A Lifeline For Independent News Publishers During Covid-19

Over ten years ago, when I was at the BBC, I pitched a daytime series called “Headline Hunters”.

The idea was simple enough. Two presenters would be parachuted into a local newspaper’s newsroom for a week, they would work with the paper’s local journalists and compete to write the newspapers’ headline story. In the process they would find out about the local community and the local history.

It was basically BBC’s Coast meets a celebration of local journalism.

We made a 5 minute taster tape and had several discussions with the relevant commissioners.

Unfortunately it was not meant to be. And the world was deprived of eating warmed up pop-tarts in their underwear in the mid-morning while watching local journalists being made into heroes.


WHY LOCAL NEWSPAPERS ARE IMPORTANT

In developing the series I learnt just how important local newspapers are.

They research and expose local issues central to people’s lives that otherwise would simply be overlooked.

They tell stories that deeply connect with people’s realities and experiences in ways national newspapers can never do.

And they are training grounds for some of our best journalists who either stay in local journalism becoming experts in their communities or they move onto larger national media outlets.

They are indispensable both to the media industry, and communities up and down the country.

But while I might think of them as indispensable since making the taster tape they have in reality proved very dispensable, as many local papers that had survived for over a hundred years have closed their doors in the last ten. (RIP Harrow Observer 1855 - 2014)


LOCAL NEWSPAPERS ARE NOT DYING BECAUSE OF LACK OF DEMAND

The main reason the majority of the newspapers have closed down is not due to lack of readers, but their advertising revenue simply dried up, migrating online. For example classified ads were the lifeblood of numerous newspapers but now there are numerous options for people who want to advertise their second hand car online for free and local shops can advertise directly to their potential customers directly through social media.

If newspapers have seen their advertising revenue slowly dry up the current pandemic could be about to see it fall off a cliff.

It is hard to get figures for small advertisers - the types that usually place ads in local papers but statistics of large large multinational businesses, who should be able to weather the pandemic better than smaller companies show that 89% of them have “paused” their advertising campaigns. That means literally no money is coming into local newspapers.

The New York Times recently looked at the state of local papers in the UK and warned that at a time when they have more readers than ever as people want to know about the local situation and Covid-19 they are in more financial danger of closing than ever due to the drop in advertising revenue.


BAME PUBLICATIONS PLAY A CRUCIAL ROLE

All the arguments that apply to local newspapers also apply to BAME-focused news outlets who have also taken on increased significance during the pandemic.

It is no coincidence that it was a reporter from the Voice newspaper who was the first journalist to raise the issue of how the government's hostile immigration policy might be exacerbating the spread of the virus. Also Eastern Eye recently held a round-table of Asian medical professionals and how the virus disproportionately affects BAME communities.

And it is not only BAME-focused publications that are important. Publications that target key demographics such as the LGBTQ community and certain religious communities can connect with their audience in a way that more generalised publications cannot.


FALLING THROUGH THE CRACKS OF GOVERNMENT SUPPORT

The government has recognised the importance of local newspapers and the current struggles that all newspapers are suffering due to the drop in advertising. In response it recently announced a three-month advertising campaign to support the National Health Service that will inject up to 35 million pounds into publishers across the country.

However, not a penny of this so far has gone to independent publishers.


APPLY FOR EMERGENCY FUNDING NOW!

That is why the Public Interest News Foundation has launched an Emergency Fund to support independent news providers in the context of Covid-19.

I was asked to sit on the board who will be judging who should qualify for emergency support. I was incredibly honored to be asked because it is such an important issue, but one of the reasons I agreed is that I wanted to ensure that diversity in all its various forms (ethnicity, regionality, gender, sexuality, disability, etc) is considered in the process both in terms of the readership the publications serve and through the journalists they employ. 

The application process is now open and I would urge ALL independent news publishers who are suffering financial difficulties due to Covid-19 to apply. The deadline is the 2nd of June

We expect relatively established independent publishers to apply but the fund is also encouraging small publications to apply which may be no more than two people and a website trying to serve their communities.

Finally if you are reading this today (28th May) there is a Zoom conference call at 2pm (UK time) to answer all the questions people might have who are thinking of applying.

You need to register to take part in the Zoom call which you can do here.

Good luck and I am sure I speak for everyone on the judging panel when I say we look forward to receiving your applications.

Who's Afraid of 'Diversity of Thought'?

In a recent interview on the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show the corporation’s outgoing director general was quizzed about diversity. While mentioning regional diversity his major focus was on the idea of “diversity of thought” and how the BBC needs to prioritize this. To be honest this was such a small part of the overall interview I hardly noticed it and I am sure most people watching it on a Sunday morning glossed over it as just more “management-W1A-speak” than anything else.

However following the interview I immediately received a number of concerned emails and private DMs concerned about the use of the term “diversity of thought”. But why?

The reason was that intentionally or otherwise the DG was running with a phrase and idea that has gained popularity in right wing circles and has been used to criticise the intellectual underpinning for the need to increase the number of people of colour, women or disabled people in positions of editorial responsibility in the UK media.

The “diversity of thought” argument is a simple one:

Physical differences in gender, disability are superficial  and when it comes to race it is quite literally just skin deep.

We should not focus on such superficial diversity. In many ways focusing on these types of differences is racist /sexist / ableist / etc

What we need to do is focus on “diversity of thought” as the different ways people view and think about the world is what really matters and is true diversity.

This argument also has some supporters among people from underrepresented groups themselves. They have been frustrated in recent years that the people from underrepresented groups who seem to succeed invariably share the same views and have the same values as those already in positions of power.

The problem with the “diversity of thought” argument is that it fails to understand what diversity policies should be trying to achieve.

 

DIVERSITY DOESN’T WORK WITHOUT INCLUSION

For true diversity to work it needs to be combined with another concept - “inclusion”. Inclusion is the idea that people from diverse backgrounds can flourish in an organisation and the rich diversity of their life experiences, which informs their opinions and perspective, are valued.

To use an overused metaphor, first coined by diversity and inclusion consultant Verna Myers: “Diversity” is inviting people from diverse backgrounds to the dance. Inclusion is those same people being able to DJ - i.e. pick the music they want to listen to and decide the music everyone else is dancing to at different points.

Inclusion is difficult, and is possibly the most challenging part of any diversity policy, because it involves people in positions of power recognising that their way is not the only way to run an organisation and might not be the best way to run it. To return to the DJ metaphor it is a lot easier to invite different people to your party as long as it remains your party and no one messes with the music you love.

If the inclusion part of your diversity policy isn’t working you end up with problems of people from diverse backgrounds failing to rise up in the organisation and retaining diverse talent - as they get bored of being at a disco whose music they don’t like.

If the inclusion part of your diversity policy is working then you end up with a working culture where diverse views and opinions are valued and allowed to flourish. A really fun disco!

 

LACK OF “DIVERSITY OF THOUGHT” IS A SYMPTOM OF FAILED INCLUSION

And this is at the heart of the problem. Organisations should not aim for diversity of thought.

They should aim for better diversity and inclusion. If the policies are implemented properly you will achieve diversity of thought as a result because you have created an environment where it can flourish irrespective of where you are from.

The problem of prioritising “diversity of thought” is that it fails to recognise other key fundamental aspects of diversity policy and that is the idea of getting a range of experiences.

Here are some more examples.

 

EXPERIENCE MATTERS

Diversity policies are not simply aiming to “mix things up a little”, companies are aiming for diversity because they recognise that people from different backgrounds will have had different life experiences and those life experiences are enriching.

For example Michelle Kim the Co-Founder & CEO Awaken a management consultancy wrote on the issue and gave the example that if you had a room full of white middle-aged privately educated white male doctors they might all have different opinions on an issue - demonstrate “diversity of thought” - but their lack of diversity of experience would be a real drawback if you wanted to know more about the overall job market which includes  teachers, firefighters, custodial workers, sociologists, entertainers, etc.

We saw this beautifully illustrated when BBC Breakfast presenter Naga Munchetty famously talked about her experience of being told to “go back to where she was from” when discussing Donald Trump. The BBC initially disciplined her - a failure of their inclusion policy - before reversing their decision, a recognition of how important inclusion is not just the diversity of having a “brown person sitting on the sofa”.

 

REPRESENTATION MATTERS

The other aspect of diversity that “diversity of thought” fails to recognise is the importance of representation. Numerous newsrooms in the US think a large part of their failure to spot that Donald Trump would win the presidential election in 2016 was down to the fact that they did not have enough journalists from the types of backgrounds and regions that voted for Trump. They simply failed to understand the mood of the country because it was not represented in their staff.

They’re likely right. A similar argument holds true with regards to British newsrooms and the Brexit referendum. When I was based in BBC Scotland I would constantly hear the refrain from Scottish journalists that London just didn’t understand Scotland because they were based in London and only spoke to other Londoners.

 

EQUALITY MATTERS

And finally diversity policies are also about equality.

At their best they recognise that historically large sections of society have been excluded from positions of power. These include women, disabled people, LGBTQ and people of colour.

Diversity policies are also about trying to create a better society - one in which everyone can flourish irrespective of where they come from.

 

THE DANGER OF ADVOCATING “DIVERSITY OF THOUGHT” 

Prioritising “diversity of thought” puts all of the above at risk.

It enables a room full of straight, able-bodied white men to say that they are the true representation of diversity.

It sidelines the representation of women, disabled people, people of colour as being as  “superficial” as just skin deep.

I have watched the Tony Hall interview with Anderw Marr a few times now and the DG is right, the BBC needs to be a place where different values and thinking flourishes.

However, whether he meant it or not, for a lot of women, people of colour, and people from other underrepresented backgrounds, when they hear that phrase “diversity of thought” they worry that their representation is being pushed to the back.

The positive thing I take away from this is that the BBC and other UK media organisations have so far prioritised diversity targets. It is time we all start to recognise the importance of inclusion.

SUMMARY

After publishing this piece I received a personal message via Twitter from Dr David Dunkley Gyimah from Cardiff University that I think perfectly sums up the argument:

Even if you believe in arguments around diversity of thought, "Having diversity of thought from a cultural homogenous set of people is not the same as diversity of thought from a cultural heterogenous group." I think most people would recognise that and we should definitely strive for the latter. 

Why Diversity Targets Fail To Achieve Real Change

What is so great about 14%?

When you talk to most British companies and broadcasters the number plays a prominent role in their diversity policies and targets around ethnic diversity.

In many ways it is understandable. In the last census, taken in 2011, Black Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) made up 14% of the population of England and Wales. The BBC has set a target that 15% of its workforce, and people in leadership positions, should be from BAME backgrounds. I am not sure why they have gone from 14% to 15% but I assume it is in recognition that over the last nine years, since the last census, most people think the BAME population has increased by at last one percentage point.

Channel 4 used to take 15% as its target for BAME staff diversity, but in 2015 increased this to 20%. Again I am unsure of how the broadcaster chose the figure of 20% but taking the population figure as a reference this could either be seen as incredibly ambitious (compared to the UK as a whole) or very conservative, considering that when the target was set nearly all of Channel 4's staff worked in London, which is 40.2% BAME.

Now, I have written previously on how these overall figures and targets by broadcasters for staff diversity are often misleading, as they are actually no indication of the diversity of the people commissioning and the making the programmes, nor do they reveal who has editorial power and responsibility, but today I want to look at a more fundamental issue.

The problem is that basing targets based on population demographics is fundamentally a flawed concept for broadcasters, newsrooms and the media.

Why? If we were simply thinking about increasing diversity in terms of labour force representation then 14% or 15% or even 20% might actually make sense.

However, when it comes to diversity in the media, an important element in any discussion is how diversity will influence the content and enable more diverse programmes and journalism to be produced.

While the 15% is a convenient figure there is no evidence that this percentage will have any influence on changing the quality of the content a media organisation produces.

What figure will? To answer that question we need to look at critical mass theory. This is the idea that you need a certain number of people from diverse backgrounds in order to have any influence on a group and change a group's culture.

The reality is that you can reach the 15% goal with just one BAME person in any group of 9 people or less. But it is almost impossible for one person to change a group's dynamic and culture. At my time at the BBC (just short of 25 years) despite the stereotypes of BBC having endless meetings there were rarely any editorial meetings of more than 9 people.

What you need to look at is not the percentage but the critical mass of people from diverse backgrounds in a group.

The BBC seems to acknowledge the importance of critical mass because on top of their 15% workforce target they have also set out the target that the BBC Executive Committee and all divisional boards should have two BAME members by the end of 2020 and this is irrespective of the size of the boards no matter how small or large.

While this is a great start it falls frustratingly short of what is needed.

According to Hima Kota, an Assistant Professor at Amity University, writing about gender diversity the minimum number of people needed to exert influence on a group is three.
"Recent studies of women on corporate boards suggest that the critical mass of women directors is reached when boards of directors have 'at least three women' who can influence the dynamics and thought processes among members." Kota writes. 

Kota however, went one step further and not only looked at critical mass theory and the need to appoint at least 3 people to exert influence, but combined this with "tokenism theories".

Tokenism theory, first put forward by Rosabeth Moss Kanter, is the idea that if there are only one or two women or people from an under-represented background in a group you can be perceived as being a "token" irrespective of your route to your position or how qualified you are. According to the theory, being perceived as a token can affect you in three different ways: It increases a person's "visibility" in a group which means mistakes are more harshly judged. The presence of a token can increase "polarisation" in a group in which the other members bond together and identify themselves in opposition to the token. And finally "assimilation" occurs as the only way for the token to survive in the group is to assimilate to the norms and values of the group.

Once you combine critical mass theory and tokenism theory you realise that for diversity the 15% targets can perversely do more harm than good. It is actually very possible to reach 15% without reaching critical mass and without changing the culture of an organisation.

So what does this mean? Should we all give up - after all in many media organisations we are not even close to achieving 15% BAME?

I believe that far from making us want to give up these theories should guide us to more effective policies. Instead of looking at reaching a 15% target across the board, or even a 20% target, we should be strategic as to where we can achieve critical mass. In some teams this may mean a 30% target, in other teams it might mean far less.

The overall message is the targets should serve us - as opposed to us becoming slaves to the targets. The overall aim should be culture change to make better and more diverse output. Not just setting workforce targets for the sake of them.

We need targeted support if diversity is going to survive Covid-19

To not explicitly support under-represented groups is to implicitly condemn them to fail.

That is the message that we have seen time and time again in times of economic distress and crisis.

Studies mapping how different economic crisis impact different groups show that women and ethnic minorities are disproportionately hit by downturns in the economy.

In the UK media industry before the 2008 financial crisis 32.9% of publicly funded films were directed by women by 2014 it was 17%.

We are once again in the midst of an economic crisis. We all know it, and we are all fully aware that there will be serious long term consequences.


According to the UK's Office of National Statistics at least a quarter of companies in the UK have temporarily closed because of the coronavirus lockdown.

A study by Begbies Traynor, the insolvency firm, found that more than half a million companies were in “significant distress” with a 10 per cent rise in the number of “critically distressed” companies compared to three months ago, these are companies on the verge of going out of business.


Many people in the media industry are well aware of the plight many people and companies are facing with broadcasters rolling out financial packages and other forms of support to help workers and companies.


However what we should know if history is anything to go by is if this help is not targeted to help the most vulnerable it will be the most vulnerable the most vulnerable that suffer the most.


I took a straw poll of Managing directors of BAME-led indies and freelancers in the UK if they were aware of any relief schemes that specifically looked to help under-represented groups like themselves.

They were not.

And so even if these schemes exist they are clearly not getting through to their target group

For the record, conducting my own online research Channel 4 seems to be the only broadcaster who explicitly talks about supporting BAME-led indies during the Covid-19 economic distress.

Contrast this approach to the US:

There is the "Verizon Small Business Recovery Fund". Set up by Verizon it explicitely focusing on business owners of color, women, and other marginalized groups offering grants of $10,000 to those who qualify.

For the Creative industries a quick google search will take you to the "South Asian Arts Resiliency Fund". The grant focuses on helping people of South Asian descent who work as dancers, choreographers, poets, actors, musicians, producers and other arts workers with grants of $1,000-$2,000.

That is to name just two initiatives but you can find five more targeting women, People of Colour and other under-represented groups by clicking here.

Britain is slowly waking up to the painful fact that Covid-19 does not effect all groups the same. Let's make sure we recognise the same fact when it comes to economic crisis and make special efforts to support marginalised groups while we still can.

Trevor Phillips, the Covid-19 Review and Why it Proves We Need Diversity Behind the Camera

Yesterday a joint letter was sent by 16 BAME medical organisations, representing tens of thousands of medics in the UK, to Public Health England urging the body to stop Trevor Phillips - the former head of the Equality and Human Rights Commission - from participating in a review into the disproportionate number of deaths of BAME (Black Asian and Minority Ethnic) from COVID-19.

A few days earlier the Muslim Council of Britain, an umbrella group for leading mosques and other Islamic institutions, also called for Phillips to step down from the same review.

I do not want to get into the suitability of Trevor Phillips being on the review - that is not the role of a blog about media diversity. However, as the former head of BBC Scotland current affairs programmes I think the controversy points to a deep problem of diversity in the media, and who the media view as experts and whose voices are seen as “objective”.

Let me explain...

In many current affairs programmes there are basically four types of "characters":

1. Victims - these are the case studies who illustrate the issue the programme is trying to expose. Getting good sympathetic case studies is essential for the viewer to connect with the issue.
2. Baddies - these are usually a company or industry who are carrying out bad practices and causing the harm being experienced by the victim. The baddie can also sometimes be the local or central government whose policies are causing these victims to be harmed.
3. Goodies - this often includes charities or people trying to rectify the problem being exposed, but can even include the reporter themselves holding power to account.
4. Experts - this last category are the “objective” voices who have a deep understanding of the issue being explored and can explain what is going on. Occasionally on controversial issues two experts might be invited on to give opposing perspectives.

In recent years there have been considerable efforts by broadcasters to increase the diversity of whom these experts are. The BBC’s 50:50 project has had considerable success in increasing the number of women experts on our screens and I’ve heard the organisers are now looking to broaden the 50:50 project to look at BAME and disability on screen diversity.

However what the controversy around Trevor Phillips exposes is that the diversity of the people behind the camera who decide who these experts are and who is and isn’t “objective” hasn’t changed. It should be noted that not one major UK news and current affairs programme is headed by a BAME person and to my knowledge there have only ever been three BAME people who have ever executive produced any Panoramas or Dispatches (BBC’s and Channel 4’s flagship current affairs programmes respectively) I am one of them, and none of us are currently directly employed by a British broadcaster.

Trevor Phillips is regularly invited onto news and current affairs programmes as an expert on issues of race as the objective voice.

Whether you agree with Trevor Phillips’s views on race or not, what the last few days has shown us is that large sections of the UK - most notably parts of the BAME and Muslim communities - view him as a highly polarising figure and far from an objective dispassionate expert.

At the same time I would hazard a guess that people at Public Health England and most of the people who are in positions of power in news and current affairs media - at least until now - saw him as an objective dispassionate expert.

It is this disconnect that clearly indicates that those sections of the BAME and Muslim communities who oppose Phillips are missing from the editorial decision making process. They are not influencing who we should think of as experts and who we should view as having controversial views.

Working in television as an executive producer I have personally had my editorial judgement questioned as to the experts I have used - in one instance because the white male criminologist in a Panorama programme had a working class accent. At these times I was senior enough to shrug off these criticisms and use the experts anyway, but I was fully aware of the unsaid cultural pressure I was under to pick experts that my colleagues thought appropriate.

I am not advocating for Trevor Phillips not to be a guest on news and current affairs programmes, far from it. His experience as the former Head of the Equality and Human Rights Commission and his work in race relations over the decades makes his an important voice, and his views resonate with many.

But what we do need is more experts chosen whose views resonate with the sections of the BAME and Muslim communities that disagree with Phillips.

This will only be achieved when we have more diversity behind the camera - diversity of people picking the experts - as opposed to just looking at the diversity in front of it.


Correction: The article originally stated that only two BAME people had ever executive produced BBC and Channel 4's flagship current affairs programmes, Panorama or Dispatches, that has been corrected to three. It should noted that none of the three executives were directly employed to work on either flagship programme when they executive produced them.

How Social Media Challenges Shed Light On Industry Diversity Problems

Two Twitter threads I have recently been part of sum up the difficulties of creating a more diverse media industry perfectly.

In the last few weeks, as we have all been in Covid-19 lockdowns, so-called social media "challenges" have proliferated. We have all seen them and many of us have taken part in them. For instance, the; "post a picture of yourself at 20" challenge on Twitter and the #FlipTheSwitch challenge on Instagram.  

For the most part they are just harmless fun and help to relieve the boredom as we find ourselves cooped up in our homes day after day, week after week.

But two Twitter threads I have been involved in clearly demonstrate how difficult it is to diversify the media. Here's how...

1. A common theme in all these Twitter challenges is after you have completed it to tag 4 or 5 people who should take part next.

2. They often reveal people's personal tastes and what sociologists call "cultural capital".

The first Twitter challenge I want to talk about started at the very beginning of the lockdown in the UK and it asked people to list the top 5 albums they would rely on to get through these difficult times.  I have no idea who started this particular challenge but for the most part the majority of the people on the thread were black, the people they tagged at the end of their completed lists were black and most of the albums listed were of black music (more on that last point later).

I hasten to add that some of the black people on this particular thread were well known British celebrities, musicians and actors - and so it was not a insubstantial thread. However, not one of the people could personally offer me a job.

The second Twitter challenge I was roped into asked people to list "five perfect films". On this thread there were not only remarkably few black people, there were hugely influential media industry titans who could definitely further my career in one form or another.

Considering the people involved in these lists form organically, as people recommend friends to take part, they are a very good indicator of social circles. They can also be seen as a good proxy of how information spreads across social media. 

Now, instead of fun Twitter challenges let's think how these organic social circles form and grow when people know of possible job opportunities, or - in the television industry - possible commissioning opportunities.

In the real world, several academics have examined this phenomenon and shown how informal social networks are not only the best source of valuable work information but serve to entrench existing inequalities. 

However, who was present and who was absent from the different threads was not the only issue.

The albums and films people picked were also important.

There is little doubt that people's choices on these kind of lists are carefully curated and consciously or subconsciously they signal your cultural values and tastes. What you are effectively doing when you write down your favorite albums or films is saying "here is my cultural judgement". 

In the media industry your cultural judgement is one of your most valuable assets. The movies you value and music you like are what sociologists call "cultural capital". Liking the "right" movies literally gains you entry into certain groups, and the more effortless your mastery is of what are the "right" and "wrong" movies and music the better. And what could be more "effortless" than just taking part in a fun Twitter challenge?    

What the Twitter threads clearly demonstrates to me is, it is very hard for black people to be included in some key social circles, and even if they are they might not display the "right" cultural judgement (possess the cultural capital) to take advantage of them.

So what can be done?

The first thing that needs to be done is the importance of these Twitter or other social media threads needs to be acknowledged. They are important at the best of times but right now they take on extra importance as we are all on lockdown.

Once we recognize their importance we should take the same approach to tagging people as many people do when it comes to industry panels (ensuring no man only panels). We should endeavor to tag a diverse range of people to take part especially when we begin to realize that the thread is being populated by important people in the industry.

And lastly, and this might be the most difficult one, we should try not to just value the list recommendations that mirror our own tastes and prejudices. But welcome diversity of cultural opinions and maybe even retweet a few every now and again.

Even when the lockdown is lifted there is no doubt that we will enter a new normal. Silly as they are, social media challenges might be a new battleground in increasing industry diversity.

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.