Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 3 4 5

Original poster

Naga Munchetty

119 replies

theendoftheendoftheend · 27/09/2019 12:23

www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-49850738

Having read this I am struggling to understand why Naga is in trouble for answering the questions Dan asked her and why he hasn't been equally addressed for this comment;

Walker: Do you feel his use of that then legitimises other people to use this…

Munchetty: Yes. Yes.

Walker: It feels like a thought-out strategy to strengthen his position.

How have they come to the decision her comments were wrong but this one by Dan was fine? Have I missed something?

OP posts:

ChicCroissant · 27/09/2019 20:45

Dan asked more than one question though. He didn't just ask her once.

ForalltheSaints · 27/09/2019 21:07

Jeremy Clarkson and others on Top Gear have made far more partial comments, we have the transphobic Mrs Brown's Boys, journalists who have stood for Parliament, all on the BBC.

A breakfast tv presenter expressing her views on her own experience should not be reprimanded.

PorridgeAgainAbney · 27/09/2019 21:21

I wondered earlier if the reason that Dan hasn't been treated in the same way is because he was being asked to ask her questions in his earpiece? I mean, if he saw her reaction then the production team would also have seen it and maybe saw an opportunity (not necessarily maliciously?) for Dan to probe the issue with her to make 'good' tv...

VladmirsPoutine · 27/09/2019 22:24

@PorridgeAgainAbney That wouldn't make sense. Because by virtue of both being BBC journos they can't be seen to express any sort of personal views about anything.

So whilst I can accept the production team might have thought this of a guest speaker or whatever, they wouldn't over one of their own. This was entirely spontaneous.

And much as I hate to bang on about it, (I) being half black sometimes things just get the better of you - and Dan led her into that conversation as it was an entirely valid conversation to have until it wasn't.

If John Humphrys and Dan also get crucified then I'm willing to see Naga go under too. But they haven't. It only seems an ethnic minority woman being reprimanded for calling out racism and adding her own experiences of racism at the behest of an apparently innocent white man.

Smellbellina · 27/09/2019 22:28

Dan didn’t just ask questions though, he made statements which have been highlighted in previous posts
Either way these aren’t two renegade presenters, the issue here is with the BBC; not their scapegoat who just happens to be a woman from a ethnic background that isn’t white

PorridgeAgainAbney · 27/09/2019 22:41

That's how I feel too though, but maybe not wording it well: to me it seemed spontaneous but also at some point a bit opportunistic, either by Dan or someone in the background. I zip in and out the room when it's on most mornings and normally (whichever pairing it is) I get the feeling that if one of them even hints at an opinion with so much as an eyebrow, it's quickly moved past.

So, yes, I agree and echo everyone else that the issue is how the BBC have handled it by not treating Naga and Dan equally.

PorridgeAgainAbney · 27/09/2019 22:44

By the way I'm not implying Naga should't have spoken out or did anything wrong. I'll shut up now.

VladmirsPoutine · 28/09/2019 16:23

@PorridgeAgainAbney I'm not jumping down your throat or misinterpreting your points at all as they are very valid and we are in agreement! So no need for you to "shut up". Indeed the more people make noise about it the better!

PorridgeAgainAbney · 28/09/2019 16:44

@Vlad cheers! I can have a tendency to inadvertently express myself in a way that doesn't actually reflect what I meant so then end up having to sort of contradict myself to get the right words out .

Mysterian · 28/09/2019 16:55

I believe Daniel got away with it because the BBC responds to complaints, and the person complaining was only concerned about Naga for some reason.

Grimbles · 28/09/2019 16:55

As I dont think Naga did anything wrong, I'm not to keen on blaming Dan because no-one complained about him.

Although I do think that if he had any decency he would stand by Naga publically, as should all her colleagues.

Mysterian · 28/09/2019 17:00

So you can say something is racist on the BBC, but you can't suggest that they're saying racist things because they racist. That makes sense.

VladmirsPoutine · 28/09/2019 17:00

@PorridgeAgainAbney I suppose a career as a contortionist beckons!

But I entirely see what you were getting at. Sometimes I'm not particularly very eloquent in expressing my views especially when it comes to 'race' issues.

Baguetteaboutit · 28/09/2019 17:01

I just assumed it was because he seems as thick as mince and can no more be held accountable for his actions as a dog for shitting on the carpet.

VladmirsPoutine · 28/09/2019 17:11

@Baguetteaboutit Even if you are right... then that excuse should also be extended to Naga so she too can fly under the radar. The issue really at heart is that he gets a free pass, as it were, but she's reprimanded. We can't keep on forgiving the errors of white men by sacrificing women/people of colour. What makes this particular scenario even more galling is that she was talking of her own lived experiences and the state broadcaster is castigating her over it.

I could accept it if it were a discussion about veganism, and Naga chimed in with saying how there's nothing better than a bacon sandwich.

None of this makes sense.

longwayoff · 28/09/2019 17:18

Naga is completely professional. How can racism be subject to impartiality? Is it being judged by degrees now? A bit racist, quite racist, really racist, unacceptably racist? Words fail me. I understand she's received an apology? The BBC will be lucky to avoid a lawsuit.

BigFatLiar · 28/09/2019 17:24

They should have both been reprimanded. In these programs the presenters are a team. One asks the other answers, makes it seem more like a discussion than someone simply giving their opinion. The question is whether or not the program is one where they're meant to be giving out their opinions, is it a chat show or a news program.

Baguetteaboutit · 28/09/2019 17:31

We can't keep on forgiving the errors of white men by sacrificing women/people of colour.

Yes. I agree. I think you've mistaken my suspicion that his 'Dan, nice but dim' act is understood as politically neutral as an actual legitimate reason for him flying under the radar.

Mysterian · 28/09/2019 17:35

They couldn't uphold a complaint about him because there was no complaint about him.

PotteringAlong · 28/09/2019 17:48

Mysterian, there has been now. I complained about him on Friday...

VladmirsPoutine · 28/09/2019 17:49

@Baguetteaboutit I understand what you meant. His 'act' as it were is also in a sense a form of privilege in one way or another.

PotteringAlong · 28/09/2019 17:49

I did make it very clear in my complaint that I was doing so because I felt it was unfair he was unpunished, not because I agreed with the judgement.

chomalungma · 28/09/2019 17:51

I complained about him on Friday

What did you state in your complaint?

PotteringAlong · 28/09/2019 18:11

That she was answering questions that had been led by him and seemed to have been led in a way that also made his opinion of the topic clear and if she was in the wrong for that then so was he.

SavetheMinden6 · 28/09/2019 18:48

The older I get the more my contempt for the BBC grows. Hugh Greene must be turning in his grave at what his wonderful organisation has become.

Flip

1 2 3 4 5