How the BBC is ignoring its audience? Instead of building programmes, it’s cutting them.
BBC local radio programing is the heart of local democracy. It’s facing cuts that will affect programming aimed at Black and Brown people. What’s the mistake the BBC could be repeating from 46 years ago and how does this impact a greater vision for representation?
And at a time when the BBC should be seeking to greater represent Black and brown audiences, how is it that the conversation is about survival? Rightly, so that’s being contested, but is it also diverting bandwidth from the eye on the prize.
This is Dr Liam McCarthy — former manager of BBC Radio Leicester mentored me whilst I was an undergrad at Leicester and wanted to become a broadcast journalist. Dr McCarthy’s research shows the development of radio in the Asian community. He asks how an Asian radio show in 1976 developed into the Asian Network, whilst in London about same time, Black Londoners didn’t.
This isn’t to suggest that because there is an Asian network the BBC’s figures for minority hires in entry and senior levels is acceptable. Dr McCarthy is making a point.
A study by PhD Researcher Nina Robinson, also an accomplished award winning radio journalist showed there were only 7 non white senior editors in the BBC’s 118 staff at senior level across the UK, that is heads, regional directors, editors and assistant editors.
BBC Radio Leicester was a dynamic place to break into radio. I was studying Applied Chemistry and was mesmerised by the media. The station had figures like Vijay Sharma, editor Julian Worricker, @IanPannell and @HilaryCarty
Now Dr Vijay Sharma, she was one of the first to present an Asian programme on BBC Leicester in 1976. Dr Sharma also managed a programme for Black people “Talking Blues” which occasionally I presented with Hilary (Clore). Archive clip here with @LennyHenry interview 1988.
According to Dr McCarthy’s @Foxpodder research, then station manager Owen Bentley wanted to create a daily 6 O’clock prog to address the anti-Asian narrative by the city council and racists groups. The show in English proved highly popular and clips were fed into other shows.
Also in 1976, Radio London launched “Black Londoners” feat @guardian The show’s budget says Dr McCarthy was £40 a week for the two presenters. “There were 16hrs a week of Black programming on local radio and 7 was coming from radio London” including a music prog.
But whilst BBC Leicester’s prog flourished to later become the Asian network the same didn’t happen with Black Londoners. Dr McCarthy says BBC GLR’s new inclusive schedule, with no central planning, meant Black programming was in the gift of managers. This was a flaw.
That flaw looks like it’s being repeated. The lack of any Black executives sitting at the table with their white counterparts to make the argument is one major failing.
This graph reveals some interesting stats from 1994. Dr McCarthy shows how for Radio Leicester there were 111,000 listeners being provided 70 hours a week Asian programming. For BBC GLR there were 522,000 Asians being provided with 1 hr a week programming. Stark!
In the 90s, Sheryl Simms and I would be given the new community show called “Black London”. We were paid £30–25 a week. The archive of that show included interviews w/ a range of figures such as stars and future leaders such Kanya King CBE, Ozwald Boateng OBE, Fela Kuti, and covered politics and social issues.
After 18 months the format would come to an end. When I got into the production office I discovered all the prog archive had been thrown into a skip. Thirty years later in lockdown I discovered some cassettes and tape which working with @josev2046 and FIAT/IFTA we redigitised.
What’s the importance of archive programmes? Here’s what a couple of people we asked had to say. For one it’s about institutional memory, learning from the past, stories that give framing to the present, identity, representation etc.
Dr McCarthy’s question, “how an Asian radio show in 1976 developed into the Asian Network, whilst in London about same time, Black Londoners didn’t” is newsworthy. Because at a time when the BBC is talking about cuts, rightly a lot of energy is being spent trying to prevent this. That convo takes away from the actual debate that should be airing, that is a greater vision of inclusion, particularly when recent census figures up considerably the numbers of Black and Brown people in the UK.
But there’s another side to this that’s obscured. It’s evident in our finding. By cutting back on programmes that tackle issues for Black communities you rob them of their stories. These are stories that help shape equitable societies. These are stories that create cultural norms and often shock conventions to change. The loss of programmes from the 90s, is but an example.
We interviewed the incoming head of the CRE Herman Ouseley, now Lord Ouseley about his aims. We asked why Black talent did not feature in commercials.
We explored race relations and suss laws with campaigners such as Peter Herbert explaining changes to legislation. We sought the new black writers who were bringing their stories into mainstream?
And as funnel for talent, without Black London, I wouldn’t have reported from South Africa the inauguration of President Nelson Mandela.
These important social stories and their impact could be lost on us. We can’t measure how far social indexes mights have improved because institutional memory has been abandoned, and hence accountability becomes difficult.
That was the 1990s and we’re beginning to find new archives. But surely this loss of voice shouldn’t be allowed to happen in 2022.
End+
I wrote about the Importance of Archive in Representology, a journal I co-founded with colleagues as a joint venture between Birmingham University’s Sir Lenny Henry Centre for Media Diversity and Cardiff University, to explore issues of diversity in media. More of me here
