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.

At least they actually hired somebody with visible disabilities to play Shardlake, rather than getting Eddie Redmayne to crip up for the role.

Yes. I had vaguely noticed it on the tv and tried to prove myself wrong by counting the images of people in a well known retail catalogue. I found 80% of the images of people were non white which was interesting.

It’s nice that we appear to have permission to notice that sort of thing now. I mentioned the above observation - no judgement - on MN recently and was called a racist. I know I’m not so I didn’t really care but it was a bit of a jolt.

I would definitely like better representation of the South West - the attempts at a Cornish accent are painful and the portrayals are rarely positive.

Those are the only ones the BBC seem to draw on - probably because they reflect the BBCs ideology.

He's almost the opposite of book Fr Brown.

I think the episode where I stopped watching might have had something to do with abortion? It was a few seasons ago now, I remember thinking, why write this stuff in if you don't want to treat people's ideas with some level of respect?

I don't think these are new issues - I remember Lenny Henry being on radio 4 a good decade ago and trying to talk about barrier of being working class and not from London and all the interviewer wanted to do was focus on his ethicity. I rememeber becuase he put into words something I was increasingly feeling even then.

Thing is black history week from BBC in my 20s was how I learnt about new people and stories- they told me about Joseph Bologne, Mary Seacole, Bill Richmond pugilist in Georgian England and others - and it's only recently you start to see fims and documenaries about those people again.

What I particularly loathe, in TV dramas not set in the current day, is a storyline where all of the 'good' people react to a black/gay/Jewish character using todays morals, and all the 'bad' ones don't. Which, as the report indicated, completely misrepresents the real probability of the experience of the time, and therefore leads to the downplaying of how much racism/homophobia/anti-semitism was ingrained in society.

This also annoys me and I agree it downplays the barriers.

It's worrying how many people seem to take historical dramas as fact - which doesn't help.

I can tell you what would happen though if they wrote a drama about Mary Seacole, they would misrepresent the rejection from nursing and the Florence Nightingale thing

Mary Seacole has her own autobiography, a good read and she is a businesswoman, a great business woman, hugely respected, liked, successful, clever, kind, knowledgeable about homely remedies. Im not convinced she was rejected from wanting to help with nursing on the basis of her ethnicity, I think it was due to her status and position and I suspect some racism of course but ultimately she had a different role to play. I dont think any drama would be written like that though.

I agree current climate I don't think they'd do justice to Mary Secome and would impose current poltcial messaging on it - but that's everywhere. Many fans of books wanted them adapted in past but after recent years many would rather they weren't.

DD1 and I were really looking forward to King & Conqueror - one the often neglect periods of history as focus tends to be on same periods again and again but we couldn't get past the first episode.

The Harold and William thing?

It was dire. I couldnt believe it.

Completely bloody made up

yep - it was so awful and such a disappointment.

An Australian history person I watch on-line was getting excited about it being viewable there soon - and reminded me just how unwatchable it was.

What you don’t see is everyday racism - under the breath comments or looks at people in minority groups which I’m sure still happens on the streets, public transport etc etc. I spose it would be a bit jarring and distract from the storyline but it would be more honest.

Older thread I know...but I think a big issue here is that so much period drama has been Tudor or Victorian and different ethnic groups only really moved here in large numbers in the 20th century, though 19th century stories would be possible, as well as earlier centuries. More 20th century stories mean that black, Indian, Chinese etc roles would be easier to include in larger numbers.

Which shows are you thinking of? I think it depends on the genre. Something like The Great is very open about not aiming for historical accuracy. Others do make that part of their remit, and if they fall short they should be criticised.

I study history and overall I find it frustrating that so many people seem to take fiction as historically accurate. It's not just diversity issues: I've come across several people who take Josephine Tey's The Daughter of Time and Hilary Mantel's trilogy as meaning that Richard III was probably innocent of murdering his nephews and Cromwell was probably a much more positive character than he's traditionally been thought of.

Yes, I mean if we don't have any colour blind casting that means black and Asian actors essentially can only play mostly modern roles and most classic repertoire would be barred to them. This would affect stuff like opera and ballet too, as well as a lot of musicals.
But plays, operas, etc are all on stage. Film & TV are arguably a bit different realism-wise.

@EmpressDomesticatednottamed DS has dug around and found things in newspaper archives about white US servicemen (military police I think) trying to get local law enforcment and magistrates involved in persecuting the black men and enforcing segregation.

IIRC there was an episode of Foyle's War (ITV) on that theme.

In 1943, in WW2, there was an incident in Bamber Bridge, Lancashire, known as the Battle of Bamber Bridge, where white US military police opened fire on black US soldiers, killing one and injuring seven. At the end, thirty two African American servicemen were court martialed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bamber_Bridge

I had no idea!

The Foyle's War episode is much milder. The US officer fails to impose a colour bar. I don't remember much else about the story, there is usually a murder mystery and there was probably a racial element to the mystery but I don't recall. Certainly no shoot-out!

I believe Portsmouth had a riot over US soldiers trying to impose a colour bar.