|
 Mike Mullane The BBC's new diversity chief, Mary FitzPatrick, appears not only to have broken the ice on that count, but also to have cast doubt on the ability of some reporters to do their job. Ms. Fitzpatrick, who says her remarks were taken out of context, told The Observer newspaper that she was "tired" of the way in which correspondents report on Africa.
"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."
The BBC's award-winning reporter, Fergal Keane, has slammed the remarks attributed to Ms. FitzPatrick as "pretty absurd". He poured scorn on the suggestion that the colour of his skin made him less "culturally aware" when reporting on Africa.
The campaign group Liberty even went as far as asking the UK's Commission for Racial Equality to intervene. A spokesperson expressed concern that Ms. Fitzpatrick's key role at the BBC might mean that the corporation's journalists were no longer treated fairly.
This debate should interest all news organizations based in countries with sizeable ethnic minorities. To my knowledge, several European broadcasters are taking active steps to recruit ethnic minority reporters to reflect better the diversity of their countries.
But to my mind the controversy surrounding Ms. FitzPatrick's alleged remarks takes the debate one step further.
Let's forget about the nonsensical aspects of the argument: a black reporter born and bred in the UK is unlikely to know more about Africa than a white journalist brought up there; you can be an expert on the Mahgreb without knowing anything about the cultures and traditions of Sub-Saharan Africa, and so on.
Ms. FitzPatrick assured irate BBC staff that what she had meant to say was that "a deep understanding of the cultural background and issues surrounding a story is essential".
I think she is right. But the real problem is not so much skin colour as the fact that large organizations, like the BBC, sometimes do daft things like sending Chinese-speaking correspondents to cover eastern-Europe, or Spanish-speaking reporters to Asia.
But if you take the ethnicity argument to its logical conclusion, it would imply that only an Italian journalist, for example, can understand Italy, or that you need to be Chinese to provide a truly authoritative voice on China.
It is not just that this is all highly debateable, there is also a more sinister side that sends shivers down my spine. Perhaps I'm being paranoid or I've had one too many beers, but in the 1930s, Nazi historians used to argue that only the 'Volk' were qualified to write about the 'Volk'.
Trackback(0)
 |
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
