 | ||
|
Getting a "good black story " into the media
by Henry Bonsu A couple of weeks ago I was at Olympia arena, visiting a Black Consumer Lifestyle Show, when I was introduced to a woman who apparently had a story for me. I kinda groaned inside because I bear the scars of trying to get many a good black story onto the mainstream news agenda.
But, anyway, the woman introduced herself as Yvonne Hipplewith. She had three sons, triplets aged 13. They had special needs, and they'd been without education for a year because of the bureaucratic madness of Lambeth Council. Could I help? I wearily suggested she try the New Nation and the Voice black newspapers, and hoped to get her onto Upfront, the black nightly news programme I present on BBC GLR. I couldn't guarantee anything after that. Black boys, education, bad council? Good story for us, but it didn't involve a racial attack, or a fight against deportation, which press those familiar minority buttons. Then I thought again. How could I be so defeatist in what's meant to be the post Lawrence era? I knew the TV programme Newsroom South East, had just appointed a specialist researcher, whose remit was to dig out items like these. I called Michael Gravesande, who said "Henry, that's sounds like a wicked story" and he would offer it up at the next meeting. Just over a week later I was delighted to watch the piece go out twice on Newsroom South East. Since then Michael's been contacted by national papers like the Mail and regionals like the South London press, all wanting the story. Now, contrast the relative ease with which Ms Hipplewith got her case on screen with what the family of Stephen Lawrence had to go through to get decent coverage after he was murdered in April 1993 or the family of Rolan Adams two years earlier. In the early days, apart from the black press, few were interested. But things changed, especially after the Mail's front page in February 1997, and that was just an appetiser for what happened on the 24th February 1999, when the Macpherson Report was published. The marginal agit-prop race story had become the stuff of set-piece theatre. Let's remind ourselves what the press said:
As for the broadcasters, we had prime time dramas and documentaries in the run up to the report. Then, on the February 23rd Neville Lawrence was live on the BBC's Six O Clock News, and on Channel 4 News the Prime Minister was live in Downing Street, with Doreen Lawrence in the studio. Newsnight had a special audience debate, and then there was Question Time the following evening. So, why even in the eyes of a cynical media, did a report that started off focussing on police failings, come to stand for something rotten at the heart of the nation? Well, in part because of these words, which were endorsed at the very top: "The collective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture or ethnic origin. It can be seen or detected in processes, attitudes and behaviour which amount to discrimination through unwitting prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness and racist stereotyping which disadvantage minority ethnic people." That was the final definition of "Institutional racism" Sir William provided, which Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Paul Condon said he could work with. The question was, who else did it apply to? Who else was guilty of "collective failure" and "unwitting prejudice"? Well, since February, the media's been keen to tell us. As well as from numerous pieces on police racism, I've seen reports on institutional racism in schools, universities, the health service, the legal establishment, the black taxi service, and most recently the fire brigade. Even the make up of the government special advisors - nearly all white male, and Oxbridge- was highlighted by the Times. No institution, it seemed, was above suspicion. All, it would seem except the media industry. Apart from a piece in the Guardian by Peter Preston - and a discussion on Radio 4's the Message featuring Piers Morgan from the Mirror, the media hasn't subjected itself to the same scrutiny that it's turned on everybody else. That fact hasn't been lost on Sir Paul Condon. He told tv presenter Jon Snow live on C4 News, and Jon held up his hands. On Newsnight last year Sir Paul turned the tables on Jeremy Paxman, and did the same to Max Hastings when the Evening Standard editor cross-examined him on London Weekend Television - LWT. So, what do we see when we shine the spotlight on ourselves? "Collective failure"...how about appalling recruitment practices, "unwitting prejudice"...let's try the stereotyping of "asylum seekers". If ever I walk through the offices of the Express, or Channel 4 News, heads turn round to stare. It really is as though a Martian has entered the newsroom in time for the millennium. Ditto when I go to Independent production companies like Wall to Wall, Diverse, or Rapido, even though they have reputations in black programming. Lots of Emmas and Jeremys but few Errols and Jasmins. Now, according to Peter Preston of the Guardian, Piers Morgan of the Mirror, and Max Hastings of the Evening Standard, the problem's not an unwillingness to hire, but of a paucity of black people with the right kind of talent coming forward. If black people will soon be over-represented as doctors, lawyers, academics, i.e. if we can reach the "standard" in disciplines far tougher than media, then why can we not write, or produce? Or is this rocket science? Studies show there are less than a few dozen black journalists out of 3,000 on national newspapers. Our industry employs even fewer black people than the police. Yet, media researchers at the London School of Economics have shown that 80 percent of black journalists had a degree, compared with 60 percent of white ones. Similarly, my friends at the Metropolitan Black Police Association tell me that for all the "hoo-haa" about lowering standards to let the "ethnics" in, black recruits are more likely to have higher qualifications than their white counterparts. Although the teams putting together newspapers and programmes are still overwhelmingly white, I wouldn't deny that they sometimes get it right when it matters. I commend the Daily Express's championing of the Nigerian businessman Ben James to prevent his deportation, the Daily Mirror's investigation of the links between the British National Party and the prime suspect of the London nail bombings, and its clever attack on the quizzing of Asians visitors for the cricket world cup. I'm seeing more black people vox- popped in TV news items, and I'm hearing a bit more diversity on radio's 4 and 5. But, while I accept Darren Jordan gets to read the news these days, why was the first black person I saw on BBC News 24 a cleaner, who'd wandered into the studio? Why are Africans so infrequently invited to comment about things African, why did the Evening Standard's expose on the difficulty of getting cabs in London completely ignore the racial dimension? Why did the Mail decide there was so much mileage in the recent story on rastafarians and cannabis? Significant improvements have occurred, yes; but we're a long way from home. Henry Bonsu is an award-winning journalist, broadcaster, presenter and pundit. He works for BBC radio and television and the national press.
|
