Woman's Hour: What happened this morning?

[NonCisWoman]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9117995/Actress-refuses-appear-Womans-Hour-accusing-host-Emma-Barnett-degrading-comments.html

An actress refused to appear on Woman's Hour this morning after accusing host Emma Barnett of making 'degrading and vile' comments about her.

Kelechi Okafor was set to talk on the BBC Radio 4 show to discuss the #MeToo movement with new presenter Emma Barnett.

But as the programme was live on air, the Nigerian-British actress revealed she had come off the show, writing: 'Because what I've just had to witness is absolutely degrading and vile.'

Posting a video to Instagram, she said: 'I won't be going on Woman's Hour now. The host didn't realise her mic was on as she was talking s* about me to the producers.'

@HecatesCats

This is definitely a production issue. If due diligence had been done she wouldn't have been booked, given her anti-Semitic comments and seemingly limited experience as an actress, and they could have booked a black woman who was either an activist or actress with wide ranging experience of the industry who hadn't made racist slurs against another group. It's a cock up. The whole team need to have a word with themselves.

Agree with this.

However, this thread is an excellent example of why I believe Twitter to be a questionable addition to the fourth estate. Really, people shouldn't believe all they read on Twitter and should try to furnish themselves with the facts before casting judgement (hands up to me not realising the speaker from EVAW had also heard the controversial conversation).

Someone on this thread called for EB to be sacked just on the basis of what KO tweeted which, again, is inflammatory and was an ill-judged comment.

Has anyone uncovered what was said between EB and her father in these emails? I guess people will now be looking for that information with some vigour.

But, again, we don't know if the production team hadn't researched KO properly, we don't know if EB was unaware of the controversy surrounding her - we are all speculating on what was said. Unless I'm missing an update.

@Chicchicchicchiclana

But, again, we don't know if the production team hadn't researched KO properly, we don't know if EB was unaware of the controversy surrounding her - we are all speculating on what was said. Unless I'm missing an update.

We do have a clear sense of that from EB's statement. She says it came to her attention just before going on air. There could be all sorts of reasons for this, but they would be pure speculation. We still don't know exactly what was said about KO. I agree with your point about Twitter.

Has anyone uncovered what was said between EB and her father in these emails?

I honestly think it's irrelevant what EB has said in personal emails. If you trawled through the emails and private messages of every individual I'm sure you could find things that would look appalling when taken on their own and out of context.

This is entirely different from statements made on the radio, TV, in podcasts, in tweets etc. which are, quite rightly, open to scrutiny and critique. If you're going to say something highly controversial on a public platform then you should expect people to challenge you on it. That's why I have no issue with JKR, or anyone else, being challenged about their statements. If you strongly believe something then you should welcome the opportunity to explain yourself.

Ok thanks for that link. Was it on Twitter? .

@Chicchicchicchiclana

Ok thanks for that link. Was it on Twitter? .

Yes, it's on her Twitter feed.

I don't think it's irrelevant if EB, now the presenter of WH, made derogatory comments about the women who were trafficked by her father, or made light of his crimes, or any of that, even if she was "only" in her 20s at the time. But they are relevant in light of people's willingness to condemn her (on this thread and no doubt elsewhere) for one short line in the press which has been quoted everywhere about the use of the word whores in an email exchange between EB and her father.

For a bit of background. Agree EB acted unprofessionally. But also worth bearing in mind Kelechi has form for taking private conversations and misrepresenting/diverting the issue on Twitter. www.thejc.com/comment/opinion/this-is-what-happens-when-you-challenge-antisemitism-1.450843

None of us know the content of the emails and endless speculation about them is pointless.

Either you accept that Barnett should not be punished for life for the sins of her father or you don't.

For all we know, Okafor's dad could be a criminal. Or Shriver's. Most people don't have their father's crimes dragged up again and again throughout their careers the way that Barnett has put up with.

None of us know the content of the emails and endless speculation about them is pointless.

(As usual) you are bang on.

I really can't wait for the truth of this to come out..

If it was a private email between a daughter and her father - however odious he may be - then I don't think it's any of my business.

From what I've read about Shriver's comments I do think that Barnett, as a professional broadcast journalist should have picked up on them. I accept there might have been very little time but that's the skill of the job surely?

But beyond that - well I'm repeating myself now but I'm not making up my mind until I know what was actually said.

I think the point about the emails is that they allegedly pre date police involvement, and show that EB was aware of his actions - however her account is that she didn’t know what he was doing until he was tried for it.

Did anyone hear WH today on the gendered impact of lockdown?

@borageforager

I think the point about the emails is that they allegedly pre date police involvement, and show that EB was aware of his actions - however her account is that she didn’t know what he was doing until he was tried for it.

That isn't true. Her account makes it clear she was aware of it

www.pressreader.com/uk/the-scottish-mail-on-sunday/20160612/281792808303223

It's seems a lot of people have learned from Trump that to win an argument you get your "facts" out there, and whenever asked to explain, then you ignore, or deny, or just throw out more "facts".

That is an interesting article. Just one thing would make it better; if she had also donated part of the fee to organisations supporting women who want to leave the sex industry. Not her crime, though. Also, her father didn't just inhabit a sinister world. By living off the earnings of women he exploited (and exploiting them), he himself was a sinister actor in the world. I think this topic is probably better dealt with separately.

If the further revelations about KO engaging in anti-semitism herself are true, it would be more damning than just supporting someone else's anti-semitic comments.

The above article from The Jewish Chronicle portrays KO as somewhat disingenuous, so we still don't know if her accusation of EB talking about her like a 'dickh*ad' meant EB discussing KO's previous alleged anti-semitism. All the embroidery, but nothing stated plainly and we are no more the wiser. Why the obfuscation?

I do think it would come as a bit of shock to (effectively) walk into a room and hear your interviewer talking about you. I don't want to minimise that, and I'd have been sympathetic if KO had tweeted something along the lines of, 'I was upset and shaken up to overhear EB discussing me just before my interview and I wasn't in the right frame of mind to take part'.
But when you use words like 'degrading' and 'vile' then I think it's only right to back them up.

I do think it would come as a bit of shock to (effectively) walk into a room and hear your interviewer talking about you. I don't want to minimise that, and I'd have been sympathetic if KO had tweeted something along the lines of, 'I was upset and shaken up to overhear EB discussing me just before my interview and I wasn't in the right frame of mind to take part'.

I 100% agree with this. It's only not being a football manager that stops me from saying 110%.

Kelechi comes across as bit of a drama queen milking the situation. I very much doubt Lionel Shriver would have stormed off and thrown a hissy fit if she had inadvertently overheard herself being talked about.

C8H10N4O2 - ”does Emma really not do any research on her guests before speaking to them? I find that extraordinary. “

I heard Jane Garvey being interviewed recently about her time as a WH Presenter. She said that one of the questions often asked is why she chose particular guests. She explained that she does not choose the guests and added that although she liked to do a bit of research into them herself that sometimes she had to rely on the WH researchers to brief her and that she might know little about them until just before recording.

I would be prepared to cut EB a bit of slack as a new presenter in terms of conducting her own research. From this debacle, I would expect her to ensure that she is better prepared in future and judge her on that.

I am not commenting on the other aspects raised because there are too many unknowns and it is all speculation.

I think the point about the emails is that they allegedly pre date police involvement, and show that EB was aware of his actions - however her account is that she didn’t know what he was doing until he was tried for it

I don't think she ever denied knowing about it. It is not EB's fault that her father profited from trafficking and prostituting women. Its not her fault that she indirectly benefited in terms of her education, lifestyle. That article which made her the victim was not the only one in that vein and it would have been helpful if the fees/benefits had been donated to a relevant charity.

Did anyone hear WH today on the gendered impact of lockdown?

Yes it was a good piece however tbf, Andrea Catherwood is an old WH hand, a more experienced broadcaster and may well know the WH team strengths and weaknesses better. The subject was also two people speaking "on" rather than opposing points.

I was cautiously hopeful fo EB, i don't think this has been a great week.

I would be prepared to cut EB a bit of slack as a new presenter in terms of conducting her own research. From this debacle, I would expect her to ensure that she is better prepared in future and judge her on that

Yes I would as well. We shall see.

I am not commenting on the other aspects raised because there are too many unknowns and it is all speculation.

Fair enough. However for me its moved beyond what was said to the treatment of the diferent guests.

Guest A joins a session to find herself being trashtalked (I'm paraphrasing her) by a sloppy bunch of researchers. The only independent witness has backed up her account, from her professional presence no less.

Guest B joins the show and is allowed to express common mysogynistic views and repeat a misrepresentation of BLM issues unchallenged.

Guest "A" has been attacked as "nothingy", a "drama queen", making it all about her, repeated coments here and elsewhere about her tone - she should have used different (white MC) language etc. None of these have any bearing on the truth of what happened on that call.

Guest "B" has benefitted from defence that we need to consider her in context, make various other allowances etc despite acknowledgement of the misogyny, less of the racism.

I could tell you which guest was a black woman without knowing before reading this thread.

She did not say that. She criticised the inevitable decline in standards which will occur if literary merit is not the prime criterion to publish. This is a quote from the Independent.

No she was doing exactly what men do when they want to make excuses to keep women out. I couldn't count the number of times over the years I've been told in my male dominated industry that "we would love to have more women but they just don't apply" (to jobs defined in male MC terms). They express their fears that "standards" will drop if we have to take more women (because expanding the candidate pool reduces standards in some twisted logic).

Simply ensuring you get more applications or consider more work from a wider pool of people who may not normally apply gives you more choice of works and candidates.

Shriver's comments are classic "its all going to the dogs" when she actually means "it looks less like me".

This is the Penguin page on non graduate recruitment:
www.penguin.co.uk/articles/company/news/2016/january/penguin-random-house-uk-removes-degree-requirements-in-recruitin.html

Its acknowledged in many companies that degrees are not the only measure of quality but they are a handy divider which favours MC candidates. This policy of being willing to consider wider experience in the inidustry or potentially take on capable school leavers is more common in large companies who normally recruit from Oxbridge/RG (rather as it used to be 20-30 yrs ago).

The only independent witness has backed up her account
But the point - for me - is that, as far as I'm aware, neither KO nor the person backing her up has given an account of what was actually said. Unless I hear that, any sympathies I have are going to be qualified.

I agree LS probably wouldn't have reacted in the same way, but I don't think that means nobody else should. People are different and that incident should not have happened.

The one word C8H10N4O2 doesn't use in her long posts?
Antisemitism.
Interesting, isn't it?