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.'

Shows like this usually give the panellists the questions beforehand so that they can prepare nuanced, articulate, answers. Panelists are often given the opportunity to reject questions too.

Not true.

@Graciebobcat

"Degrading and vile" is a disproportionate reaction to potentially not being asked the questions you wanted to be asked on a radio programme. Ridiculous.

"Degrading and vile" related to Emma's manner when speaking about her guest and not realising her mic was on.

Because it was about the #MeToo movement.

And expressly pegged to the Weinstein case.

Either Okafor is able to defend her view point on anti-semitism or she isn't. Flouncing is the worst possible response.

She also doesn't help herself by posting ""The host didn’t realise her mic was on as she was talking about me before the interview started is all I’m going to say" and then going on to say a whole lot more.

Myself and the other people who would be talking during the segment could hear me being talked about like a dickhead

It would help if Kelechi Okafor actually stated what was said rather than how she perceived it. Until we know that it's just two sides shouting at each other inviting us to pick a favourite.

@Lllama

The car crash is she was willing to ambush Kelechi on antisemitism allegations with two minutes' notice, but allowed Lionel to wank on about how Black Lives Matter sets racism back completely unchallenged.

I think Trevor Phillips has said something similar. Are you seriously saying only black people are allowed to comment on BLM? I've certainly seen comments by black commentators querying BLM.

By that token only transgender people should comment on trans issues- that would shut down 99% of the threads on here.

@NonCisWoman

"Rookie error"?

If this story is true, then EB needs to be sacked.

Leaving your mic on is one thing; slagging off your guest is a whole other level and completely unacceptable in any context.

How about reading Emma Barnett's response and explanation and digging a little deeper to find out what it was that set this whole thing off, which appears to have been an anti-semitic remark, or support for an anti-semitic remark, that Kelechi had previously made? Weinstein was Jewish and it seems to me valid for a programme's presenter and producer to consider whether having a contributor who appears to have supported anti-semitic views might look as if they were sending out some kind of signal.

It's still not clear what was said, but of the two women Barnett has offered the most information. So I think knee-jerk reactions need to be restrained and any accusations of 'slagging off your guest' withdrawn until more is known. It all occurred over Zoom and was probably recorded, so we might actually get to see and hear for ourselves what happened.

Who on earth would want to be a WH presenter in the age of Twitter? I imagine Jane Garvey and Jenni Murray are quietly enjoying this.

I think eb is an excellent journalist. She's very challenging (usually) and her guests should expect that. If you've made any-Semitic comments (or supported them) in the past, you appear on Emma's show, you're going to get asked about it.

I actually think she should have been moved to the today programme personally.

[quote Chicchicchicchiclana]@Llama - are you getting that she referred to women as whores from that one line in the report you linked or from elsewhere? I would like to read more about this.[/quote]
It's easy enough to Google 'Emma Barnett's father' and find plenty of articles in the public domain.

I found this piece, for example

brokenbottleboy.substack.com/p/the-sins-of-the-father-the-emails

I feel quite sad and pissed off about all this.

I actually think that Kelechi Okafor IS a dickhead. A) for publicly supporting someone making anti-semitic comments B) for flouncing when asked about it C) trying to make herself the vicitm

There's also an argument that it's not right to invite someone on to discuss one subject, while actually intending to confront them about another one.

You could argue that but it's pretty standard practice, IF it's relevant to the discussion or if it's a news programme and it's relevant to other topical issues, "while you're here can we ask you about xyz". I hear it all the time. No one should go on a broadcast current affairs programme expecting that things they've said previously are off the table. Having said that any production discussion about the relevance or not should not be happening as they're on mic and about to go on air.

Yes, I read that one Jamies but sadly it doesn't go any further into what was in those emails. I really want to know now.

Degrading and vile" related to Emma's manner when speaking about her guest and not realising her mic was on

Again though, really? Degrading and vile? And it wasn't like she was saying anything about her that she wasn't going to bring up in the interview. Degrading and vile was how Weinstein treated women, it really doesn't do anyone any favours if people misuse these terms for all kinds of minor issues.

You could argue that but it's pretty standard practice, IF it's relevant to the discussion or if it's a news programme and it's relevant to other topical issues, "while you're here can we ask you about xyz". I hear it all the time. No one should go on a broadcast current affairs programme expecting that things they've said previously are off the table. Having said that any production discussion about the relevance or not should not be happening as they're on mic and about to go on air.

Fair point. But like you say, there's ways to do it, and definitely ones that don't involve insulting guests when you think you can't be heard.

EB responded to the row:
metro.co.uk/2021/01/06/womans-hours-emma-barnett-responds-to-allegations-of-degrading-comments-13858084/

That this is now so open and public is a problem for EB, I suspect.

Weinstein is a convicted sex offender who treated women as bankable commodities.

EB's father is a convicted offender who treated women as bankable commodities. EB knew about this, and is known to have used the term 'whores' of trafficked women.

EB thinks it is acceptable and relevant to raise people's past words and actions in interviews ...

I'm loving the idea that any TV or radio host can dictate exactly what any quest says. Lionel Shriver commented that her personal feelings about #Me Too were quite similar to her feelings about BLM. She'd shared the initial outrage about Weinstein and George Floyd and had supported both movement but she thought they'd moved into difficult territory and possibly done themselves no favours (I'm paraphrasing, possibly badly). She's entitled to her opinion and I'm astonished that anyone here would think she isn't or that opinions that don't match theirs precisely should not be broadcast — which seems to be what's being said.

I'm shocked to read about Barnett's father. He sounds like a vile man, making millions through the sexual exploitation of women. I don't believe that anyone should be tainted by something their parent did but I can't help feeling that if my dad had made millions out of sexual abuse I'd want nothing to do with him and would want a quiet life out of the spotlight.

EB thinks it is acceptable and relevant to raise people's past words and actions in interviews ...

But it is, when it is relevant to the subject of the interview. It would be an utter nonsense to pretend the past didn't exist.

Sorry - but the point is EB was not prepared nor did the WH team raise it.

It seems that by some accident at the last minute EB was made aware of alleged anti-semitic remarks and decided there and then to ask a question for no other reason that she was heard unprofessionally overheard making personal comments.

No amount of what was said originally or how good or how bad EB is. This is totally pathetic and unprofessional. And shows both EB and WH as sloppy and unprofessional.

Even the most minimal amount of pre show research would have bought this up.

Total usual arrogant BBC staff who now think they are the star and the show if about their performance.

It is reducing the BBC to the level of talk radio.

She has been over promoted and is out of her depth.

@MaryLeeOnHigh

EB thinks it is acceptable and relevant to raise people's past words and actions in interviews ...

But it is, when it is relevant to the subject of the interview. It would be an utter nonsense to pretend the past didn't exist.

So that can be used against EB ...

What qualifies EB to chair a discussion on #MeToo and sexual abuse when she has been recorded as calling trafficking victims 'whores'? That's her problem.

I had no idea about any of this before today, but I do think she's vulnerable to the pomo purity rules now.

so, let's make it all about EB and LS and all that nasty anti semitism will just go away.

It seems that by some accident at the last minute EB was made aware of alleged anti-semitic remarks

It seems from that Metro article that it was tweets coming into the show that 'made her aware' stumbledin. You're right - absolutely shit preparation by this flagship programme and its staff.

I think this is good old fashioned telling off for fucking up a necessary discussion about background by having it in earshot of the guest territory.

And not researching/briefing/preparing effectively, on several parts I suspect.

I think that "brokenbottleboy" blog post about EB is very unfair, especially as the author says they have worked with her - been given work by her, no less - and never had a bad experience with her.

All we know is that as a very young woman, probably still a student, she used the word "whores" in an email to her dad. By her account (of the general situation), this was a time when she was starting to become aware that there was something very dodgy about her father's involvement in massage parlours (which apparently she thought were actual massage parlours for some time). My guess would be that she used this word in anger, anger at her father and his criminal activities. That's just my guess, of course. The alternative is to believe that she was totally gung-ho about human trafficking - "hey dad, anything I can do to help out with the whores this weekend?" - which I very much doubt.

That blogger strikes me as someone who would make a good witchfinder.

Has KO apologised for the anti-Semitic remarks?

• If yes then just leave it, it's pretty tenuous to say that because Weinstein is Jewish we're going to talk about anti-Semitism.
• If she stands by her statements then I think it's fair game to call her out on it, especially since she's supposedly an anti-racism activist.