Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin - The Cult of Diversity at the BBC

All Episodes

Previous Next

Oct. 5, 2016 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin

30:07

The Cult of Diversity at the BBC

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	A cult of diversity appears to have taken over the upper echelons of the British Broadcasting Corporation and is making its presence felt by discriminating against white people.
	I will show you exactly how and why this has happened and then what we can do about it because I, as a liberal, licence-paying British citizen, will not stand for this.
	The BBC was established by Royal Charter in 1922 and actually has its own constitution of sorts with a separation of powers for bodies within the BBC.
	The most important governing body is the BBC Trust.
	Within the BBC there shall be a BBC Trust and an executive board of the BBC.
	These two bodies shall play an important but different roles within the BBC.
	In summary, the main roles of the Trust are in setting the overall strategic direction of the BBC, including its priorities and in exercising general oversight of the work of the Executive Board.
	The Trust will perform these roles in the public interest, particularly the interest of licence fee payers.
	The Executive Board has responsibility for delivering the BBC services in accordance with the priorities set by the Trust and for all aspects of operational management except that of the Trust's resources.
	The BBC Trust is an independent body that is meant to oversee and set the general direction of the BBC, and they are responsible for the cult of diversity within the BBC.
	In 2011, the Trust commissioned a diversity strategy report, which is their findings from research into the BBC's diversity strategy.
	This was entitled Research Informing the Development of the BBC's Diversity Strategy from April 2011.
	Let's take a look at the quality of this research.
	In the executive summary, they state, This research is set out to understand attitudes towards equality and diversity, particularly in a media context, and to explore response to the BBC's draft diversity strategy and objectives.
	Research was conducted with three stakeholder groups, third sector organisations, licence fee payers, and BBC staff.
	Research was conducted over two stages.
	The first was conducted within third sector organisations and licence fee payers and explored the broad context of equality and diversity, in addition to examining the first draft of the strategy.
	The methodology involved both group discussions and depth interviews.
	The second stage involved developmental workshops with licence fee payers and focused specifically on the strategy refined by the BBC in response to findings from the first stage.
	Interviews with the BBC staff were conducted separately from the two stages detailed above, but explored both the broad equality and diversity context and the BBC strategy specifically.
	As you will see shortly, the three groups were special interest groups, which are the third sector organisations, the licence fee payers, which are the general public, and BBC employees.
	The research approach was designed and developed around the following three considerations.
	Different research methods to suit the requirements of three broad stakeholder groups, including those from across various protected characteristics, flexibility to suit the individual needs of different people, a multi-staged research process that allows the strategy to be redrafted and retested among key audiences.
	27 in-depth interviews were conducted with 30 individuals from the third sector organisations, each representing their specific organisation.
	The interviews were mainly conducted by telephone, although some were conducted in person where the individual requested it.
	Each interview lasted for around an hour.
	A long list of organisations that represent the interests of people who share protected characteristics was developed in conjunction with the BBC, and from this we achieved a cross-section sample of 27 organisations willing to participate.
	Of the 27 organisations included in the research, there were 8 disability organisations, 5 race organisations, 5 faith or belief organisations, 4 gay, lesbian or bisexual organisations, 3 age organisations, 2 transgender organisations and 2 gender-focused organisations.
	This is why I have termed them as special interest groups, because that is precisely what they are.
	And unsurprisingly, they advocated directly for their special interests.
	Research was conducted with 236 licence fee payers across two stages.
	This allowed the BBC to develop the strategy following the first stage and explore the refined version with audiences again in the second stage.
	In the first stage, 16 group discussions were conducted with 8 people in each group.
	Each discussion lasted for 2 hours.
	Groups were designed to reflect the UK's population as far as possible, but also to ensure inclusion of people with the protected characteristics outlined in the Equality Act 2010.
	We wanted to recognise the fact that people have multiple identities and therefore designed a research process that avoided clustering groups of people together around a specific characteristic.
	Group discussions were therefore homogenous to a point, similar ages, lifestyles and genders, but also included people from across the range of protected characteristics.
	Protected characteristics are a legal term that I'll explain later in the video, but these samples were not randomly taken from the general population.
	This is the breakdown of the sample structure across these stages, with no indication of how they were chosen as individuals.
	You can see that it's very tightly controlled, being evenly spread between 50% of two different socioeconomic groups, 50% of genders, and 30% of different age categories.
	The sample contained a deliberate mix of protected characteristics, although we aren't told what the breakdown of these characteristics are, nor how these people were chosen.
	Thirdly, there were individual depth interviews conducted with 24 members of BBC staff.
	These were primarily conducted over the telephone, although some were conducted in person as requested.
	Interviews were between 30 and 60 minutes in length.
	Staff who participated have responded to a general invitation to take part promoted via a separate consultation process arranged by the BBC Diversity Centre.
	It's worth noting that this approach may have encouraged people with a particular interest in or experience of equality and diversity issues of the BBC to get involved, so may not be representative of the whole staff population.
	In total, across all four stages, 290 people participated in the research.
	Assuming that all of these people pay their TV license, which I have no doubt that they do, this is a sample size of 290 out of a potential 25 million license paying people in the UK.
	I am not a social scientist, so I ran this by a friend of mine who is a social scientist, and he came back with four very important points.
	Number one, this is a prime example of politics in research, as in this research has been conducted purely with a political aim in mind, and as such is very likely to be riddled with bias.
	Which brings us to point number two.
	The sample of license payers is not proportionally representative of the UK.
	Changing the makeup of your sampling to be inclusive automatically disqualifies the research for the purpose of representability and applicability.
	As in, this literally disqualifies the research.
	Demographically, the United Kingdom is not conveniently split into neat categories of 33% per age bracket or 50% for wealth distribution.
	In addition to this, the special interest groups are deliberately overrepresented by given a whole category to themselves as well as being mixed into the sample of license payers, which again was not randomly taken.
	3.
	The license payers were not individually interviewed, they were interviewed as a group.
	A social context is treated as a layer of abstraction, further devaluing the quality of the research.
	Put simply, people's fear of being judged by their peers will inhibit the responses they give and not give you accurate results.
	Number four, the BBC employees interviewed are likely to be biased in favour of affirmative action policies as stated in the research itself.
	I'm just going to give you a few direct quotes.
	He says, this was done to save time, money, and possibly skew the findings towards being more socially acceptable.
	He says, it's completely arbitrary and completely biased and this disqualifies the research.
	As in, I don't think you appreciate how arbitrary and how bad the research makeup you sent me actually is.
	And this is not how research works.
	I'll leave a link to his channel in the description if anyone wants to follow this up with him.
	And I really advise that you do, because I suspect that he will be producing a video of his own on this, dissecting this in far more detail than I am capable of.
	Included in this paper are several objectives, one of which is objective 4, diverse staff.
	With the statement, we will make sure more of our staff are from different places and different backgrounds.
	Interestingly, this was picked up on by the unrepresentative sample of licence fee payers, where they say there was little understanding of how a more diverse workforce would be achieved without positive discrimination.
	Positive discrimination implied targets, which by implication raised concerns that target would take priority over talent.
	This would actually be the least concerning part of positive discrimination, but we will address that shortly.
	Another objective is Objective 6, Reflecting Britain, with the statement, we will make quality programmes making sure they reflect modern Britain accurately.
	I'd like you to bear these two objectives in mind as we continue through the rest of the video.
	In summary, this research was worthless.
	It was scientifically invalid.
	It does not appear to have been peer-reviewed at all or published in any journals.
	Despite this research being worthless, it has directly informed the BBC's diversity initiatives, and to fulfil these goals, the BBC has been making key diversity appointments.
	In 2015, Tony Hall, the BBC's Director General, set out a raft of new diversity initiatives.
	At the time he said, the BBC gets much right on diversity, but the simple fact is we need to do more.
	I am not content for the BBC to be merely good or above average.
	I want new, talent-led approach that will help set the pace in the media industry.
	I believe in this and want our record to be beyond reproach.
	Despite making this sound like articles of faith, with this raft of diversity initiatives comes a raft of diversity hires.
	Apparently, these appointments will help the BBC with the delivery of these plans, as well as developing a strong team that will work across the whole corporation to help the BBC do all it can to be representative of its audiences.
	As in, these people are hired exclusively to oversee diversity at the BBC.
	Diversity is not simply an aspect of their job.
	It is their job.
	It is all they do.
	This is how they earn their paychecks.
	There are about half a dozen of these key diversity appointments, with the team being led by Tunde Ogunbasen, who says, I'm excited to be here because I believe in what the BBC does and what it wants to achieve.
	It is clear that the Director General and everyone across the BBC I've met so far have a real commitment to diversity and inclusion.
	I'm looking forward to working with them to make a difference.
	Tunde will report to Valerie Hughes de Aith, HR Director, and will lead the BBC's diversity and inclusion strategy for staff and on-screen portrayal.
	He will focus on building an inclusive culture that drives engagement with both staff and audiences.
	He joins from Shell, where he had been responsible for leading the global diversity and inclusion strategy for the last five years.
	Despite the fact that the BBC knows the general public has severe misgivings about quote-unquote diversity in their programming, this appears to be the creation of a new priestly class to solve a problem that nobody was actually having.
	That is, nobody beyond professional special interest groups and the people benefiting from these diversity appointments.
	So what have they been doing?
	Well, in March 2016, the BBC set out bold targets for diversity.
	Tunde Ogumbasen, the BBC's head of diversity, inclusion and succession, said he intended to make far-reaching and fundamental changes to the culture of the corporation to improve on and off-screen diversity.
	So let's have a look at these targets.
	In the BBC's diversity and inclusion strategy for 2016 to 2020, they set out the targets of 50% women on screen, on air and in lead roles across all genres, from drama to news by 2020.
	8% disabled people on screen and on air including some lead roles by 2020.
	8% LGBT on screen portrayal including some lead roles by 2020.
	15% black, Asian and ethnic minorities on screen, on air and in lead roles all across genres by 2020.
	Of course it doesn't stop there.
	They want a diverse and gender balanced senior leadership team with 15% ethnic minority workforce and leadership, 8% disabled workforce and leadership, and for the first time setting a target for LGBT employees at 8%.
	In the workforce from 2017 onwards they would like an unspecified number of women, 5.3% and 5% of disabled people in all staff and in leadership, with 14.2% of all staff being black, Asian and ethnic minority with 10% of them in leadership, and no quota for LGBT.
	In on-screen portrayal there's no quota for women, 5% of disability and 15% of black, Asian and ethnic minorities on screen, on air and in lead roles, with no quota of LGBT people.
	You might be wondering to yourself what orifice they pulled these numbers from because they seem completely arbitrary and the reason for that is because these numbers are completely arbitrary.
	And just like the research that's used to inform all of this, there is no basis in reality for say the proportions of these people in the UK population.
	Even if one agreed that the BBC should operate under a mandate to control their programmes to make sure that they accurately reflect modern Britain, they seem to have failed.
	For example, the estimates of LGBT people in Britain are between 1.5 to 7%, so why request a quota of 8%?
	Non-white people in the UK are 12.9% of the population, so why demand a 15% non-white representation?
	Disabled people are 6% of children, 16% of working age adults, and 45% of adults over state pension age.
	So why choose only 8% for your representation?
	Not only is this kind of top-down control illiberal and anti-meritocratic, they can't even be accurate.
	But what I find worse is that they are already openly discriminating against people on the basis of their race.
	You may remember earlier this year when the BBC advertised a job position exclusively for non-white candidates, and this was a research position that the person's race or gender or any kind of protected characteristic would have absolutely no bearing on whatsoever.
	Unsurprisingly, this caused a public backlash, to which the BBC doubled down.
	They say, as the Sun knows and has ignored, these are not jobs but training and development opportunities permitted under the Equality Act, and to describe this as anti-white is utterly ridiculous and irresponsible.
	As we have an under-representation of people from ethnic minority backgrounds in script editing roles at the BBC, it's the right thing to do.
	I find putting a moral judgment into their response a very perplexing thing, but the license-paying public didn't care for the BBC's moral judgments and responded with one of their own.
	No, discrimination based on race is wrong.
	It is not the right thing to do, despite what ideological objectives you may have.
	Which forced the BBC to yet again double down.
	The very next day, Tunde Ogan Basin wrote a blog post for the BBC called, We Are Taking the Right Approach to Diversity.
	You'll have to forgive my cynicism here, Tunde, but as Head of Diversity, Inclusion and Succession, I would hardly expect any other answer from you, given that any other answer would be you objecting to your own job.
	He says that the BBC is not anti-white or anti-any other group.
	That would be against everything we stand for.
	What we want is an organisation which fully represents the UK on and off air.
	Well, as I've already demonstrated, you don't.
	For us, diversity is not just about age, gender, race, ethnicity, disability or sexuality.
	It's also about making sure the BBC is open to all, no matter what your background or where you went to school.
	This will make us more creative, help us tell stories everyone can relate to, and provide even better content for our audience.
	That's not discrimination, it's simply the right thing to do.
	Except for when it is discrimination against white people, which is precisely what people were objecting to.
	His rationales for this include, don't worry, other broadcasters are doing this as well, and lots of people agree with us.
	That makes it right, Tunde.
	That's really how that works.
	Racially discriminatory quotas are okay as long as everyone's doing it and nobody has a problem with it.
	Just because among the people objecting is newsreading legend Sir Trevor MacDonald, who was knighted for his services to journalism in 1999, I think it was, and he is completely against this kind of discrimination, that doesn't matter.
	What would he know?
	He even gave the same reason that people in your license paying study gave.
	What I worry about is taking someone and putting them in a job because they're black, brown, green, yellow, and allowing the perception that that's the only reason that they're there.
	Because if you have diversity hires, you will never know if someone is or is not a diversity hire.
	It casts aspersions on their quality.
	He says, I like to see people given jobs on merit and not be discriminated against.
	There is a need for diversity, but I hope its roots are in meritocracy, as in he doesn't want their race to be a factor in whether they are hired.
	Just like every other person objecting to this cult-like mentality in favour of diversity.
	However bad that is, it's not the worst thing that can happen.
	Not getting a job because you were born wrong and don't fit the arbitrary diversity quotas that the BBC diversity initiatives have cooked up isn't the worst thing that can happen to a person.
	You aren't at least losing your earnings.
	You aren't at least seeing your career being put in jeopardy.
	You aren't in danger of losing your hearth and home and wondering how you're going to feed yourself and your family.
	Which is precisely what happened this week to BBC presenter John Holmes, who claims he was sacked for being a white man.
	Now, if you don't know who John Holmes is, he is a BBC radio presenter, a multi-award-winning BBC radio presenter, who apparently is very popular.
	John Holmes was a writer and comedian who had appeared on Radio 4's The Now Show for 18 years, said he was told he was being fired from the programme because he was being recast with more women and diversity.
	Writing in the mail on Sunday, the award-winning broadcaster who has presented four shows on other BBC radio stations in XFM claimed he was in favour of properly representing Britain's multicultural society, but that things had gone too far.
	He tweeted out that he's sad to announce that he's been axed from the BBC Now Show as we want to recast with more women and diversity.
	And he made a joke that he didn't even punch a producer like Jeremy Clarkson did.
	He said, should I, as a white man, through no fault of my own, be fired from my job because I'm a white man?
	Arguably yes.
	You may well think I'm crap on the Now Show and that's fine, but to be told it's because I'm the wrong sex and colour?
	I'm just not sure that's helpful to anyone's cause.
	Holmes, who has worked in television, said his initial tweet about the issue on Monday had prompted other presenters, actors and agents to talk about similar experiences.
	He recounts the story of one agent who was told his client was perfect for the role, but they'd been told to cast someone Asian.
	The BBC's former general Greg Dyke famously labelled the corporation in 2001 as hideously white.
	Since then it has been under pressure to increase the diversity of its workforce.
	On Tuesday the Ofcom chief executive Sharon White warned broadcasters they could face tougher penalties and harder edged regulation if they do not increase diversity.
	A BBC spokesman said while the government's new charter for the BBC does set us diversity targets, we always hire presenters on merit.
	We'd like to thank John Holmes for his contribution but our comedy shows are constantly evolving and it was simply time to create opportunities for new regulars when the now show returns this autumn.
	John's contract was elapsed and wasn't renewed and this was a creative not a diversity decision.
	John replied on Twitter saying Crikey, you've had a busy day.
	To be clear I'm not claiming it.
	I simply pass on exactly what I was told in the BBC phone call.
	While John is making a claim, I don't see any reason not to believe him.
	As far as I'm aware, he doesn't have a history about lying about anything like this at all in the past.
	Whereas the BBC does have a history, means and motive to push a diversity agenda with, again, a history of discriminating against white people on the basis that they are white people.
	So it seems perfectly logical that they would eventually fire white people over the fact that they want more diversity hires.
	And I'm not surprised that they would send an anonymous spokesman out to lie about why this man was fired because in the past they have received a public backlash over this very same kind of issue.
	And of course, there are regressive apologists in the papers, the Telegraph of all places, who are out to tell us that no, racial discrimination is okay when we do it.
	I'm not even joking.
	They say, was it right for John Holmes to be let go for those reasons?
	Yes, I'm afraid it was.
	The BBC made the right decision.
	Why?
	Because it allowed more BAME talent to come through.
	Are you fucking kidding me?
	The idiot who wrote this article is literally complaining that it's okay because historically this has happened to black people.
	If it's happening now to white people, then the complaint is not that racial discrimination is wrong, the complaint is that racial discrimination is happening to the wrong people.
	Obviously, I think that racial discrimination is wrong end of story.
	Not only is this wrong, it is also illegal.
	The types of discrimination that you are protected from, and these are called protected characteristics, make it against the law to discriminate against anyone because of age, being or becoming a transsexual person, being married or in a civil partnership, being pregnant or on maternity leave, disability, race, including colour, nationality, ethnic or national origin, religion, belief or lack of religion, sex or sexual orientation.
	You are protected from discrimination at work, in education, as a consumer, when using public services, when buying or renting property, or as a member or guest of a private club or association.
	The law protects you against discrimination at work, including dismissal, employment terms and conditions, pay and benefits, promotion and transfer opportunities, training, recruitment, and redundancy.
	John Holmes has a clear-cut case, assuming he didn't for some reason make this up.
	And for the final cherry on top of this whole situation, who do you think is paying for this institutionalized racial discrimination against white people?
	That's right.
	You are the British license-paying public.
	You are paying to the tune of at least 2.1 million per year.
	But that is just the bare minimum.
	As Tunge Ogungperson says, from what I understand, it is not the only amount of money that relates to diversity.
	It's not only 2.1 million, it's actually a lot more than that.
	Pressed on how much other money was available to back diversity programming budgets, the BBC executive was unable to provide an answer.
	The actual amount may be somewhere north of £100 million, according to at least one advisor.
	BBC diversity advisor Lady Gray Thompson has said the BBC may have to spend £100 million on better reflecting the makeup of its audience and called for executives who failed to embrace the change to be fired.
	Money helps and it does matter.
	If all we had at the BPC is 2.1 million, I'd be going, that's not enough.
	But it's how you can pull in those other budgets and how you can be creative.
	If you were going to ring fence an amount, it would probably have to be 100 million.
	It's not just about money, it's got to be about shifting attitudes.
	And if people don't deliver, you have to give them an ultimatum and say, this is not good enough.
	How come in this day and age there are still people who pretend diversity doesn't exist or are able to hide from it?
	Ultimately, I'd fire them, but I'd fire lots of people.
	People are able to hide behind discrimination against disabled people, against women, are able to hide and discriminate in lots of ways.
	And there has to be a point where we say, don't you know what?
	This is not good enough.
	We just don't want someone like you in the organization.
	I would be much tougher.
	So let's get this straight.
	Using pseudo-scientific research, the BBC have hired a bunch of whack jobs to racially and sexually discriminate as well as a whole host of other kinds of discrimination against you, the license-paying public, which you are paying for to the tune of up to £100 million a year.
	If you're not fucking infuriated by this, then I congratulate you.
	You are far more calm and collected and relaxed about this than I am.
	But this is not the kind of society I want to live in.
	I don't think any of this diversity bullshit should be happening in the first place.
	I think race, gender, sexuality, none of it should be a factor when hiring anyone.
	I think anyone caught discriminating in this way should be the ones to be fired and probably punished under the law.
	I don't think these diversity positions should even exist.
	And we are not powerless.
	We can change this.
	We are the license payers.
	If you are in the UK, you can do something.
	And you have every right to do something.
	You are completely entitled to have your voice heard.
	Because you have no choice.
	If you want to own a TV in the UK, you have no choice but to pay this license.
	So they have to listen.
	The BBC Trust have a complaints procedure and I suggest we use it to make our voices heard.
	A link will of course be in the description and it'll take you five minutes to fill out.
	And you can do exactly as I have done.
	Just tell them in frank and honest terms as I have done exactly what your complaints are with what is going on at the BBC.
	Obviously be polite and to the point.
	Don't waste their time.
	Don't be threatening or anything like that.
	Not that I would expect anyone would.
	And send it just like I have done.
	Like you, I am also worried about the BBC simply ignoring these.
	No matter how many they get, even if they got say a thousand, five thousand in a day, I can see the BBC ignoring these as well.
	So what I've done is screen capped my complaint that I've sent to the BBC and sent it in an email to the newspaper that broke this story in the first place, the Daily Mail.
	The email I'm sending it to is tips at dailymail.com.
	Again, I'll leave this in the description if you just want to copy and paste it.
	And I strongly recommend you do this.
	Because even if the BBC choose to ignore it, I doubt the Daily Mail will.
	And they, I have every confidence, will write a story about this.
	I mean, I've managed to get my tweets into the Daily Mail before.
	I'm sure if they received thousands of emails from you guys with similar screencaps complaining about the same problem, they will report on it.
	So let's make this happen.
	Don't just think, well, someone else will do it.
	If you live in the UK and this bothers you in any way, spend 10 minutes out of your day to complain to the BBC, take the screencap, send it to the Daily Mail with whatever blurb you want.
	Don't just copy me.
	Just write your own quick thing saying, look, I'm concerned about this.
	I want this to change.
	And we can make something happen.
	Even if it's not necessarily the perfect outcome, we can at least get this into the public dialogue and show them that there is a group of people who are genuinely bothered by how this is going.

▲