Does this mean every panel show should, in addition to having a token woman, have someone who is black, an Asian as well as someone who is disabled and someone who is gay?
If there is black gay disabled female then they would be one every single show.
Let's hope that this ridiculous policy doesn't result in Millican appearing on every single panel show going again. This is the ONLY time I have seen people become irritated to this extent about over exposure:
The European elections clearly showed that people are fed up of constant immigration and being labelled "racist" (whatever that means) for complaining about it.
Of course, not all immigrants are non white, but parading more black/brown people on TV will only inflame the situation IMO.
Gary_LandyFan
Exactly, what difference? These quotas don't actually achieve anything. All they do is add more bureaucracy.
In what way do they not achieve anything? has the push last the 10 years, for example, to have more women in the male dominated TV world of presenting not worked. look at the amount of women news presenters, in studio and out in the field, documentary presenters, TV presenters, writers and so on. That one appears to have worked.
I seem to recall the same attitudes to that when it was announced.
What quotas in this context do you say have not achieved anything?
Of course if there is discrimination in practice, then something should be done, but in these cases they aren't being discriminated against. If anything by having quotas like these, it is actually discriminatory to far more people, since a minority is the only person that can fill those particular spots.
Lets say 14 people on a TV show, one of them has an ethnic background, lets say a 'brown' person and your logic implies it would be all the other white people that didn't get that spot are being discriminated against.
Maybe you think this quota thing will be all done in over a week or two, in a run outside and grab any 'black or brown' person to fill the quota or maybe it will be a concerted push to find genuine new talent in front and behind the screen. Surely that can only be a good thing.
You never know The BBC might take a punt on a young conceptual artist and find the next Steve McQueen. Maybe a young polish director might bring a touch of Polish cinema flair and dialogue to an everyday day drama. A Muslim guy might go on to be a great documentary maker and presenter.
Its a bit like the new thing of the BBC requiring one female on panel shows. It has been apparent on both episodes of the new series of Mock The Week, although the two female comics that have appeared are both funny and did engage, rather than just being their to fill the quota.
So already this one woman on a panel show seems to be working then. Imagine how better they will get when it becomes the norm and people just take them as being guests, you know like female sports presenters has become the norm.
Then again, if one of those women wasn't funny one week they would only be there to fill the quota no doubt. Ive seen many unfunny men on those shows, including regular male guests, yet if a woman is unfunny..aye it seems worse than murder for some on DS.
Then again, if one of those women wasn't funny one week they would only be there to fill the quota no doubt. Ive seen many unfunny men on those shows, including regular male guests, yet if a woman is unfunny..aye it seems worse than murder for some on DS.
Yes, well that was the point made by Milton Jones in the article I linked to earlier.
Because the quota strategy was made public if a female comedienne does not impress it's implanted in people's minds that she's only there because she's female and filling a quota.
Even if they did use quotas, if they didn't make it public then people would just think that there's more female talent out there to get on these shows.
I wonder if Tony Hall could remind us how many non-white and/or disabled persons there are in the upper echelons of BBC management or on the BBC Trust. I believe there have also been issues about disabled access to BBC buildings. Put your own house in order first Lord Hall.
Yes, well that was the point made by Milton Jones in the article I linked to earlier.
Because the quota strategy was made public if a female comedienne does not impress it's implanted in people's minds that she's only there because she's female and filling a quota.
Even if they did use quotas, if they didn't make it public then people would just think that there's more female talent out there to get on these shows.
How long will that last though? To be honest I think the general public, those that know about it will move on pretty quickly, if not already. Female presenters in main sporting roles, for example, has now been excepted as the norm for a long time, it certainly wasn't like that 10 + years ago. Token women, PC gone mad and all that.
So all you will be left with are the usual internet posters that still see things such as women presenting documentaries as token women ( rather than being qualified professionals in their field) posters that have a severe dislike of a woman on the Tv purely because they don't find her funny and she appears on panel shows.
I recall an article about Lambeth Council in the '80's filling vacancies by quota rather than qualifications.
If (for example) there was a vacancy for a lawyer, and the quota said they needed a "one-legged Chinese lesbian", then they would recruit the "one-legged Chinese lesbian", and then allow them to sit the exams to become a lawyer, despite being totally unqualified.
Watching the Alan Davies thing on Dave last week brings home how many of the "newer" crop of comedians went to Public school.
(Jack Whitehall, Marcus Brigstock, Chris Addison, Holly Walsh, Michael McIntyre, David Mitchell, Mark Watson, Miles Jupp,)
Many immigrants have access to channels from their original country.
It would be interesting to see if similar measures are being adopted elsewhere.
Let's take Spain as an example. Many British people have moved there and are able to watch UK programmes, usually via satellite.
I don't know if there are calls for more people from the UK to be put onto mainstream Spanish television, but I very much doubt it.
Some Spanish channels provide English audio on films which were originally in English but you need a set with the right equipment to switch. One or two local stations provide a few programmes in English in holiday areas. But there is no demand for British people on the main channels, unless they are fluent in Spanish and can participate in news and discussion programmes.
"Positive descrimination" is not a helpful phrase, the reality of these things is that we are dealing with good old-fashioned prejudice.
And where is this prejudice you say?, at the BBC that's where.
In it's executives of course, it's commisioning executives, it's bosses.
The people who run the BBC are prejudiced, who else?
Prejudiced against anyone but cute young white ladies and older white males. And the working class, and probably the very posh as well.
The BBC is the least racist organistion I Know of ...they bend over backwards to include ethnic minorities on tv. Quite a large number of tv shows have a higher number of ethnic minorities . Take The Aprentice for example at lest 25/30 % are always from an ethnic minority way out of proportion to the actual figure . Same with the voice 25 % of the judges are at least Black . The Xfactor has a higher than average number of ethnic contestants - you don't dont seem to have a problem with this - why ?. The problem appears to be with people like you who think that TV should reflect the population of London and not the country as a whole. You are aware that 85 % of the population is white don't you ?
Are you aware that the BBC fund an entire network for the Asian community ? are you aware that BBC Radio have many many black dj s ?
Would you be happy if the BBC and ITV etc were required to have 15% of faces on TV from ethnic minorities ? you do realise that if this is the case it would apply to shows like the Xfactor , Voice BGT etc
I have always said that in order to have positive discrimination, you have to accept the other side of the coin which is negative discrimination.
In other words, for there to be an opportunity for positive discrimination, the best person does not get the job or the appearance, it goes to the "minority" candidate (if I can put it like that). So the best candidate or guest is pushed to one side (or discriminated against).
This is not good, as people should be given their place on merit. And that "minority person" would end up as being seen as the token guest or employee, and not necessarily respected as well as someone who was judged to have got the position on merit.
It also means that as better candidates might have been passed over, the LF payer does not get the best deal.
The BBC is the least racist organistion I Know of ...they bend over backwards to include ethnic minorities on tv. Quite a large number of tv shows have a higher number of ethnic minorities . Take The Aprentice for example at lest 25/30 % are always from an ethnic minority way out of proportion to the actual figure . Same with the voice 25 % of the judges are at least Black . The Xfactor has a higher than average number of ethnic contestants - you don't dont seem to have a problem with this - why ?. The problem appears to be with people like you who think that TV should reflect the population of London and not the country as a whole. You are aware that 85 % of the population is white don't you ?
Are you aware that the BBC fund an entire network for the Asian community ? are you aware that BBC Radio have many many black dj s ?
Would you be happy if the BBC and ITV etc were required to have 15% of faces on TV from ethnic minorities ? you do realise that if this is the case it would apply to shows like the Xfactor , Voice BGT etc
And this is the broadcaster that gave the world the Black and White Minstrel Show where white men ''blacked up''.
I have always said that in order to have positive discrimination, you have to accept the other side of the coin which is negative discrimination.
In other words, for there to be an opportunity for positive discrimination, the best person does not get the job or the appearance, it goes to the "minority" candidate (if I can put it like that). So the best candidate or guest is pushed to one side (or discriminated against).
This is not good, as people should be given their place on merit. And that "minority person" would end up as being seen as the token guest or employee, and not necessarily respected as well as someone who was judged to have got the position on merit.
It also means that as better candidates might have been passed over, the LF payer does not get the best deal.
Hence, this is a bad move by Tony Hall.
Couldn't have put it better myself. Well said.
Why can't we just give the jobs to the best person for them whatever their ethnicity, etc., without people calling it racism it the "black guy" doesn't get it?!
I have always said that in order to have positive discrimination, you have to accept the other side of the coin which is negative discrimination.
In other words, for there to be an opportunity for positive discrimination, the best person does not get the job or the appearance, it goes to the "minority" candidate (if I can put it like that). So the best candidate or guest is pushed to one side (or discriminated against).
This is not good, as people should be given their place on merit. And that "minority person" would end up as being seen as the token guest or employee, and not necessarily respected as well as someone who was judged to have got the position on merit.
It also means that as better candidates might have been passed over, the LF payer does not get the best deal.
I have always said that in order to have positive discrimination, you have to accept the other side of the coin which is negative discrimination.
In other words, for there to be an opportunity for positive discrimination, the best person does not get the job or the appearance, it goes to the "minority" candidate (if I can put it like that). So the best candidate or guest is pushed to one side (or discriminated against).
This is not good, as people should be given their place on merit. And that "minority person" would end up as being seen as the token guest or employee, and not necessarily respected as well as someone who was judged to have got the position on merit.
It also means that as better candidates might have been passed over, the LF payer does not get the best deal.
Hence, this is a bad move by Tony Hall.
Would it not be illegal to discriminate against a white candidate who was better qualified for a job in favour of a non-white one who was badly qualified for the job?
Surely the idea here is to encourage a more open-minded attitude in those who, in the past, might have assumed that a white man (or woman) was the right person to do a particular job. It's not unusual nowadays in the theatre, for example, to see black actors playing roles which were traditionally assumed to be white. Presumably they are cast because they are right for the role, not because of their ethnicity.
Would it not be illegal to discriminate against a white candidate who was better qualified for a job in favour of a non-white one who was badly qualified for the job?
Surely the idea here is to encourage a more open-minded attitude in those who, in the past, might have assumed that a white man (or woman) was the right person to do a particular job. It's not unusual nowadays in the theatre, for example, to see black actors playing roles which were traditionally assumed to be white. Presumably they are cast because they are right for the role, not because of their ethnicity.
If you follow the positive discrimination ethos, or you go for a quota, then I don't see how the circle can be squared. Both would imply that in order for the prerequisite number to be appointed, then at some point perhaps a better non-minority candidate would lose out.
I don't read any of this as the BBC intending to give minority applicants jobs that they aren't qualified to do, or rejecting better-qualified white applicants. Rather if two candidates are roughly equal (and as someone who has employed people for jobs over the years, it is often not easy to tell from a piece of paper, an interview, or even references which candidate is better) the intention is that enough of the time a non-white applicant is offered the role so that the desired diversity level is achieved.
It looks from what I have read that in terms of the overall diversity within the BBC workforce, they already employ a percentage of non-white staff on a basis which roughly matches the overall UK demographics. If someone who works at the Beeb has any insights into this that would be interesting to know. It sounds as though Tony Hall is looking to go even further in terms of the percentage of non-white staff than is represented by the overall UK demographics, and to also increase diversity representation within BBC management. Whether that is the "right" thing to do is debatable, but it's something I would support in principle. Minorities in the UK have historically not had it as good as white people, so if the balance is to be tilted ever so slightly in the other direction for once, it seems to me that is no bad thing.
According to their web site the BBC Trust comprises six women and five men with one vacancy. None appear to be disabled and only one is non-white. Perhaps that is the sort of diversity Tony Hall is looking for.
According to their web site the BBC Trust comprises six women and five men with one vacancy. None appear to be disabled and only one is non-white. Perhaps that is the sort of diversity Tony Hall is looking for.
Perhaps that level of diversity is down to bodies other than the BBC:
How Trustees are appointed
BBC Trustees are appointed by the Queen on advice from DCMS (Department for Culture, Media and Sport) ministers through the Prime Minister. When new Trustees are needed the posts are publically advertised. Trustees are chosen on merit and the process is regulated by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments.
Selection process
Those who apply to be Trustees are shortlisted and interviewed. The interview panel is chaired by a senior civil servant from DCMS and also includes an independent assessor and the BBC Chairman. Their recommendation goes to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, then to the Prime Minister, and finally to the Queen.
I don't read any of this as the BBC intending to give minority applicants jobs that they aren't qualified to do, or rejecting better-qualified white applicants. Rather if two candidates are roughly equal (and as someone who has employed people for jobs over the years, it is often not easy to tell from a piece of paper, an interview, or even references which candidate is better) the intention is that enough of the time a non-white applicant is offered the role so that the desired diversity level is achieved..
You could be correct of course, but when things are target-led, it always becomes more problematic
On and off-air targets
On-air
In the next three years we want to see on-air BAME portrayal increase from 10.4% to 15%.
Off-air
The BBC already has a series of targets for staff representation that it aims to achieve by 2017 (see notes below). In addition, the BBC is today announcing targets to increase its BAME senior level staff (grade 10 – SM1) in the most relevant areas of TV and Radio Production, Broadcast Journalism and Commissioning and Scheduling from 8.3% currently to 10% by 2017 and then to 15% by 2020. BBC News has set local targets in London, Birmingham, Manchester and Leicester to reflect the population.
If proportional representation is so important .perhaps the BBC should employ a certain amount of genuine "Eastenders" to help oversea the absurdity that is Eastenders.
I'm up for it ;-)
You could be correct of course, but when things are target-led, it always becomes more problematic
That may well be true but nowadays every organisation has targets of some kind. It's how they measure their performance, whether in terms of sales figures, academic achievement, crimes detected and prosecuted, illnesses treated, etc.
The BBC is just doing what every other organisation does: setting a goal and using targets to measure how successful it is in reaching that goal. It would be odd for it not to do so.
That's why is said "problematic", as too much emphasis on meeting those targets, especially ones which are seen to be failing, could lead to a box-ticking exercise.
And as far as ensuring that panels shows have one female, there have already been comments on DS that some of the female panellists have been less than productive or interesting (with the suspicion that they were not chosen on merit).
According to their web site the BBC Trust comprises six women and five men with one vacancy. None appear to be disabled and only one is non-white. Perhaps that is the sort of diversity Tony Hall is looking for.
Well 10 white and one non white seems to be a close reflection of the population as a whole ..what do you find wrong with this ?
Comments
Couldn't have put it better myself.
Let's hope that this ridiculous policy doesn't result in Millican appearing on every single panel show going again. This is the ONLY time I have seen people become irritated to this extent about over exposure:
http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?p=73297432#post73297432
The European elections clearly showed that people are fed up of constant immigration and being labelled "racist" (whatever that means) for complaining about it.
Of course, not all immigrants are non white, but parading more black/brown people on TV will only inflame the situation IMO.
In what way do they not achieve anything? has the push last the 10 years, for example, to have more women in the male dominated TV world of presenting not worked. look at the amount of women news presenters, in studio and out in the field, documentary presenters, TV presenters, writers and so on. That one appears to have worked.
I seem to recall the same attitudes to that when it was announced.
What quotas in this context do you say have not achieved anything?
Lets say 14 people on a TV show, one of them has an ethnic background, lets say a 'brown' person and your logic implies it would be all the other white people that didn't get that spot are being discriminated against.
Maybe you think this quota thing will be all done in over a week or two, in a run outside and grab any 'black or brown' person to fill the quota or maybe it will be a concerted push to find genuine new talent in front and behind the screen. Surely that can only be a good thing.
You never know The BBC might take a punt on a young conceptual artist and find the next Steve McQueen. Maybe a young polish director might bring a touch of Polish cinema flair and dialogue to an everyday day drama. A Muslim guy might go on to be a great documentary maker and presenter.
So already this one woman on a panel show seems to be working then. Imagine how better they will get when it becomes the norm and people just take them as being guests, you know like female sports presenters has become the norm.
Then again, if one of those women wasn't funny one week they would only be there to fill the quota no doubt. Ive seen many unfunny men on those shows, including regular male guests, yet if a woman is unfunny..aye it seems worse than murder for some on DS.
Because the quota strategy was made public if a female comedienne does not impress it's implanted in people's minds that she's only there because she's female and filling a quota.
Even if they did use quotas, if they didn't make it public then people would just think that there's more female talent out there to get on these shows.
How long will that last though? To be honest I think the general public, those that know about it will move on pretty quickly, if not already. Female presenters in main sporting roles, for example, has now been excepted as the norm for a long time, it certainly wasn't like that 10 + years ago. Token women, PC gone mad and all that.
So all you will be left with are the usual internet posters that still see things such as women presenting documentaries as token women ( rather than being qualified professionals in their field) posters that have a severe dislike of a woman on the Tv purely because they don't find her funny and she appears on panel shows.
If (for example) there was a vacancy for a lawyer, and the quota said they needed a "one-legged Chinese lesbian", then they would recruit the "one-legged Chinese lesbian", and then allow them to sit the exams to become a lawyer, despite being totally unqualified.
Watching the Alan Davies thing on Dave last week brings home how many of the "newer" crop of comedians went to Public school.
(Jack Whitehall, Marcus Brigstock, Chris Addison, Holly Walsh, Michael McIntyre, David Mitchell, Mark Watson, Miles Jupp,)
It would be interesting to see if similar measures are being adopted elsewhere.
Let's take Spain as an example. Many British people have moved there and are able to watch UK programmes, usually via satellite.
I don't know if there are calls for more people from the UK to be put onto mainstream Spanish television, but I very much doubt it.
Some Spanish channels provide English audio on films which were originally in English but you need a set with the right equipment to switch. One or two local stations provide a few programmes in English in holiday areas. But there is no demand for British people on the main channels, unless they are fluent in Spanish and can participate in news and discussion programmes.
The BBC is the least racist organistion I Know of ...they bend over backwards to include ethnic minorities on tv. Quite a large number of tv shows have a higher number of ethnic minorities . Take The Aprentice for example at lest 25/30 % are always from an ethnic minority way out of proportion to the actual figure . Same with the voice 25 % of the judges are at least Black . The Xfactor has a higher than average number of ethnic contestants - you don't dont seem to have a problem with this - why ?. The problem appears to be with people like you who think that TV should reflect the population of London and not the country as a whole. You are aware that 85 % of the population is white don't you ?
Are you aware that the BBC fund an entire network for the Asian community ? are you aware that BBC Radio have many many black dj s ?
Would you be happy if the BBC and ITV etc were required to have 15% of faces on TV from ethnic minorities ? you do realise that if this is the case it would apply to shows like the Xfactor , Voice BGT etc
In other words, for there to be an opportunity for positive discrimination, the best person does not get the job or the appearance, it goes to the "minority" candidate (if I can put it like that). So the best candidate or guest is pushed to one side (or discriminated against).
This is not good, as people should be given their place on merit. And that "minority person" would end up as being seen as the token guest or employee, and not necessarily respected as well as someone who was judged to have got the position on merit.
It also means that as better candidates might have been passed over, the LF payer does not get the best deal.
Hence, this is a bad move by Tony Hall.
And this is the broadcaster that gave the world the Black and White Minstrel Show where white men ''blacked up''.
Couldn't have put it better myself. Well said.
Why can't we just give the jobs to the best person for them whatever their ethnicity, etc., without people calling it racism it the "black guy" doesn't get it?!
That was sarcasm, yes? I hope so
Agreed.
Would it not be illegal to discriminate against a white candidate who was better qualified for a job in favour of a non-white one who was badly qualified for the job?
Surely the idea here is to encourage a more open-minded attitude in those who, in the past, might have assumed that a white man (or woman) was the right person to do a particular job. It's not unusual nowadays in the theatre, for example, to see black actors playing roles which were traditionally assumed to be white. Presumably they are cast because they are right for the role, not because of their ethnicity.
If you follow the positive discrimination ethos, or you go for a quota, then I don't see how the circle can be squared. Both would imply that in order for the prerequisite number to be appointed, then at some point perhaps a better non-minority candidate would lose out.
It looks from what I have read that in terms of the overall diversity within the BBC workforce, they already employ a percentage of non-white staff on a basis which roughly matches the overall UK demographics. If someone who works at the Beeb has any insights into this that would be interesting to know. It sounds as though Tony Hall is looking to go even further in terms of the percentage of non-white staff than is represented by the overall UK demographics, and to also increase diversity representation within BBC management. Whether that is the "right" thing to do is debatable, but it's something I would support in principle. Minorities in the UK have historically not had it as good as white people, so if the balance is to be tilted ever so slightly in the other direction for once, it seems to me that is no bad thing.
Nice to see you're still living in the 60's and 70's
Perhaps that level of diversity is down to bodies other than the BBC:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/who_we_are/trustees/appointment.html
You could be correct of course, but when things are target-led, it always becomes more problematic
http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2014/bame-representation-plans
I'm up for it ;-)
That may well be true but nowadays every organisation has targets of some kind. It's how they measure their performance, whether in terms of sales figures, academic achievement, crimes detected and prosecuted, illnesses treated, etc.
The BBC is just doing what every other organisation does: setting a goal and using targets to measure how successful it is in reaching that goal. It would be odd for it not to do so.
And as far as ensuring that panels shows have one female, there have already been comments on DS that some of the female panellists have been less than productive or interesting (with the suspicion that they were not chosen on merit).
But time will tell.
Well 10 white and one non white seems to be a close reflection of the population as a whole ..what do you find wrong with this ?