Interesting report on diversity of representation in BBC programmes

[DuchessofReality]

Report here
https://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/documents/thematic-review-of-portrayal-and-representation.pdf

BBC article about it here:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9312091kpeo

Well worth reading the whole document. It mentions, among other things, lack of representation of women and older women in particular, lack of diversity of geographical and class-related views, and how tick box diversity annoys people.

Sentences I appreciated:
We also found that measuring diversity by aggregating groups of sometimes very different people (such as BAME, disabled people, LGBTQ+) misses crucial detail which is required to ensure an appropriate range is present in content over time.
.....
However, there’s a noticeable gap between those whom the general audience wants to see more of and what specific groups within the audience feel they need. This gap is widest for LGBTQ+, black African and Caribbean communities, who express a greater desire for increased representation than the wider audience does for them.
.....
Nearly nine in ten say that women over 50 are represented poorly in adverts, films and television. And two thirds of women cease to feel represented in the media from the age of 46.
......
Commissioners should now take a proactive role in developing on- and off-air talent, to ensure authentic portrayal of the following groups: People from working class backgrounds (in a way that represents and celebrates their own cultures) South Asians (particularly in drama and entertainment) East Asians (in all genres) Disabled people with a range of impairments (particularly focusing on incidental representation) East Europeans (in all genres)
......

To help achieve diversity, measurements often group people together under labels like BAME or LGBTQ+. The term disability is itself an aggregation of a number of different conditions and experiences. This can result in some peculiar outcomes where very different groups are lumped together for no other reason than they share some common characteristic, such as being ‘non-white’.
.....

The aggregation ‘LGBTQ+’ tries to encompass a range of sexual orientations and gender identities, with the plus at the end used to ensure inclusivity of all identities beyond those in the term. It’s widely used as a term for gender, sexual and romantic minorities and, unlike some of the terms above, it specifically points out the range and variety it includes. However, it presents another issue in that the various groups in that umbrella label don’t always want to be associated with each other, specifically some of the L and some of the T. While we think it is still useful, it is worth pointing out that a single person cannot be LGBTQ+, any more than an individual can be BAME. As with all the above aggregations, where a programme is talking about an individual, it is best to be specific about that person rather than using an umbrella term.
.......

However, productions should consider their choices carefully when it comes to colour-blind casting. In depicting an anachronistic historical world in which people of colour are able to rise to the top of society as scientists, artists, courtiers and Lords of the Realm, there may be the unintended consequence of erasing the past exclusion and oppression of ethnic minorities and breeding complacency about their former opportunities.

In depicting an anachronistic historical world in which people of colour are able to rise to the top of society as scientists, artists, courtiers and Lords of the Realm, there may be the unintended consequence of erasing the past exclusion and oppression of ethnic minorities and breeding complacency about their former opportunities.

Strange they don’t also mention how this erases and misrepresents the culture and achievements of the white British population too.

“Diversity” in the BBC has been reduced to posh people of colour and transwomen.

The least represented and most vilified are the white working class. The only time they are represented is when they need a character which is racist, bigoted and violent.

Wonder if they've noticed how much working class audience they've lost to YouTube? A lot of my mates are petrolheads & when I go round, they're far more likely to be watching YouTube channels with another working class bloke doing up an old wreck of a car or machining massive parts for giant diggers, than any MSM content. It's also noticeable how often the popular channels of that kind turn up in conversation with new people, it's not some niche thing among my friend group.

Edited for dyslexia, some may remain

I think that's a common problem though. It may well be being exacerbated by the BBCs choice of programming. But the shift from "mainstream media" to online sources is very widespread. It affects newspapers as well (right wing rags too), and radio (local radio especially) being replaced by podcasts etc.
It's a pity because whilst mainstream/traditional news sources aren't above reproach, TikTok etc have their own faults. The power algorithms give to owners of those sites would make most 19th century media barons embarrassed.

But yeah, it's not just the BBC. There are some excellent people on YouTube though. I think it's really good at providing a platform for enthusiastic people with niche topics of interest. Or random fact type shows. It's hard for the BBC to compete with that while before they were dominant.

Some really interesting points, not least the positive theme that large group labels are unhelpful, and that the created categories erases and reduces diversity rather than really engages with it. As with the Equality Act where we've seen the attempt to put nine categories into one bag and it's become relevant really only to one of them which happens to be the most powerful and influential (whose leading lights incidentally are in the majority white straight able bodied affluent and highly educated men). To properly serve the representation and consideration of all those groups (many of whom could do with breaking down into more groups rather than a lumpen vague identity that hides the wide variety within) it would be better at this stage to undo the EqA in those terms of one brief and all where the characteristics compete and the most powerful win, and separate each to a separate brief with one minister responsible for knowing and representing the needs and interests of that particular group particularly in policy making. That would not help of course that our current govt would allocate many categories to an MP with an interest in the brief of suppressing, controlling and spinning that group for the convenience of political agenda. That is less cynicism now than bitter reality based on experience, which means in practice that identifying that group at all disadvantages them.

It's a very good thing if this means this light is dawning in the establishment and we're going to see some deeper awareness and thought coming in. It is a bit telling that the word 'gender' appears meaning 'sex' although sex is mentioned as one of the characteristics - I really doubt the people discussing representation meant 'anyone of either sex who embraces feminine stereotypes' when they mentioned the issues of representation for women. I haven't had time to finish it all, I'm hoping when I read the rest there will be a lot more about the need to reflect the diversity of views rather than the view of the educated enlightening the scum with the Right Ways to Think, and how patronising and unaware this is. Call the Midwife for example was wonderful to begin with when it was based on the real experiences of Jennifer Worth, but when they ran out of books and the writers took over, it became rather like being battered to death with a pound of sugar wrapped in a copy of the Guardian by a CBeebies presenter. 'Nice People Think This. You want to be a nice person don't you? Not a naaasty person like that horrible character'.

The experience of that as a viewer becomes largely 'oh fuck off', achieving nothing.

I think a broader issue is the representation of.working class people in the arts/media generally. (This affects working class black people and working class white people etc etc). If you look at music it used to be some bands/band members had gone to private schools and some had come up from really rough backgrounds. Now most are from quite affluent backgrounds and while individually they are really great often, it is an issue more broadly. Without getting all pretentious Gramsci had a point about the importance of the intelligentsia.

It's partly because streaming etc and changes in revenue has made it harder/made it seem harder to make a living unless you are Taylor Swift levels. Also changes in benefit rules (a lot of 70s/80s stars claimed the dole while working their way up), school curriculum that devalue arts (STEM is important but kids going to private schools will have excellent STEM education AND encouragement to do music, singing, acting. Whilst even free music lessons are being cut at state schools).

It does all filter through to the BBC which was a posh boys club at the best of times.I dont think the solution is more quotas (how would you even do that reliably). Maybe more funding for grass roots music education or the Humanities for working class schools.

I don't think trying to fix the problem by focussing only on BAME/the minority of the week will help. But equally, I think some of the people trying to make this specifically about the ignoring of the white working class male are missing the point. It's working class voices in general being sidelined, colour isn't so important.

Yes. It's a point raised in the report, quite well. And also that the 'working class' is more culture and tradition and viewpoint than income or career or postcode. The whole report does a good job of raising the issues of a stereotyped label that is neither fully understood or addresses the very wide and diverse group beneath it.

What aggrevates me most is how the entertainment industry thinks anachronism actually resolves the whole representation issue. Rather than just telling stories they haven't told before, it's like "let's tell another story about Henry VIII but make him BLACK!"

There was a film recently made about Joseph Bologne, a black composer who was a contemporary (and rival) of Mozart and was honored by Marie Antoinette. I'd never heard of the guy but it was fascinating. Here in the US we have Benjamin Banneker. Jim Thorpe was an incredible native American athlete who many consider the best athlete who ever lived. The one and only movie made about him was back in the 50s.

My point is stop retelling the same white stories but making them black or whatever else - tell black stories! Tell gay stories (look at the success of Heated Rivalry). Tell the fascinating stories that we don't know about! It's not edgy when you cram diversity into stories where it doesn't belong or contribute to the story it's just... Annoying and a disservice to the real diverse stories they for some reason just refuse to tell.

You know, I have never thought about that, but you are right, there is a lot of content like that on YouTube. Guys fixing cars, guys trimming cows hooves, guys with traplines showing how to preserve a fur, guys making fancy bullets and shooting jello to compare them.

Call the Midwife was like slapping you with kid gloves compared to the sledgehammer used in Dr Who!

Yes, in a lot of cases it's really class that is the thing.

However, there is a degree to which wc representation of people who are not white gets a look in because that is one of the tropes we see in popular media. It's often rather stereotyped, but you can find those stories even in the mainstream media.

But I also tend to think that mandated representation isn't the answer. I think people will want to tell their own stories if they have the chance, and those are the real stories that are authentic and moving. Or sometimes people who have some real inspiration to tell another's story.

Opportunities in the arts for all kinds of kids is to me the answer there. And that means class. There are plenty of privately educated kids of all races getting into acting and music or whatever, the issue is poor kids. And increasingly even middle class kids are struggling to have access to really good arts programs.

Checkbox representation, and checkbox tropes, just annoy people. It feels inauthentic, and honestly it gets boring.

@persephonia My more bougie friends are all still very happy with the BBC, even though they have niche interests of their own. Looking back at what the Beeb no longer deigns to cover, or how it covers stuff that used to be more, er, inclusive, it does seem that there's a heavy middleclass thumb on the scale. I mean, I know keen gardeners who gave up on Gardener's World because it got "too posh".

Am encouraged though that even late-to-the-internet Boomer friends seem to have finally cottoned on that YouTube suggestions become ever more extreme & unreliable. One older guy started getting flat earther vid suggestions & that was the end of their faith in the sidebar. 🎉

Edited for dyslexia & as I can't even spell "gardener" some almost certainly remains.

It's interesting, I think these kinds of offerings are very well received when they are well done. And they generally always have been, in my experience. I watched Shogun recently, one of the best things I've seen on television in many years. And it, and the version from decades ago, were both extremely popular. One of my favourite tv shows in the 90s, and one of the most popular on the CBC for years, was set in a tiny Dene village in the North West Territories. One of those was set in the past, one the present, but they are great stories, well made, and people responded to them.

More recently what is interesting is that a lot of people now have access to media made in other countries. So you don't need to watch a British tv show set in India or South Africa to see stories of those places, you can just watch tv from India or South Africa. And a lot of people do, and not particularly people who share that ethnicity or heritage.

Some posters have made some great points, it's the way the BBC are trying to ram diversity down peoples throats that's causing their biggest problem.

Instead of re-writing British history to accommodate incomers (like a black Henry VIII) tell a story of an African version of a fat, bloated, power hungry king, they're bound to have one. If they want to include the whole world, then use stories from the world, the place has got plenty of them. They've got 4 channels on which to show it all.

I also hear that the BBC are giving up on iplayer and have reached a deal with YouTube to show their content.

The lack of East Asian characters and also East European (unless an occasional villain, in the latter case) is also striking, and very true.

I'm glad they've acknowledged that "lumping together" groups into one umbrella minority is not helpful at all.

I was in the first tranche of the 'media studies' degrees back in 1999/2000 times.

One day we turned up for a lecture as usual.

We were told that today, the BBC were here to start recruiting. And all the white people were told to leave, as they wanted to only talk to the non-whites on the course. We all had to file out while the black people were given a talk, a list of contacts and were told not to tell the white people what was said.

I didn't even want to work in media, I was studying it because I loved it.

I do wonder if the black actors in the U.K. are on a roll as black people are slotted in everywhere.
I want to hear more regional accents which probably means more white people but not necessarily.
Certainly older women are missing -Deborah Meaden , I don’t watch loose women so don’t know their ages

However, productions should consider their choices carefully when it comes to colour-blind casting. In depicting an anachronistic historical world in which people of colour are able to rise to the top of society as scientists, artists, courtiers and Lords of the Realm, there may be the unintended consequence of erasing the past exclusion and oppression of ethnic minorities and breeding complacency about their former opportunities.

I found the second series of Wolf Hall near unwatchable because of this. All that effort to depict authenticity in costume, manners, food and so on and the utter cognitive dissonance in seeing various ethnic minorities represented in high office in the Tudor era.
What might work on stage, which requires a particular type of suspension of reality on the part of the audience, really doesn’t on TV.

On another note, I get terribly annoyed at the depiction of so many women over 60 as either nitwits in cognitive decline or imperious, overbearing eccentrics. Most of us are just normal.

Absolutely to those stereotypes. There was a good comment in the report with casting notes that women of a 'certain age' in dramas almost entirely became defined by their role in providing for, or being the prop for others. Their kids, their husband. No life beyond that.

And yes to the colourblind casting in historical dramas of real people and events - I see a multi racial casting such as Anne Bolyn and think no, that would be a whole other story. It just sugarcoats the reality and the real lives and histories of everyone, and to what end?

Sometimes it works excellently, such as in Greys Anatomy: the entirely blind casting of that made for an outstanding cast. Other times, its so token it's insulting. Why not tell the real stories? It's not as if they're not dramatic or strong enough! There's the Netflix Spanish drama on at the moment, The Cook of Castamar, where a multi racial family is at the heart of the story in full historical context and explored with the history of the end of slavery and the issues a generation or two beyond that end, and it sent me reading and thinking about all kinds of things I hadn't known about before.

Im amazed at the apparent gaps

I would have thought out of BAME (yes I know no one likes that term but for shortness), black and African Caribbean characters or presenters are overrepresented compared to Asian/ME or eastern Asians

In addtion apparent gaps of LBTG etc, I dont see gaps there at all?

Agree with other points about putting ethnic minorities in times where it wouldnt have been the case rather than tell the story of those people who did exist. Catherine of Aragon for example had black slaves and Moorish staff, what happened to them, where did they go?

Tons more, thats just off the top of my head.

Nothing more tedious than didactic TV. I’ve said this for years.

Edit to say I didn’t mean to quote you there soupyspoon not sure how that happened.

It is not colourblind casting though. That would suggest they are cast without any consideration of colour just on talent. These historical dramas are cast with different race characters on purpose - it is aimed to distort history and imply Britain has always been multicultural rather than only a tiny non-white population.

My thoughts on the whole BBC diversity thing.

• If it’s a drama based on historical events, you can’t do colourblind casting. Isaac Newton was white. Jane Seymour’s mother was white. All of Henry VIII’s privy council were white. It’s historical fact. To pretend otherwise insults not only the audience but the actors, who when being given these roles are effectively being given scraps from the white peoples’ table.

• With historical drama, if you want a more racially diverse cast, then you’ve got to tell their stories. I thought ‘Small Axe’ was a good example of this. Another recent example (although not on the BBC) is ‘A Thousand Blows’, set in late nineteenth century London, where one of the main characters is a boxer from Jamaica, based on a real guy. I’m sure the stories are out there, you’ve just got to go and look for them. For example, Liverpool has the oldest Black and Chinese communities in Europe: they’ve been there for a couple of hundred years, if not more. Those communities must have stories a good dramatist could build into a drama.

• If you are doing fiction then you can mix it up, but you’ve got to go the whole Bridgerton hog or you risk tokenism. One example is Armando Ianucci’s ‘David Copperfield’ where I thought Dev Patel did a good job in the lead role, and there were other ethnic minority actors in the cast as well. It’s all ultimately a product of Charles Dickens’ imagination, so you have more leeway with casting.

I disagree about historical dramas - Dickens characters weren’t simply imagined; they were based on the real situations faced by the poor at the time. Dickens portrayed a lot of the oppressed underclass of Britain who were overwhelmingly white. Again to pretend otherwise distorts history. You wouldn’t dream these days of filming a historical drama based on Africa and have the tribes people a mixed of black, white and East Asian.