BBC Criticized for Being "Too White"
This story made me laugh. The BBC, long the exponent of "progressive" claptrap and the snippily superior commentariat, has found to its chagrin that the "diversity" crusade has come home to roost. The BBC, you may recall, recently appointed a "diversity czar." Well, the czar has just announced that she thinks the BBC is "too white."
The story gets even better, though, because this "diversity czar" then opines that non-white journalists (instead of white colleagues) should report from non-white nations. Get an eyeful of this:
The BBC was yesterday plunged into a row over its foreign reporting after its new "diversity czar" said there were too many white journalists reporting from non-white nations, particularly in Africa. Mary Fitzpatrick said that she was tired of repeatedly seeing programmes where the situation was "here we are in Africa, and here's a white person saying, well, look at these people". She said it was vital that BBC news reflected the audience that it was serving, with "valid and culturally accurate voices speaking." She added: "I would prefer to see somebody who understands that culture, understands what's going on and can say, 'Look with me because I am part of this'. It feels more authoritative and more involved." . . . Miss Fitzpatrick told The Observer that the BBC's team of foreign correspondents should come from the same ethnic background as the country they were reporting from. The BBC said last night it was "absurd" to suggest that correspondents of the calibre of Fergal Keane, John Simpson, Jeremy Bowen and Orla Guerin "lack credibility with our audiences because they are white. |
This is so patently stupid I shouldn't have to even remark upon its absurdity. Even the BBC was forced by reflex to defend (sort of) the integrity of its white reporters. You'll notice that not a word was said about the talent, skill, experience, or other work-related qualities that are relevant to making a good journalist. Nope, the only thing that matters is one's race, ethnicity, etc.
Anyway, I got a sudden mental image of the BBC keeping an entire stable of random reporters, sitting around waiting for a story to break.
"Quick! There is breaking news from Ethiopia! Get me the Ethiopian reporter and send him abroad NOW!"
"But, boss, we already have someone in Ethiopia. Why not have her file a report?"
"Because she's white, you idiot. She's not culturally accurate."
"But, boss, she's been covering African events for 20 years and has studied African affairs extensively--"
"Didn't you hear me? She's not culturally accurate! She's as white as snow!"
"Well, OK, but our Ethiopian reporter is on holiday. Our South African Zulu journalist is available, though."
"But he's not of the same ethnic group, so he's not culturally accurate either! We're wasting time! We're going to get scooped by those Yanks at CNN again. Why, why?"
"Maybe because they send their first available journalist to go get the story instead of fretting about the politically correct dicta of a diversity czar."
"You're fired."
The idea that only non-white reporters should report from non-white countries is founded on a clearly definable premise. It's called R-A-C-I-S-M. And it's W-R-O-N-G. Besides, how is that supposed to encourage real "diversity"? The whole thing reeks of being predicated on the loopy idea that just because someone is of Chinese extraction, he (or she) is better qualified to report on Chinese foreign affairs...JUST BECAUSE S/HE HAS A RACIAL SIMILARITY to the subject of the report. This implies that white people (for instance) just aren't qualified to report on Asian affairs because they're white. This is just silly. And it will only create ghettos in journalism and journalists with narrow views of the world.
I'll say this, though. Did you notice Miss Fitzpatrick's words? She said the BBC needs to have "valid and culturally accurate voices speaking." Let's stop and think about this. The wording implies to me that by extension some reporting voices are invalid and culturally ignorant or irrelevant -- and that all this, based on Fitzpatrick's other words, stems mostly or wholly from race and ethnicity.
Let's take this a step further, then. We are now talking about authenticity and who is "authentic" enough to speak. (Dangerous stuff!) This whole thing seems to say that only non-whites are authentic enough to speak and report about non-white nations. Does this mean that a decorated veteran foreign correspondent who is white is inherently unqualified to report on African affairs, whereas some fresh-faced kid straight from journalism school, completely inexperienced and callow, is inherently more qualified if this kid happens to be the right ethnicity? Come on.
Suppose we translate this to academia. Does this mean that only non-white people can master the history of non-white nations or peoples? Does that mean that only white people can master the history of white nations? Then I might as well just give up now, because I'm an Asian female studying the history of western civilization and dead white European males.
Besides, Fitzpatrick's bleeding-heart statement of "I would prefer to see somebody who understands that culture, understands what's going on and can say, 'Look with me because I am part of this'. It feels more authoritative and more involved" betrays the worst trait of the modern multiculti crusade: the utter prioritization of emotion over reason. She doesn't say that such reportage IS more authoritative. She says that it FEELS so. I would argue that Fitzpatrick's emotionalist scenario is what we DON'T want: too much emotion intruding into journalism will only ensure the intrusion of bias as well. How are you to guard against the reporter identifying too much with his subject? Whatever happened to objectivity?
Oh, wait. It's journalism we're talking about. Objectivity has long since fallen by the wayside.