The BBC is a prized institution that promises impartiality at every turn. This unfortunately often means that when they interview a trans person they also interview a transphobe. That when they interview a climate scientist they also interview a climate skeptic. And that when they interview a vaccine scientist they also interview an anti-vaxxer.
Not every time. Not always. But enough. They vow to balance coverage of the Labour Party with coverage of the Conservative Party; the Brexit Party with the Green Party and so on. It doesn’t always work an there are endless rows on how successful they are being at remaining impartial.
So, when somebody complained that BBC journalist Naga Munchetty had breached the corporation’s impartiality guidelines, an investigation was launched. The complaint was about her saying that when someone tells a person of colour to “go home” or to “go back to your own country”, that this is “embedded in racism”. This was in the context of Donald Trump saying those exact things to female politicians of colour in the States.
She spoke of her own experiences and pointed out that this was a racist message to send out. She said she felt furious about it but her words were carefully chosen and measured.
See for yourself. It’s hardly an out-of-control, hate-filled rant:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjGbkjDlTGw
And yet the BBC has found, following an investigation, that her words breached guidelines of impartiality. The complaint was upheld.
It is an astonishing judgement from the Beeb and BBC colleagues and other journalists have come out in support of Munchetty.
In an open letter to the BBC, Krishnan Guru-Murthy, Afua Hirsch, Gina Yashere and others said:
We, the undersigned group of people of colour who work in the media and broadcasting in the UK, strongly condemn this finding and assert that it amounts to both a misunderstanding of the BBC’s editorial guidelines, and a form of racially discriminatory treatment towards BAME people who work on programming.
[…]
While we stand in support of Munchetty, the consequences of this decision are widespread with implications for the entire media landscape in the UK and those who work within it. The scope of its effect is already evidenced in the unprecedented number of BAME media figures who have openly and publicly voiced their condemnation on social media.
[…]
We believe that, in addition to being deeply flawed, illegal and contrary to the spirit and purpose of public broadcasting, the BBC’s current position will have a profound effect on future diversity within the BBC. To suggest that future BAME broadcasters will be hired at the corporation on the premise that they remain “impartial” about how they feel about their experiences of racism is ludicrous. To require journalists of all ethnicities and races to endorse racism as a legitimate “opinion” is an abrogation of responsibility of the most serious nature.
The National Union of Journalists (NUJ) also spoke out in support of Munchetty:
Michelle Stanistreet, National Union of Journalists general secretary, said: “All broadcasters, and in particular the BBC a public service broadcaster, should call out racism. It is not a matter of opinion – it is wrong. Naga Munchetty responded as a woman of colour to Donald Trump’s tweet that women Democrat politicians, all US citizens, should ‘go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came’. Of course, she was right to say she was furious with the President’s language and what it meant. The BBC has got it very wrong – BBC journalists should not be prohibited from commenting on evidently racist language, especially at a time when racist rhetoric is having a real impact on people’s lives.”
What the BBC has told Munchetty with this ruling is that if she, and other journalists of colour, call out racism when they see it, this is more offensive than the racism itself. They tell her that the well-known offensiveness of telling somebody from a BAME community to “go home” should never be identified as racist speech that can irritate, anger or enrage somebody who has heard those very words spat out in hate herself.
Racism – like climate change, trans people’s identities and vaccinations, for that matter – are not topics where presenting two sides is an appropriate response. In fact, presenting two sides in all of these scenarios is frankly dangerous.
Nobody wants to see the BBC become a supporter of a political party like the newspapers are, but making sure you get a Labour MP to answer some questions when you have asked similar questions of a Tory MP is not the same as putting people in danger by presenting a bigot or a conspiracy theorist on a par with those who are experts, by study or by experience.
When Donald Trump told those Congresswomen to “go home”, it was racist and it was offensive. When a woman of colour says this and ties it into her own personal experience, we should listen extra hard, not penalise her for speaking the truth.
Image credit: Ali Craigmile