fashioned phone calls from people who feel the same as me.

Albert Einstein famously defined insanity as "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results".

But I think the direction of causation can run in both directions; doing the same thing over and over and NOT getting a different result can drive you insane. 

The concept of “diversity burnout”, is a well-documented phenomenon and affects the mental health of people working to increase diversity.

A groundbreaking paper in 2017 written by University of North Carolina-Charlotte professor Ryan Miller and six colleagues from the University of North Texas, interviewed seven “diversity educators” from a “predominantly white research institution” .  The interviewees all claimed to suffer from “compassion fatigue,” “burnout,” and “racial battle fatigue”.

The burnout has two main causes; the first is a sense of complete helplessness being confronted by a major task, while the second is facing constant pushback as institutions find ways to undermine or subvert your work.

Assuming we want people to continue to fight for better diversity what should we do? Because asking people to sacrifice their mental wellbeing for possible gains in the future is not feasible or even ethical.

The first is to acknowledge that diversity burnout is real - .people are struggling.

Second, we need to support each other. Whether that  is simply by listening to each other, celebrating our achievements or sharing coping strategies - such as running marathons - we are our own best medicine. 

And third, we must give up on the erroneous notion that progress, unlike my marathons, is linear. If we buy into the idea that progress is linear then the four examples I gave at the beginning means we are going backwards and all our hard work is for nothing.

Also if we believe in linear progress then when there are advances people brush off the need for more work by saying “we might not be advancing at the speed you want but things are getting better”.

The reality is progress is messy and diversity work is messy. We can advance in some areas while going backwards in others. New obstacles can occur that never existed previously，  while other obstacles can disappear  - not because of our hard work but because circumstances have changed.  

And so today I just wanted to write a simple message to everyone who cares about diversity:

I know things can be hard, and I know the last couple of weeks have  not been easy, but please look after yourself and each other.

Do not buy into damaging narratives of what progress, success or failure look like.

And most of all anyone who wants to run a marathon - please feel free to DM me :)

Samira Ahmed exposes bigger diversity problems at the BBC than a single gender pay dispute

The verdict is in.

Samira Ahmed has won her equal pay tribunal against the BBC.

The case has made global headlines. But if you look more closely at the issues and the verdict this was not just a tribunal about a one of case of gender pay discrimination. It brings into question a fundamental business practice of the BBC that may disproportionately disadvantage women, Black Asian and Ethnic Minorities (BAME) and people from disadvantaged groups in general. 

Let me explain why this case exposes a structural problem at the BBC and has far reaching consequences for diversity in the media. 

REACTION TO THE VERDICT

The employment tribunal agreed with Samira Ahmed that the audience feedback programme she presents, “Newswatch”, is similar enough to another programme, “Points of View“, that she should be paid the same as the white male presenter.

Samira Ahmed was paid £440 per programme while the presenter of “Points of View”, Jeremy Vine, was paid £3,000 per programme.

The unanimous judgement of the tribunal was “her work was like that done by Vine, and the BBC had failed to prove the pay gap wasn't because of sex discrimination.” 

Despite the judgement the BBC seems unrepentant, and effectively said that the tribunal had made a mistake issuing a statement saying the pay for Ahmed and Vine “was not determined by their gender”, adding “we weren't able to call people who made decisions as far back as 2008 (when Jeremy Vine’s salary was decided) and have long since left the BBC.” Inferring that if they had been able to call these witnesses the tribunal would have found in their favour.

I was also contacted by two BBC executives (personal friends) who thought the tribunal had come to the wrong conclusion.

At the same time, the tone of the vast majority of mainstream media and social media seemed to be sympathetic to Ahmed and critical of the BBC. And large parts of the BBC’s own workforce, women and BAMEs in particular, have come out in support of the tribunal’s decision.

So how have we reached the position that the BBC can effectively be found guilty of gender pay discrimination and seem unapologetic for underpaying a woman for a job?

Is the corporation rammed full of bigoted sexist pigs?

Having worked there for 24 years - the last eight as a senior executive - and being outside of the organisation for a further four years now, my answer is “no”. 

But in many ways the truth is even worse. 

HOW FINANCIAL PRESSURE MAKE "GOOD PEOPLE" DO "BAD THINGS"

The fact is the BBC is full of nice liberal people who are working in a culture and under a peculiar set of circumstances that causes them to make terrible decisions and discriminate against under-represented groups despite the best of intentions. 

And here is the scary part...I suspect almost every executive producer has made the same decisions that could lead to the same pay discrimination result - myself included.

Let me explain how and why.

The BBC is under financial pressure. Following the financial crisis of 2008 and austerity policies implemented by the Conservative-Libdem government thereafter, the BBC’s license fee was frozen between 2010 and 2017. Despite small increases since 2017 in real terms the BBC’s revenue has gone down dramatically. 

It is against this backdrop that executives are always looking to make their money go further.

One way to do that is to cut everyone’s salaries, especially of the highest earners. But that’s hard. 

So another way to make money go further is to take cheaper programmes made by one part of the corporation and play them in parts of the network that are normally more expensive.

This happened regularly when I was the head of current affairs programmes at BBC Scotland. Cheaper BBC Scotland programmes originally commissioned for a regional (Scottish) audience would be “recommissioned” and sometimes even “reversioned” to play on the (nationwide) BBC1 network. And it still happens now. Cheaper daytime programmes often migrate to primetime, or BBC4 programmes migrate to BBC1 or BBC2. 

When this happens executives overseeing the more expensive slots are happy as they have found a cheap alternative to help them stretch their budgets. And the regional / daytime / BBC4 production teams are happy as they now get a larger audience and more exposure.

Everyone is a winner. Or so it seems...

PAYING STAFF LESS TO DO THE SAME JOB

The management practice of moving programmes around might be good for business but if you take a step back there is usually one set of losers - the staff.

And specifically, the staff who make the cheaper programmes. Despite the fact they are now making programmes which are deemed worthy to fill more prestigious and costly slots, they rarely see an uplift in their salaries. They are getting paid less than their colleagues who were effectively doing the same type of programmes and filling the same slots as before. 

But it is so ingrained in the corporation’s culture that the BBC didn’t - and judging by their public statement clearly still don’t - see it as discrimination.

It is just how senior management makes money go further.

SAMIRA AHMED’S CASE

And so this brings us to the Samira Ahmed case, and importantly, how this ingrained practice becomes discriminatory.

The BBC took a historically cheap programme, Newswatch, made for a part of the BBC where programmes are relatively cheap, the News Channel, and moved it into the BBC1 schedule where programmes cost more. And the minute they moved it to BBC1 the comparison to Points of View soon became obvious, which is made by a part of the corporation with higher wages, the Entertainment department.

You could say it was a perfect storm, but if you look around the BBC you see these "perfect storms" all the time. 

At first I am sure the decision to move Newswatch seemed like a win-win. It eased the financial pressure off BBC1 budgets and for the team working on it all of a sudden they got terrestrial network exposure. Plus in the internal market that operates within the BBC some money might have even flowed from BBC1 to the News Channel easing the News Channels budgets (although I am only guessing at this last point). 

It is of course a win-win until someone points out the fact it is built on the unfair treatment of some workers being paid less for doing the same jobs as their colleagues were doing previously.

BUT IS IT SEXISM?

Now, some people might point out that this has nothing to do with gender, racism or discrimination. A white man could be working on the cheaper programme which replaces the more expensive programme.

That is very true.

But it is also a fact that cheaper programmes are disproportionately made by production teams out of London and parts of the BBC where there are more women and BAME people working.

Just one quick example, over 20% of BBC1’s daytime soap opera Doctors programmes are made by BAME directors, while only 1% of Eastenders programmes are directed by BAME directors. Doctors is substantially cheaper than Eastenders to produce. If the corporation ever did the same money-saving trick with Doctors and moved it to primetime it would disproportionately affect BAME staff.

Similarly, most people I have spoken to do not think it is a coincidence that an Asian women gets to present "Newswatch" while there has never been a non-white on-screen presenter of "Points of View" in its 58-year history. 

CAN THE BBC FIX THE PROBLEM?

So what does this all mean for the BBC?

First of all, this means that this is a structural problem rather than a simple one-off case of gender discrimination.

Second, it means that fixing the problem might have far larger consequences than the BBC has realised. It may require new and difficult conversations around other options for achieving value for money - such as cutting the most expensive salaries, which have historically been held by white men.

Third, if the BBC wants to continue its practice of moving programmes around the schedule, it means looking at everybody's salaries when these moves happen.

And last but not least, it means the BBC’s statement issued following the tribunal’s decision hit completely the wrong tone. Instead of of being defiant it should have said something like:

“We regret that we underpaid Samira Ahmed for several years and fully take on board all of the tribunals comments.

The tribunal has brought to light how BBC management decisions, while not intentionally discriminatory, may disproportionately affect certain members of staff. 

We will look at this case again with the utmost urgency to ensure that these problems are not repeated.

Samira Ahmed is one of our most valued journalists and presenters and we look forward to her working with us for years to come and continuing to produce wonderful content”.

The BBC has many problems. No organisation is perfect.

And as someone who worked there for years I want it to flourish.

The best way it can start doing that is by critically examining the situation it is in and looking at how it can rectify its shortcomings. Being defensive and denying the reality of discrimination, however unintentional, is not how this problem will be solved.

How Diversity Could Have Solved Media Bias in the General Election

There is a story that in the 1980’s Alcoa, now the world’s largest aluminium company, was in trouble. 

The work culture was broken, riven with industrial disputes; profits were falling and they were producing bad aluminium with lots of flaws.

It was thought the company was beyond repair and in a downward spiral.

In desperation they appointed a new CEO, Paul O’Neill. 

Everyone expected O’Neill to be like the previous CEOs and announce how he was going to concentrate on profits and increase worker efficiency. After all, that is what shareholders wanted.

Instead he said he would make factory safety his number one priority, and set a goal to achieve zero injuries.

He not only reached that goal, but today, Alcoa is one of the most profitable and efficient companies in the world.

The secret? O’Neill realised that worker safety was an indication of how everything was operating. Injuries are actually a real issue in aluminium production as you have hot molten and heavy machinery everywhere.

In O’Neill’s eyes, accidents were a sign of workers not following standard procedures every time. Accidents were a sign that machinery was not being updated and repaired when it was meant to be. Accidents were a sign managers were not concentrating on getting the best out of their team but taking shortcuts.  The high number of accidents were a warning sign of far deeper problems.

The secret was to get safety right - and everything would, and did, fall into place.

So why am I telling you this story about aluminium and safety on a blog about diversity in the media?

Well as I am sure you may have noticed last week the UK had a General Election. And the BBC, and other broadcasters, are currently defending themselves against charges of media bias and poor editorial judgement throughout the election campaign.

In my view, the issue of diversity in the newsroom is analogous to safety in the aluminium factory.

If you are getting diversity wrong it is a warning signals that there are deeper issues. If you get diversity right everything else falls into line.

Before the UK’s General Election the diversity warning signals were going off loud and clear.

In the weeks and months leading up to the General Election, broadcasters made a raft of editorial mistakes around diversity - from ignoring important stories by marginalised communities such as Grenfell tower until it was literally burning down, to the Naga Munchetty affair in which it is widely acknowledged the BBC made a terrible editorial mistake in judging her in breach of their editorial guidelines.

But instead of seeing these issues as foreshadowing far deeper editorial problems, the BBC and others, brushed them aside as “diversity” problems, marginal to the main news.

But they are not. Diversity problems are indicative of deeper problems. Why?

Recognising and aiming for diversity is understanding that that there can be multiple perspectives on a single issue and if you can’t recognise those perspectives, let alone balance them, chances are you will make mistakes under the heat and scrutiny of a General Election.

Reporting a General Election requires making extremely difficult editorial judgement calls. Similarly reporting diversity also requires making hard difficult judgement calls. The inability of some media organisations to call racism what it is - racism, and instead always put the word in quotation marks is an indication that the media organisation is uncomfortable in making difficult judgement calls.

The brilliant work of Raheem Sterling and Jamelia in highlighting how journalists often take lazy approaches when reporting race and and stories involving black protagonists doesn’t just shine a light on prejudices it also shines a light on how journalists are prone to group think.

I could go on but suffice to say I believe these examples illustrate how news organisations must get diversity right if they want to keep their journalistic standards high.

Diversity and inclusion is not about simply wanting to get a few more ethnic minorities and disabled people in the newsroom.  It is about fundamentally shifting a whole newsrooms’ approach to how it covers the news.

Get it right, and just like getting safety right at Alcoa, British broadcasters could become the best and most profitable in the world. 

Award Ceremonies Hold the Secret to Diversity - But Don't Look At The Stage

On Sunday 1st December Sir Lenny Henry delivered a speech at the Rose d'Or, an international award ceremony, celebrating the best television from around the world. I worked with him to draft the speech, which outlines how award ceremonies not only reveal the true diversity of the industry but also how they can be used to increase diversity and inclusion. The speech is published in full below...   

Good evening ladies, gentlemen, producers, directors, writers and actors.

And a heartfelt welcome to everyone here who contributes in all the different ways to make the magic of television.

It is truly an honour to be here tonight.

I love the Rose d’Or, it combines two of my personal passions; great television and great diversity.

We all know the Rose d’Or for celebrating brilliant television but sometimes we overlook its other purpose - showcasing international diversity. 

It has been celebrating this movement, long before it became the popular rallying call that it is today.

For me the Rose d’Or is the perfect living and breathing illustration of why inclusion is so important.

I believe society is built on story telling - the stories we tell about ourselves and to each other. We understand our neighbours, our past, our present, and where we are going by the stories we tell.

More importantly when we limit who is given a platform to tell their stories we are all the poorer. We understand each others’ lived experience less and it can lead to misunderstanding, xenophobia and create the kind of environment where prejudice can easily flourish.

Being an international award ceremony the Rose d’Or understands the universal importance of celebrating stories from different parts of the world and puts our own reality and experience in a broader context. 

But I still want us to think about how we can make our industry better.

And so I want to talk about diversity - whether it’s by country, gender, religion or ethnicity. 

I want you to imagine a world where people from Spain were not allowed to tell their stories and instead the British decided what we should know about Spain and directed, wrote and produced ninety percent of their television. 

I don’t think Spain would be particularly happy with this imaginary scenario. 

However this is how it can feel for far too many people when we talk about ethnic diversity, or disability or gender within our respective countries. When it comes to television, it can feel as if other people are telling our stories.

For example:

If we look at the UK only 13.6% of working directors are women.

That means women’s stories are either being ignored or being directed disproportionately by men.

The same applies to black and Asian people. Only 2.3% of UK television is made by directors of colour.

And only 0.3% of people working in the film industry are disabled.

Now i’m quoting British figures, but there are similar excluded groups in every country and we are all the poorer for it.

So why am I telling you this tonight?

Well I believe award ceremonies can play a crucial role in addressing the situation. 

The fact is award ceremonies cast a light on the industry. But i am not talking about the nominees and the winners.

If you want to know what our industry really looks like take your eyes off the stage and just look around the room. 

This stage where the awards are being given out and the handful of nominees is merely the tip of an iceberg.

The other eighty percent of that iceberg are sat in the audience. 

The channel controllers, commissioners, television executives, even the media regulators are all here at award ceremonies like this one.

They may not receive any awards, but they are crucial to our industry. not a single winner would be possible without them tonight. 

Everybody might focus on the stars who go home with the gongs, but if we want to change things, we can’t do it by concentrating just on the tip of the iceberg. We do it by looking at the eighty percent whose contribution is rarely acknowledged at these ceremonies.

This is definitely not a criticism of anyone here today. He said hurriedly. I don’t want my next role to be Lenny Henry: unblocking the toilets at Nandos. 

But we need to make sure the decision makers, the people behind the camera are as diverse as possible. 

So what can award ceremonies like the Rose d’Or do to improve the industry?

Well here are just two ideas i want everyone to think about .

Award ceremonies are not just about celebrating achievements. they are also about business. 

They are about making connections. 

Meeting potential business partners.

Award ceremonies are the fuel that keeps our industry running.

To put it simply they are the biggest networking events of the year.

So if we want diversity to flourish we need to make sure that our networking is more inclusive. 

How do we do that?

Here’s idea number 1.

If you are one of the media execs who bought tickets today how diverse was the group of people you brought with you? 

A good rule of thumb is; less like Downton Abbey and more like Narcos. Have you seen it? That show is so diverse the whitest thing in it is the cocaine. 

Make a commitment to ensure your guests reflect the society you are working in. Have you invited people of colour? What is your mix of male, female and non binary guests? And are there any disabled people in your group? All things to think about.

Now that’s the easy job.

Here’s the second thing i want us all to do:

Tonight is an international celebration. 

This idea of representation is a tough nut to crack and no one country has all the answers. But internationally I believe we do.

So while we are toasting the winners and networking, let’s also talk about diversity and what does and doesn’t work in our respective countries. Let’s learn from each other.

For example the French film council has brought in new funding rules to try and help increase the number of women directors and writers.

Parts of the US are giving film and television tax breaks to productions meeting diversity criteria.

This should be an international race to the top.

I want people to be boasting that their country is the best country for female directors and tell us how they did it.

I want people bragging that their country has the most screenwriters of colour and what was the most effective means to make it happen.

I know you think we’ve been here before and we have – isn’t it bloody tedious? So to stop us having the same conversation year after year, let’s start seeing true diversity, not as a problem to be solved, but as an ambition to be realized. 

Together we can make our industry the most inclusive in the world.

Beautiful, distinguished ladies and gentlemen, producers, directors, actors even the writers - let us all celebrate our great industry tonight, both onscreen and, crucially, behind the camera. 

Carl Jung said "you are what you do, not what you say you do." Let's stop talking and start doing. 

Thank you for listening.

(The speech is printed by kind permission of Sir Lenny Henry)

 

TV's dirty little diversity secret revealed by crew pictures

Pictures of television production crews are trending on my Twitter and Facebook feeds, most with the hashtag #DiversityFail.

I am sure most people have seen the type of photographs I am talking about. A successful production has come to an end and one of the crew members has decided to gather everyone who has worked on the production and take a picture of their happy smiling faces. Then they post the picture on social media for the world to see.

Invariably, despite the official stats that the BBC has 15% BAME workforce diversity or Channel 4 has over 20% BAME workforce diversity, the pictures expose the real diversity of the people actually making the programmes. BAME and people with a visible disability are thin on the ground to put it politely.

The former CEO of the Royal Television Society, Simon Albury, has a habit of collecting these pictures and posting one every couple of months on social media to expose what diversity behind the camera looks like in the UK despite official statistics. 

IGNORING THE EVIDENCE

If I am truthful I usually look at these pictures and simply ignore them. 

First, I know from first hand experience what diversity behind the camera looks like.

Second, I am always wary of highlighting anecdotal evidence that might support someone's argument. Any single picture is literally, (and metaphorically), just a snapshot and so might not be representative of the industry as a whole. I was trained as an economist, I hate unscientific skewed data.

But on Monday, something different happened... 

THE POWER OF PICTURES.

TV veteran Shibbir Ahmed asked Simon to post all the pictures he’d collected over the last few months in one Twitter thread. The result is devastating and packs a psychological and emotional punch that takes the wind out of almost any disabled and/or Black Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) people working in television. The pictures seen together are also deeply demoralising for anyone actively working to increase diversity in the media.

Taken together it is impossible to dismiss them as “one-offs” or not representative of the industry as a whole, especially in the absence of any crew photographs that show high levels of BAME and disabled diversity.

The pictures are upsetting not just because they vividly illustrate the uphill struggle facing non-white and non-abled bodied people working in the industry. 

They are upsetting because it can feel as if the pictures are incredibly insensitive. It feels as if the pictures are almost celebrating our exclusion. No one featured in the pictures seems to have any empathy as to how these pictures will be received by all the types of people not featured in them. 

Far from being embarrassed or ashamed about the employment practices that these pictures seem to reveal the participants seem to want to rub salt in the very real wounds of diversity work exclusion.

However, I personally know some of the people featured a few of the pictures and I refuse to believe that they could be so hurtful and uncaring around issues of diversity.

As always science might provide the issue.

ACADEMIC STUDIES

Research by New York University’s Felix Danbold and UCLA Anderson’s Miguel Unzueta, published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology: Interpersonal Relations and Group Processes studied how different groups perceive diversity differently.

They looked at seven different studies which showed that depending on your social standing in wider society and your place in an organisation you literally looked at these types of pictures and perceived a group’s diversity differently.

In one experiment, people were shown pictures and asked to judge if the picture was “diverse”. People from marginalised racial groups felt a group was not “diverse” until the number of non-white people reached a certain percentage. This percentage was considerably lower for white people to perceive a group to be “diverse”. Interestingly this was not just about self-interest with regards to the non-white participants. The BAME participants had the same view with regards to the diversity of a picture irrespective of whether their specific racial group was featured in the picture.

In another experiment, researchers showed that different groups placed a different level of importance on where diversity was in an organisation. For example when talking about diversity at Facebook under-represented groups are more likely to want a higher representation in technical and leadership roles before declaring “victory”, compared to dominant groups.

The other interesting point to consider is that many of the #DiversityFail pictures that Simon Albury posts actually have relatively high levels of gender diversity. Other people have suggested that people may have difficulty thinking of more than one type of diversity at a time. So seeing that a team is diverse along gender lines can make people not consider other types of diversity.  

So what does all this mean?

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

First of all, the #DiversityFail pictures reveal that we are still a very long way to go when it comes to increasing diversity behind the camera. A lot further than official statistics may have us believe.

Secondly, it might have important policy implications. The BBC executive committee for example currently only has one non-white member, Gautam Rangarajan, and as far as I am aware no visibly disabled members. At the same time, 41% of the committee are women. The committee is ultimately the group that decides if the corporation is achieving its diversity targets and what those targets should be.

The research clearly demonstrates that whether a diversity policy is judged a “success” or “failure” will depend on the make up of the group assessing it. This points to the urgent need to increase the overall diversity at the top levels of all the broadcasters, not just the BBC, if executive committees’ views are going to chime with the perceptions of the more diverse population as a whole.

One last point, I must commend the work of people like Simon Albury and Shibbir Ahmed because without these #DiversityFail pictures many of us would be none the wiser of what the diversity behind the camera really looks like. I just hope that the correct policies are implemented by the broadcasters soon, so we can start using the hashtag #DiversityWin!

A Victory! BBC agree to fund BAME journalism in same way it funds local newspapers

I am not one for hyperbole but...

...possibly the biggest development in UK media diversity was announced on Monday 21st October and nobody noticed.

In the short-run the announcement will be a lifeline to BAME (Black Asian and Minority Ethnic) journalism providing them with much needed finance. But more importantly it could reshape the entire diversity debate provide a precedent for good practice for years to come.

WHAT IS THE ANNOUNCEMENT?

The BBC has got a special fund for "Local News Partnerships". It was set up in recognition that local newspapers and local journalism play an essential role in our local democracy. They expose important local stories - sometimes with national significance - that national and international media organisations just miss. And finally they provide an essential pipeline for local journalists to enter larger mainstream news outlets. But local newspapers are in financial difficulties - we cannot afford for them to go to the wall.

The BBC's fund financially supports around 140 journalists in different local newspapers to the tune of £8 million.

The BBC is not the only media organisation who recognises the importance of local journalism and supports it. Google and Facebook both have schemes to financially support local journalism and a government select committee published the Cairncross Review in February arguing the government should do the same.  

I not only support these initiatives but have argued in the past that all the reasons for supporting local news apply to supporting the "ethnic press" and BAME media organisations like; The Voice, Black Ballad, Eastern Eye, etc.

So in February after the publication of the Cairncross Review I spoke to fellow diversity champions and had meetings with BBC executives, Facebook executives and one or two MPs who had been on the government committee.

And guess what - the BBC heard us!

BAME MEDIA ORGANISATION CAN NOW GET EXTRA MONEY

  

Six months after my initial meeting with the BBC they have revised their criteria for media organisations to apply the Local News Partnership funding. 

It now states the local news provider must: 

"Target an audience typically located in a specific geographical area which is no greater than a single Nation of the UK or which targets a BAME community of the UK"

That means the Voice, Eastern Eye, Black Ballad, Gal Dem, can all now apply for funding.

IT IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN FUNDING A FEW BAME JOURNALISTS

The announcement however is far more important than funding just a few BAME journalists - important as that is. 

For a long time campaigners for BAME media diversity have pointed out that attempts to increase regional diversity (supporting local newspapers, producing more programmes outside of London) have been backed by real money and real jobs. While efforts to increase BAME diversity have usually been in the shape of mentoring schemes, more training, or onscreen initiatives.

Over the last twelve years efforts to increase regional diversity have been extremely successful, while efforts to increase BAME diversity behind the camera have been incremental at best.

There is also the natural tension that increases in regional diversity to areas outside London can be detrimental to the BAME community that is heavily concentrated in London. 

The BBC announcement sets a precedent that every person wanting to increase BAME diversity will be able to point to from now on.

It says that BAME diversity should be treated in exactly the same way as regional diversity  with financial support.

When the BBC and Channel 4 for example ring-fences money for regional productions it is hard to justify why no money should be ring-fenced for BAME productions if the BBC recognises this important principle with its Local News Partnerships.

WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN NEXT?

In the short run the BBC needs to be applauded for what it has just done. I cannot stress enough that I went to ALL the large media organisations with schemes to support local journalism arguing that they should include BAME journalism. ONLY THE BBC CHANGED ITS POLICY.

We also now need BAME media organisations to apply for the money that is rightfully theirs. There is no point fighting for a change if we do not then follow through. Taking the money does not compromise your editorial position in anyway, all the local newspapers that take the BBC money are fiercely independent and do not hesitate to criticise the BBC when they think it is necessary.

We now need to go back to the government select committee, Google and Facebook and restate why they should follow the BBC's example.

And lastly we should argue that the BBC should not stop here. It should look at all of its policies to support regional diversity and see how they can adapt those successful methods to support not just BAME diversity but all other types of diversity including; LGBTQ+, disability and gender.

But before we do all that we might just want to go and get a drink. We don't often get wins like this one - this is worth celebrating.