ChatGPT is an existential threat to media diversity

ChatGPT is an existential threat to media diversity.

To understand why it is important to understand why is diversity in the media and creative industry so important. And who better to ask than Chat GPT itself: 

Question to ChatGPT's Open AI - Why is media diversity important?

Answer by ChatGPT's Open AI - Media diversity is important for several reasons: 

 

1. Representation: Media diversity ensures that different voices, perspectives, and experiences are represented. It allows for a more accurate reflection of the diverse societies in which we live. When media outlets showcase a range of races, ethnicities, genders, sexual orientations, religions, and abilities, it helps combat stereotypes, promotes inclusivity, and empowers marginalized communities. 

2. Pluralism: Media diversity fosters a pluralistic society by exposing individuals to a wide range of ideas, opinions, and viewpoints. It encourages critical thinking, open dialogue, and the exploration of different perspectives. A diverse media landscape helps to prevent the dominance of a single narrative or ideology, allowing for a more informed and balanced public discourse. 

3. Democracy and civic participation: A diverse media ecosystem is crucial for a healthy democracy. It ensures that citizens have access to a variety of information sources, enabling them to make informed decisions and participate meaningfully in civic life. When media outlets represent a broad range of interests, they can hold governments, institutions, and powerful individuals accountable, fostering transparency and good governance. 

4. Social cohesion: Media diversity contributes to social cohesion by promoting understanding, empathy, and unity among diverse groups. By portraying a range of experiences and identities, the media can bridge divides and create a sense of shared humanity. It helps challenge prejudices, reduce discrimination, and build a more inclusive society where everyone feels valued and respected. 

5. Economic and cultural benefits: A diverse media industry can have economic and cultural benefits. It creates opportunities for diverse content creators, journalists, and artists, allowing them to share their talents and stories with a broader audience. This, in turn, promotes innovation, creativity, and cultural exchange, enriching society as a whole. 

In summary, media diversity is essential for representation, pluralism, democracy, social cohesion, and economic/cultural benefits. It ensures that the media landscape reflects the realities of diverse societies, amplifies different voices and perspectives, and facilitates a more inclusive and informed public discourse. 

Far too often the debate around media diversity is framed in terms of point five, the need to employ more Black and Asian people in the industry at different levels, or employing more women, disabled people, LGBTQ+ (insert the protected characteristic / underrepresented demographic here).

While increasing the employment prospects and career progression of all these different groups is important it fundamentally misses the other four points and puts media diversity on par with increasing diversity in any other industry or sector; from double glazing to medicinal chemist (just for the record some of my best friends work in double glazing and I once dated a medicinal chemist).

What ChatGPT so beautifully explains is the idea that media diversity is about so much more than employing a few more Black and Asian people in the media industry at different levels, or employing more women, disabled people, LGBTQ+ (insert the protected characteristic / underrepresented demographic here).

While increasing the employment prospects and career progression of all these different groups is important it fundamentally misses the point and puts media diversity on par with increasing diversity in any other industry or sector; from double glazing to marine biologists.

The importance of media diversity is unique and it goes to the very heart of how we function as a society.

And this is precisely why ChatGPT is an existential threat to media diversity.

If we believe media diversity is about freedom of speech, democratic discourse, and who is empowered to contribute to the narrative that society tells about itself and the rest of the world.

Fundamentally if we believe in representational democracy, we must fight for representational story telling. Because it is the stories we tell, both fiction and non-fiction, that shapes our understanding of the world, our values, our beliefs, and how our democracy works.

ChatGPT and other forms of AI are an existential threat to that.

ChatGPT creates text and stories (fiction and non-fiction) which are then used by students, authors, scriptwriters and journalists as a first draft which they can edit, or to supplement their own existing work. (In the future it may not even support the work of creatives but replace them)

The problem is ChatGPT is “White, non-disabled, heterosexual and male”. In that the source text that ChatGPT’s algorithms draw on are disproportionately written by white, non-disabled, heterosexual men.

This should hardly be surprising for anyone who works in the field of media diversity. It is already known that white, non-disabled, heterosexual men are disproportionately over-represented in areas such as journalism, literature, film and theatre.

By drawing on the current source materials ChatGPT will by definition amplify the already existing inequalities of the narratives, values and views of white, non-disabled, heterosexual men being over-represented.

Let me illustrate this with one simple example:

In 2020 the Press Gazette published research by Women in Journalism, showing that in one week in July 2020 - at the height of the Black Lives Matter protests across the world - UK’s 11 biggest newspapers failed to feature a single byline by black journalist on their front pages. Taking non-white journalists as whole of the 174 bylines examined only 4 were credited to journalists of colour.

The same report also found that in the same week just one in four front-page bylines across the 11 papers went to women.

Importantly the week the study surveyed the biggest news stories were about Covid-19, Black Lives Matter, the replacement of the toppled statue of the slave trader Edward Colston in Bristol and the appeal over the British citizenship of the Muslim mother, Shamima Begum.

Assuming ChatGPT's algorithm draws on the stories written by journalists in mainstream newspapers to generate its text, if you ask it any questions about the news that week you will literally be hearing from the voices of White men; White men writing about issues that disproportionately impact people of colour.

If you do not see this as a problem then I strongly suspect you are reading the wrong blog.

The question, for those of us interested in media diversity, is what do we do now?

I do not believe the answer is to simply disengage from ChatGPT and hope it goes away. Instead we have to find ways to engage constructively and find ways for journalists, and other creatives, to use ChatGPT in ways which do not effectively silence, or further marginalises, already under-represented groups.

This is incredibly new territory and I don't think anyone has all the answers of how to do this, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

I am calling on journalists and creatives to join me in creating a manifesto, a simple set of guidelines, of how we should work with ChatGPT constructively and what we should be demanding of the tech companies who create these programmes.

This issue is too important to leave it up to or other people to work out the solutions. (My DM's are open @marcusryder)

World Press Freedom Day is Meaningless Without Media Diversity

Today, Wednesday, May 3rd, 2023 is World Press Freedom Day. The purpose of the day, (now in its 30th year) is to raise awareness about the value of press freedom, the necessity of defending journalists' rights, and the need to support independent, free media.

The most recent report on press freedoms by the World Press Freedom Index revealed a shocking decline in press freedoms across the world, with a record 31 countries being in a “very serious situation”, the lowest rank in the report, up from 21 just two years ago. The list, released by Reporters Without Borders (RSF), also saw the UK fall from 24th in the global rankings last year to 26th this year.

My concern, as a Black British journalist, is that the UK’s position might be even worse for people of colour working (or more specifically failing to work) in the industry.

Freedom of the press means nothing if large sections of the population are denied access to it.

According to the Reuters Institute, only about 0.2% of British journalists are Black

In 2020 the Press Gazette published research by Women in Journalism, showing that in one week in July 2020 - at the height of the Black Lives Matter protests across the world  - UK’s 11 biggest newspapers failed to feature a single byline by a black journalist on their front pages. And of the 174 front page bylines examined in that period only 4 were credited to journalists of colour.

 

The same report also found that in the same week just one in four front-page bylines across the 11 papers went to women.

 

It should be noted that the week the study surveyed featured front page stories about Black Lives Matter, the replacement of the toppled statue of the slave trader Edward Colston in Bristol and the appeal over the British citizenship of the Muslim mother, Shamima Begum.

Front page stories frame how the public view an issue with many never getting past the headline. 

A recent report by the Ethical Journalism Network also found that anti-black racism in UK newsrooms is “commonplace”. 

And finally there is not one single major television news bulletin from the BBC’s Breakfast News, One O’clock, Six O’clock or Ten O’clock to Channel 4’s Seven O’Clock to any of ITV’s major bulletins or Channel 5s which is headed by a person of colour or a visibly disabled person.

For clarity I am not talking about the people in front of the camera – I am talking about the executives and editors behind the camera, the people with real power who decide which stories are covered and how. 

Today, in newsrooms across Britain – whether print, online or on TV - it is primarily white, non-disabled, heterosexual men, in London who are deciding what issues news organisations should cover and how they should be covered.

This is a damning indictment of the very principle of Press Freedom, if Black people are not able to tell their stories or are relegated to minor coverage - even about stories that directly affect us such as the #BLM protests - we do not have a free press.

This is not a freedom that is being curtailed by “evil” governments targeting the press, which is how many of the stories about World Press Freedom Day are framed. This is a press freedom that is being curtailed by the inner workings of the newsrooms themselves.

When we write and discuss World Press Freedom Day we must recognise that diversity and inclusion are not viewed as a side issue, but are essential to the very press freedoms all journalists should hold dear..

It is important that we should all fight for press freedoms across the world, but in doing so we must not forget those closest to home who are also seeing their freedoms curtailed.

Diane Abbott, antisemitism and an important lesson for journalists

The current furore around Diane Abbott MP and accusations of antisemitism, in which she equated the prejudice Jewish people face with the prejudice faced by redheads, hold important lessons for journalists covering the issues of diversity, inclusion, equality, racism and (of course) antisemitism.

To explain, let me start with a story.

A few years ago I was talking to a young black girl about the prejudice women face. She earnestly turned to me and said “I understand it, it’s like racism against women”. I fought back a laugh and replied, “yes, it’s called 'sexism'.”

The beauty of the English language is that it is incredibly rich with the largest vocabulary of any language.

We have a specific term for the prejudice and bigotry that women face; “sexism”, and that in turn is different from “misogyny”.

We do Jewish people a disservice if we simply refer to the prejudice and bigotry they face as “racism”. It is “antisemitism”.

Race as we understand it is a social construct which was effectively “invented” during colonialism and transatlantic slavery. It was invented long after the long history of the prejudice, persecution and bigotry Jewish people face began, which dates back millennia. Therefore, logically the term “racism” is historically incorrect and doesn’t fully capture what Jewish people experience.

It should be noted at this point that “race” is different from “ethnicity”, that is the beauty of English, it is able to capture these nuances.

“Antisemitism” is different from “Islamophobia”, and both are different from “sectarianism”.

We do the different and difficult issues that different people face a disservice if we describe it all as “racism”. We also do a disservice to the great English language.

Diane Abbott was completely wrong to describe the prejudice that Travellers and Jewish people face as equivalent to the prejudice and bigotry redheaded people face, it was crass, offensive, and it was right for her to apologise.

When I read her original letter to the Observer, what I understood her underlying message to be; that the “racism” black people face and “antisemitism” are not the same, it is a message I have sympathy with, or at the very least one which I believe should be discussed openly and calmly. Saying one is more or less important than the other is not one I have any sympathy with.

And herein lies an important lesson for journalists. We need to be precise in our language. We should not create false equivalence or hierarchies of victimhood, or we end up offending everyone.

When a journalist asks the seemingly simple question; "Are Jewish people white?" it is giving far too much credit, (and logic) to a system to classify people which was born out of prejudice and illogicality. For me the 'racial' status of Jewish people beautifully expose the lie that race actually makes any sense at all.  As one Jewish friend once said to me, when I naively asked the same question; "Jewish people are the Schrödinger's cat of racism, we are both white and not white at the same time".

Antisemitism is terrible and needs to be addressed. Islamophobia is terrible and needs to be addressed. Racism is terrible and needs to be addressed.

But we cannot properly fight them if we think they are all one and the same thing. Or as my young friend, at the beginning of this piece did, using the same lens and framing to understand different forms of prejudice.

The English language gives us the tools to properly describe, understand and analyse the world around us in all its beauty and ugliness.

  

And that is why, as both a journalist and some one who strives to increase media diversity, I love English. 

DIVERSITY FAILINGS AT THE HEART OF BBC’S IMPARTIALITY WOES

Diversity needs to be at the centre of any review into BBC’s impartiality and guidelines on the use of social media.

On Monday 11th March the BBC’s Director General, Tim Davie, announced that an independent review will be carried out on examining the corporation's social media guidelines.

On Sunday 26th March the Labour Party announced its own BBC review panel. The brief of Labour’s panel covers several areas ahead of the BBC’s next charter renewal in 2027, but again one of the key issues is impartiality.

Even before they start it is easy to pick holes and be cynical about both proposed reviews:

How independent can a review into the BBC really be when the BBC itself sets up the terms of reference and will decide who sits on it?

Can a Labour review with three of the announced four members heavily associated with the Party (James Purnell, Lou Cordwell and June Sarpong) really be expected to be free of bias when reviewing issues such as impartiality and political interference?

The announcement of both reviews come in the wake of the Gary Linekar Twitter controversy, where the BBC initially suspended him for Tweeting about the government’s rhetoric around immigration only to reinstate him less than a week later. Irrespective of any criticisms of how either review has been set up or will operate, what they clearly point to is the growing need for a review into the BBC’s editorial guidelines, with specific reference to how it interprets and implements the principle of “due impartiality”.

However, what most people seem to be missing in all the discussions around BBC impartiality is the centrality of diversity.

Over the last three and a half years the BBC has made four major public editorial U-turns around the issue of impartiality. All four of them have been about diversity and/or minoritised groups:

In October 2019 the BBC reversed its ruling that Breakfast News presenter, Naga Munchetty, had broken editorial guidelines when discussing whether one of President Trump’s Tweets was racist.

In August 2020 the BBC finally apologised for one of its news reporters using the N-word after initially defending the decision.

In October 2020, in what the BBC described as a “clarification” as opposed to a “U-turn”, the corporation said that staff would be allowed to attend Pride marches and this would not compromise their impartiality after initially saying they would not.

And finally in March 2023, the BBC made - what was seen by most - as a U-turn when it initially suspended Gary Linekar over his Tweets about the government’s rhetoric around immigration, only to reinstate him less than a week later. (The BBC was at pains to describe this not as a “climb-down” but “proportionate action).

All four editorial issues have the issue of diversity and inclusion at their core. The first two being obviously racial issues, the third being about LGBTQ+ rights and the fourth, immigration, being a heavily racialised subject.

The biggest problem that the BBC has, when it comes to its editorial guidelines in general, and “due impartiality” in particular, is diversity.

It is the editorial issue literally hiding in plain sight.

This is about how a centralised organisation, which is meant to represent the whole of the UK, fairly represents the concerns and interests of, and about, minority groups while maintaining due impartiality. I saw this problem close up with regards to regional diversity when I was head of BBC Scotland Current Affairs in 2014 covering the Scottish Independence referendum. The fall out of which the BBC is still suffering from.

We do need to set up an independent review into BBC’s editorial guidelines and impartiality, but unless diversity is at the very centre of the review it will fail irrespective of who sits on it.

Award ceremonies reveal the uncomfortable truth of British journalism

Last night I attended the Royal Television Society (RTS) Television Journalism Awards. Having sat on one of the judging panels, I was keen not only to find out about the results of our lengthy deliberations (the final votes are by secret ballot) but having been unable to attend the prestigious ceremony for several years due to COVID-19 I was also interested to see “IRL” how the industry I have spent almost thirty years in is faring, especially in terms of reflecting diversity.

 

Those of you who know me will know that I believe diversity is essential to strong journalism – and has been especially essential this past year with British coverage of key events under significant domestic and global scrutiny – from the Ukraine war to the death of Queen Elizabeth. Indeed, over the last year we have seen examples of UK and international journalism making serious mistakes, precisely because of a lack of diversity.

 

Spoiler alert: I can’t say that I came away from the RTS ceremony last night feeling better about the current state of the industry.

 

In many ways, I should have known. There are vastly different perceptions of progress on diversity in the industry, and those who are in the public eye seem to be focused on creating a narrative of progress.

 

A few hours before the award ceremony I had been in a briefing call with another television and news veteran. They will be hosting an event I have agreed to participate in, focused on diversity in broadcast journalism. During the briefing, the host asked me to focus on the “positives” that we should be talking about as “we don’t want to be too critical”.

At the RTS ceremony itself, I was honoured to be sat on the same table as one the most powerful people in British television. The senior executive was eager to convey how well their particular organisation is doing when it came to racial and gender diversity, both in the level of their employees overall, and at senior management. The executive did admit with some regret that levels of disability are very low, but this was caveated with the idea that the actual level might be higher and there is a problem of “people not wanting to declare that they are disabled”.

I recognised this narrative. In 2012, I convened my first RTS Diversity Committee meeting, and was assuaged by an executive about their particular broadcaster: “You know, if you look at our staff diversity numbers, they are really rather good, but our disability numbers are not good.” Sadly, this was not true, and over time it was revealed that the organisation was simply using metrics that gave them the results they wanted to believe to be true.

 

I wondered if the ceremony, then, would reveal the change since 2012.

 

There are some pieces which suggest a potential shift. The BBC recently promoted Ravin Sampat to the position of executive news editor with a brief to oversee UK story teams, and Lebanese-born Lilian Landor was appointed Director of the BBC World Service in 2021. While at ITN, there have been similar key appointments at ITV News, and the Sir Lenny Henry Centre for Media Diversity, (who I work for) were heavily involved in working with Channel 4 on its  “Black to Front” project which not only highlighted the non-White talent at Channel 4 News but also helped progress certain careers afterwards

 

However, in the infamous words of Lenny Henry commenting on the Bafta Television awards in 2013, it soon became apparent that the RTS Television Journalism Awards 2023 would be; “all White on the night”.

 

Many of the awards, such as Network Daily News Programme of the Year, went to entire production teams, meaning there were often several people on stage at a time. A lot the teams had a smattering of people of colour. And of course, it is impossible to always know someone’s race and ethnicity just by looking at them, and so sitting in the audience one cannot say for certain what the race and ethnicity of all the winners was.

 

But with the notable exception of Clive Myrie, who won Network Presenter of the Year, almost every person who accepted an award and gave the acceptance speech – even on behalf of the teams – appeared to be White. There was just one person who had a visible disability, Jeremy Paxman, winner of Lifetime Outstanding Contribution Award, who needed to be assisted onto the stage.

Three quarters of the way through the ceremony another person sitting on my table, a former senior television executive, leaned over and whispered in my ear; “Marcus, they are ALL White”.  Later, a respected media commentator who had been present messaged me: “Good to see you tonight. I was utterly shocked how White that event was. Quite incredible”.

 

Clive Myrie’s win was notable and it is important to recognise his contribution to television journalism in the last year. He has been a mainstay on British and international screens with the reporting of the Ukraine war. However, he comes in a long line of single news presenters of colour being the exception in an otherwise predominately White industry. The likes of Trevor McDonald, Rageh Omaar and Krishnan Guru-Murthy - all great journalists, reporters and presenters who rightly deserve the numerous awards they have received over the years - are Myrie’s predecessors in more than one way. This means that while Myrie’s achievements should be seen as impressive on an individual basis, they cannot be seen as an indication of progress in terms of increasing racial diversity in newsrooms.

 

What the RTS television journalism award ceremony seemed to reveal, in fact, is one overarching, and slightly uncomfortable, truth.

 

That while there has been some progress in terms of newsroom diversity, the journalism that is most respected and valued by the industry; the journalists that cover the biggest news stories; the journalism that commands the largest budgets; and the journalism that shapes national British debates and frames the way Brits view the world remains overwhelmingly the preserve of White people. In this respect, there has been almost no progress in over twenty years.

 

But here is what really kept me from sleeping as I returned to my warm bed last night.

Awards ceremonies always have winners and losers. Emotions are always high, even when it comes to journalism awards, despite our well-known stoicism. But it was the huge gap between the desire to be optimistic and self-congratulatory of many when it comes to diversity, versus the private realism and shock of others in the room – whether White, Black, disabled or able-bodied – that was incredibly stark.

 

Perhaps most remarkably, it was the fact that those who have the opportunity and potential to change this, far too many of them appear to be in denial, truthfully or otherwise, of how poor the industry’s diversity problem is, and how little substantive progress has been made in the last few decades.

 

The ultimate question has to be, “Can there ever be real change?”

 

The answer to that has to be a resounding “Yes”, but only if we acknowledge the position we are in right now, and that continuing the policies that have failed to bring about real progress will not do it. To quote Albert Einstein "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."

Roald Dahl Is Not The Problem - The Lack of Black And Asian Authors Is

The late Roald Dahl is in the news after the publisher of some of his most famous works, Puffin, decided to edit some of his children’s books, rewriting and removing language they consider could be offensive to a modern audience.

According to the Independent Puffin said the rewriting has been done to ensure that the books “can continue to be enjoyed by all today”.

Cue the usual claims of “cancel culture” and “wokeness” gone mad. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has criticised the move by the publishers as “airbrushing” the past, author Salmon Rushdie has called it ‘absurd censorship’, and supposedly, even the Queen, Camilla has weighed in with a veiled reference telling authors to ‘remain true to calling’.

The fact is British children’s literature has a serious problem and it is not Roald Dahl. It is the lack of British Black and Asian creatives writing children’s literature being published.

In November 2 important statistics came out within just days of each other:

The first is that according to the latest census figures people of colour now make up over 18 percent of the population of England and Wales, the percentage is even larger for younger people..

The second was a statistic published by the Book Trust that British authors of colour make up just 3.6 percent of published children’s authors. The even more depressing news is that this is considered progress, in 2017 they made up just 1.7 percent.

According to the same report British writers of colour are also disproportionately self-published compared to their white counterparts.

In another report published in 2018 only seven percent of children’s books published that year featured black, Asian or minority ethnic characters.

The aim of children’s literature should be to inspire young minds, broaden their worlds and instill in them a love of reading, which hopefully they will be able to carry with them for the rest of their lives.

The aim of children’s literature should not be as non-offensive as possible in order to sell as many copies as possible - although I understand that might be the aim of most publishers.

While the debate rages around whether Roald Dahl is being ‘censored’ and the latest victim of the “woke culture war”, the real victims are being ignored.

How do we improve a love of reading in young Black and Asian children?

How do we create a world where children of all races are learning about, and identifying with, Black and Asian protagonists?

If children think that only boys go on adventures and slay dragons something is wrong.

If young formative minds think only white children can go on magic adventures and travel in giant peaches then something is wrong.

Let the politicians and pundits win their silly culture war arguments, over what is really an attempt by a publisher to future proof future sales, making edits that most parents and children probably won't even notice.

But as a parent I want to focus on what is really important – how to instill a love of reading for my black boy and part of that is having authors and characters of colour.

One group that is trying to address the systemic racial disparities in children’s literature is the Black Writers Guild. Formed in 2020, in the wake of the death of George Floyd the organisation has over 200 members including award winning authors such as Bernadine Everisto, Diana Evans and Kit de Waal.

They lobby publishers to increase not only the number of Black writers, but also the terms and conditions of their contracts.

If we really care about children’s literature - let’s worry a little less about Roald Dahl and support the Guild a little more.

We are the 97% (Keynote Speech - Prospect Union National Conference)

(Keynote speech delivered to the Prospect Union National Conference 13th June 2022)

Good morning friends, comrades, brothers and sisters.

I choose my words carefully and my greetings today because I’d like to think we are all one family. And it is a tremendous honour to be given the opportunity to address the family.

For members of the family that do not know me - my name is Marcus Ryder.

I have been campaigning with Lenny Henry and others to increase better media diversity and representation in our family - in television, film and the creative sector - for over ten years. Writing speeches to deliver in Parliament, devising policies, talking softly when necessary and banging tables when needed.

I fundamentally believe that diversity, inclusion and better representation in the media and every part of British society is one of the most important issues facing Britain today.

And I come with good news - we are the majority.

And history shows that eventually the majority will always win.

Too often when we think about diversity, we invariably think about minority, marginalized, disadvantaged groups. 

Black people, ethnic minorities, disabled people, women, LGBTQ - the oppressed and disposed - and if we are lucky the powers that be let us have a seat at THEIR table.

Well, last year, I co-authored a book with Lenny Henry called Access All Areas - and one of the key reasons we did it was because we wanted to reframe how diversity is thought about.

To show diversity is not a minority issue but a majority issue.

So let’s do some simple maths.

If you combine the percentage of the population who are women and then combine that with the percentage of the population which is disabled, then add that with the percentage of the population which are people of color, then finally top it all off by adding the percentage of the population that says they are LGBTQ+...

You get the grand number of 70.5% per cent. 

The people so many of us generally think of as the majority and never use the word “minority” to describe – white, heterosexual, non-disabled men – make up less than a third of the UK population. 

The rest of us - the vast majority of the population - come under the umbrella- term of ‘diversity’. 

Yet, we are too often dismissed as a minority - in need of special treatment.

If we had a level playing field, for every white, non-disabled heterosexual man you see on TV, in Parliament or in any position of power, we should see a woman or Black person or Asian person or disabled person or gay person. Not just once, but more than twice.

This is true for every board room you walk into, every judge’s chambers, every management office you walk into.

Every walk of life you can think of.

From courts to prisons

From schools to hospitals.

However, for me things become even more interesting once you factor in regional diversity and the over-representation of London and the South East of England. 

I spent eight years as a senior executive for the BBC based in Scotland and yesterday I travelled down from Scotland - so regionality and the concentration of power in London is something that is close to my heart.

So let’s do the sums again and calculate the percentage of the population that are NOT white, NOT heterosexual, NOT non-disabled, NOT men, AND are NOT from the South East of England. Because these are the people who are seriously under-represented in far too many walks of life. 

The number is 96.9% per cent!

That means the people we invariably think of as the majority - the people who overwhelmingly run the country make up only 3.1% percent of the population.

The numbers are almost too staggering to comprehend.

For every three White, non-disabled, heterosexual men with a London accent you see on TV, or in a company board meeting, or sitting as a judge, you should see 97 people with a Birmingham accent or a woman or gay person or Asian person or disabled person, or a lesbian, or some combination of these characteristics. 

Three vs. Ninety-seven is the reality of Britain today.

And yet we still talk about diversity in terms of a minority issue. 

Gender pay gaps, ethnicity pay gaps and disability pay gaps are not a minority issue, they are a majority issue.

And almost every labour issue you can think of disproportionately hits people who are often seen as quote unquote diverse. 

Now my area of expertise is the media industry, so I am going to talk about television for a bit -and talk about it on two levels – the individual first, and then the society level. They are linked and each gives us a window into the other. Both also imply certain potential solutions that trade unions can take forward, and I will leave you with one in particular today that I hope you will all support wholeheartedly as a first step to addressing the majority issue, but before that let me clarify the implications of the majority issue when it comes to the lives of journalists workers and their outputs.

When I listen to the news or watch current affairs programmes, or watch children’s programmes with my son, or even good old drama programmes like bridgerton, or even trash reality TV like love island (hey – don’t pretend you don’t know what I’m talking about!), one of the questions I always ask is – whose perspective do they reflect? Whose interests do they serve?

The 3% or the 97%?

Now so far I have been using polite words and phrases such as “diversity” and “better representation” and “inclusion”.

Too often we use these words not to offend the 3%

But when we use these words it is the equivalent of thinking about the lack of Black news editors, or women film directors, or disabled script writers as just a fact of life. Almost an act of god - like bad weather. 

But there are other words I could use to describe what is going on - possibly more honest words:

Words like “racism” and “sexism” and “homophobia” and “ableism”

While this permeates at the society level, and I will come to this, the fact is that even at an individual level we will never be able to achieve better diversity and representation until we acknowledge and address the root causes that are responsible for the lack of representation and the lack of diversity.

This will not surprise you, and of course this is relevant to other industries, but the need to address racism in the media industry is pressing and urgent. 

There is significant evidence that not only is there widespread underreporting of racism throughout the television industry, but that when racism is reported it is either not dealt with effectively through informal measures. And when formal mechanisms are used they can often lead to the complainant suffering reputational damage labelling them as a “trouble maker” which can hinder their career in the future.  This happens here in the UK, it happens elsewhere too – there is a current case with the Washington Post which exhibits exactly these trends right now.

Also, for many the formal processes of trying to address racism in the industry are also often viewed as too difficult and costly - both financially and psychologically - so many victims of racism simply do not raise a complaint.

 

On top of that, much of the industry defines racism as simple one on one interactions and effectively frames it as a subset of their bullying HR procedure. 

This fails to capture the complexity of racism beyond obvious name calling or direct interpersonal interactions. These definitions fail to capture systemic racist practices which can include, but are not limited to; over-scrutiny of non-White employees’ work in comparison to their white counterparts, over-disciplining of non-White people’s mistakes in comparison to their white counterparts and unequal terms of trade experienced by independent productions led by people of colour compared to their white counterparts.

 

Even when individuals do complain, complaints are often not systematically collected by the organisations involved, anonymous complaints are often not recorded at all, and there is no industry-wide mechanism or process to collect reports of racism to obtain an understanding of the problem let alone come up with industry-wide policies and suggestions of how to address the issue of racism.

This is a failure on an industrial scale and we wonder why representation is so bad. - or maybe we don’t wonder at all.

And yet the truth is racism is an issue that is hardly talked about as we opt for words like “diversity” instead.

The lack of talk about racism however does not mean the problem has been solved.

  

The racism in the industry hinders people of colour being hired, being treated fairly, being denied promotions and ultimately leaving the industry all together.

But  this racism – and the outcomes it promotes in terms of lack of representation – is not only a problem for the victims – it is a real and present danger for our entire democracy – and this is where I really hope you will all sit up and listen.

Better representation in the media is fundamentally about democracy and whether we can all live in peace with one another.

News is where this issue is most crucial. You cannot have freedom of speech if large parts of society are not given equal access to the media.

What we see on the news determines what politicians talk about and actually do anything about. 

However, due to all of the “isms” I’ve talked about, there is not one single major television news bulletin from the BBC’s Breakfast News, One O’clock, Six O’clock or Ten O’clock to Channel 4’s Seven O’Clock to any of ITV’s major bulletins or Channel 5s which is headed by a person of colour or a visibly disabled person. 

There is not one major television political current affairs programme - which sets the political weather, including Panorama, Newsnight or Dispatches which is headed by a person of colour or a visibly disabled person. 

This is not just a problem for today - this is true for the entire history of British television.  Our news is determined by the 3%, not the 97%.

And it has consequences. The lack of diversity in news affects which stories the 3% decide to pick and how the 3% cover them.

It will peak the interests of, as well as favour the interests of the 3% - and not the 97%.

Today, in newsrooms across Britain – whether print, online or on TV - it is primarily the 3% who are deciding whether news organisations cover industrial action – whether such stories are prominent or not, and how journalists frame any news stories around industrial action. It is the 3% that are determining whether the unemployment figures are more important to feature than stock market figures. The 3% are determining whether white refugees' lives matter more than black and brown refugees.

I could go on. But you understand my point. We have to recognise that racism, sexism means our news, our current affairs is skewed. And this skew can shape our society, shape our democratic outcomes. It shapes the “overton window” that unions operate in. It shapes what we think is possible in British society and what is not possible.

Right now the industry I love and I suspect many of you love as well is failing us.

It should be everyone – the 100% who are determining what “we” see and know and assess about our society, and help create the circumstances for change to the lives of the 100%. It shouldn’t be just the 3% who do so. Hence, I want the 97% to have a fighting chance in our industry!

And in all industries across the UK. 

That is why following the murder of George Floyd and the global Black Lives Matter protests I joined with BECTU and Prospect to call for the establishment of an independent racism reporting body for the media industry. 

We - myself, Bectu and Prospect believe that this is one key step to start fighting this problem of over-representation of the 3%.

An industry wide body which can both gather reports of racism from all the major industry industry bodies as well as be a body that people in the industry can go to, to report incidents of racism including anonymous reporting.

 

A body that can initiate investigations into issues of systemic racism that would be unlikely to be raised by individual complainants.

 

A body that can offer advice and assistance to people who believe they are the victims of racism, and/or feel they have experienced unequal treatment due to their race, on how to process a complaint and the resources available to them to pursue a complaint - including the services of the appropriate trade union.

 

Finally, the body should publish an annual report on the state of racism in the industry, to measure progress, build on best progress and learn from mistakes. The report should be complete with policy suggestions for industry stakeholders on how to tackle racism.

Now, the current focus of the proposed body is on racism but that is not to say the independent body could not be expanded to address other forms of prejudice and bigotry. Or other focused bodies could not also be established.

And working with BECTU the current focus is on the media industry but talking to Prospect that does not mean it could not be expanded to other sectors. It is much needed throughout Britain. My recent book, Black British Lives Matter, also edited with Lenny Henry, illustrates exactly this point - ending racism in the media sector, the police sector, the social sectors, architecture, sports - will enrich British society.

Brothers and sisters - friends and family.

We have an important opportunity to fundamentally improve a basic foundation of our democracy - freedom of speech and who has access to it.

And it starts with fighting the racism that plagues the media industry.

We must set up an independent racism reporting body now.

Our democracy is too important not to do it.

Thank you.