Women’s Hour - handling of racist language

[YesILikeItToo]

There was an interview this morning where the interviewee was talking about their experience of racism growing up. She included a reference to names she was called and how that had contributed to her experience.

The presenter said, ‘you’ve used the P word there and so I would I like to apologise to listeners on behalf of the programme.’

Is this the right approach? It made me quite uncomfortable that her language was being shut down. Or can we expect her to understand that the programme has to apologise even though she has done nothing wrong? Or did she do something wrong in describing her experience of racism this way?

I think she should have been free to use the word as it was an experience she had.

I understand why they acknowledged the use of the word, especially for anyone who didn't hear the context eg who may have started listening halfway through. But I agree it should have been acknowledged rather than apologised for. Eg summing up by stating 'X, reflecting on her own experiences which including a recounting of derogatory names which she was called'. I agree that apologising on her behalf was patronising

I'm shocked they policed her account of the abuse.

I think it was in Indonesia recently where a woman was jailed for repeating the abuse she had suffered from her boss. We shouldn't repeat that dynamic. Victims shouldn't be penalised or shamed for talking about the abuse, its perilously close to victim blaming.

Your instincts all seem close to mine, which is reassuring.

The interviewee did react as if she had been scolded, she said, ‘But that’s what they called me.’ The presenter said, in the sweetest possible way, ‘Of course, of course’ and then they both seemed able to move on.

Is this the right approach? It made me quite uncomfortable that her language was being shut down.

No I don't think it is. I don't think any word should be off the table when discussing racism etc because hiding from the reality of it makes the problem worse in the long run.

If you can't tell the difference between being an abusive bigot and discussing how to solve the problems of abusive bigotry then you need to go join the Lib Dems and let the rest of us normal folk get on with it.

Totally with you. I wrote to the BBC to complain immediately . I couldn't believe what I was hearing. The interviewee managed the comment so well; I'm not sure that I would have.

I'm so pleased to see this thread because I thought the exact same thing

The interveiwee did nothing wrong. The interviewer should not have apologised for her and in her position I would have been pretty angry with being shut down like that.

But the BBC were strongly criticised for using the N word in a recent report (where the victims family said they wanted it used in the report), so they apologised and changed their approach. This was a huge story at the time.

I’m interested in the reasons for the approach, Scrap so I’ll try and google that.

I googled it, the situation seemed on the face of it a bit different, but after further reading, perhaps more similar than they first appear.

I say that because the search also threw up a really interesting Ofcom report from 2016 about very detailed research done with viewers and listeners about all sorts of offensive language. (The conclusions of that seemed to be that there was a surprising amount of public consensus about what is appropriate, and that that consensus is very nuanced).

Looking at that report, and some of the issues that concerned people, I think the BBC might say that the interviewee should indeed understand that their policy includes apologising when the word is broadcast and it has very little to do with the rights and wrongs of her behaviour.

I was listening too and couldn't believe it. If the BBC has a policy to apologise whenever such a word is broadcast, then it might be better for the present or to say briefly "According to BBC policy we apologise to listeners for that word being spoken. And we also understand, contributor, that this was your lived, painful experience".

The way it was done was instead (probably unintentionally) patronising and somewhat dismissive.

I felt the contributor needed an apology after the listeners' apology, which means something wasn't right.

I think it's the same as any swear word isn't it? If you said fuck on radio 4 at 10am they'd say sorry and move on.

I don't think it is the same as swearing, as we saw from the interviewee's reaction. I think most people would acknowledge that there is indeed an element of blame, however mild and however forgiveable, that falls on the person who used the swear word. So the dissonance between the need to apologise on behalf of the programme and on behalf of the speaker wouldn't arise.

Policing the language of a victim of abuse is shocking.
If you can't name the abuse you suffered, then you can't do anything to stop it from happening again, or hold your abusers accountable, it's like being victimised a second time.

Well, I agree actually. I also think if someone is describing an assault and it's reported speech, the complete words used should be used.

All I was saying was I think it's treating P* the same as fuck. I think it's much worse than fuck but I also don't need words to be censored for myself. It is something that people ask for and r4 specifically does censor its language so within this context, it seems consistent.

Reasonable people may disagree!

This is the recent row over the use of the n word in reported speech, after due consideration and at the request of the victim’s family.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-53676557
It’s similar to this case in some ways but this time the victim is the one saying the words rather than a news reporter, and it’s in the context of a longer interview rather than a brief news piece which would come out of nowhere and hence take listeners unawares. So I can see that the context is different, but I can also imagine that a BBC employee, very aware of the huge offence caused by the earlier incident, would panic.