Naga Munchetty reprimanded by BBC
- Thread starter Sassy Colin
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik @Rood and Imran @Annihilate Now! start with the good news by celebrating Manchester United Women's emphatic FA Cup win over Spurs at Wembley and the future of manager Marc Skinner.
Then it's the bad news and the ever worsening form of our Men with losses to Arsenal and Palace.
Finally the main debate - ETH Out now or keep him until the end of the season - if not longer. Are you Team Nik or Team Imran?
Disgrace. They got it badly wrong. All because a brown woman said it.
It was impossible to tell that Andrew Neil used to work for the Conservative party the other night on the BBC News special advertised to be focusing on Boris Johnson and the ruling that he unlawfully progressed parliament when he spent the entire time shouting over Lib Dem and Labour MPs, barely mentioning the situation at all.
Read that some BBC staff members have formally complained about Naga's reprimand.
The thing about the Breakfast 'show' is that is more than just a news program, it is part entertainment, and they often comment on items, although more trivial than this admittedly.
Dan Walker has been rather quiet about it.
You're overstepping the mark here.
I didn't come in here to read your opinion. Just give us the news
Unlike Fiona Bruce or Andrew Neil. For example?
They can feck off n all. Bunch of pricks.
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...no-such-thing-as-impartiality-open-letter-bbc
Dear BBC,
On 16 July 2019, President Trump tweeted that four congresswomen should “go back to the totally broken and crime-infested places from which they came”. All four congresswomen are people of colour, all four are US citizens and only congresswoman Ilhan Omar was born overseas. These comments were widely acknowledged as racist in a broad spectrum of reputable international news outlets, including the Washington Post, New York Times, CNN, MSNBC, Sky News and the Guardian.
On 17 July 2019, Dan Walker, a host on BBC Breakfast, commented that a woman had shared a similar experience of being told to “go home” and that he found that remark “telling”. Walker added that the person in question had never been told that by the “man sitting in the Oval Office”.
Walker asked his co-host Naga Munchetty how she felt, inviting personal commentary.
On 25 September, the BBC’s Editorial Complaints Unit (ECU) found Munchetty had breached the corporation’s guidelines in issuing this remark
In a clarification of its decision-making, in response to widespread public criticism – including from an unprecedented number of black British entertainment and broadcasting figures – on 26 September it said: “[Munchetty] understandably feels strongly on this issue, and there was nothing wrong with her talking about her own experiences of racism. However our editorial guidelines do not allow for journalists to then give their opinions about the individual making the remarks or their motives for doing so … and it was for this reason that the complaint was partially upheld. Those judgments are for the audience to make.”
We, the undersigned group of black people who work in the media and broadcasting in the UK, strongly condemn this finding and assert that it amounts to both a misunderstanding of the BBC’s editorial guidelines, and a form of racially discriminatory treatment towards BAME people who work on programming.
The BBC’s editorial guidelines allow for “professional judgment, rooted in evidence”, and require “cultural views in other communities” to be taken into account. The ECU – which we believe does not reflect the diverse cultural views in the BAME communities in the UK – has failed to acknowledge the following:
Racism is not a valid opinion on which an “impartial” stance can or should be maintained;
For communities and individuals who experience racist abuse – including Munchetty – being expected to treat racist ideas as potentially valid has devastating and maybe illegal consequences for our dignity and ability to work in a professional environment, as well as being contrary to race equality and human rights legislation;
To suggest a journalist can “talk about her own experiences of racism” while withholding a critique on the author of racism (in this case President Trump) has the ludicrous implication that such racism may be legitimate and should be contemplated as such
While we stand in support of Munchetty, the consequences of this decision are widespread with implications for the entire media landscape in the UK and those who work within it. The scope of its effect is already evidenced in the unprecedented number of BAME media figures who have openly and publicly voiced their condemnation on social media.
In addition, we note the number of BBC journalists who have contacted us privately to express their concern at the climate of fear at the organisation, their feeling of being censored, and their apprehension at the consequences of their speaking out in support of this statement.
We demand that:
1. The ECU revisits and takes seriously overturning its decision;
2. BBC management issue their support for journalists and acknowledge there can be no expectation of “impartiality” over expressions and experiences of racism;
3. The bodies that oversee complaints about broadcasting, including the ECU and Ofcom, address their own levels of diversity and increase transparency as to how they reach their decisions, and how that process takes place in a manner reflective of the diversity of the population
We believe that, in addition to being deeply flawed, illegal and contrary to the spirit and purpose of public broadcasting, the BBC’s current position will have a profound effect on future diversity within the BBC. To suggest that future BAME broadcasters will be hired at the corporation on the premise that they remain “impartial” about how they feel about their experiences of racism is ludicrous. To require journalists of all ethnicities and races to endorse racism as a legitimate “opinion” is an abrogation of responsibility of the most serious nature.
• This letter is signed by Afua Hirsch, Lenny Henry, Adrian Lester, Krishnan Guru-Murthy, Gina Yashere, Hugh Woozencroft, Gillian Joseph, Michelle Matherson, Charlie Brinkhurst-Cuff, Elaine Dunkley, Amal Ahmed, Charlene White, Lina-Sirine Zitout, Marverine Cole, Tsedenia Skitch, Jayson Mansaray, Rabiya Limbada, Aaron Roach Bridgeman, Holly Henry-Long, Diana Evans, Anjana Ahuja, Katrina Marshall Beharry, Yemi Bamiro, Claire Clottey, Ayshah Tull, Shaista Aziz, Patrick Younge, Jamal Osman, Catherine Baksi, Liliane Landor, Bethel Tesfaye, Girish Juneja, Daniel Henry, Eno Adeogun, Dope Black Dads, Marvyn Harrison, Warren Nettleford, Nels Abbey, Henry Bonsu, Nisha Lahiri, Jordan Jarrett Bryan, Rowena Twesigye, Alex Murray, Asif Kapadia, Claudia-Liza Armah, Antoine Allen, Symeon Brown, Lynda Smith, Ayo Akinwolere, Reya El-Salahi, Warren Haughton, Anne Alexander, Ria Chatterjee, Natalie Morris
Dear BBC,
On 16 July 2019, President Trump tweeted that four congresswomen should “go back to the totally broken and crime-infested places from which they came”. All four congresswomen are people of colour, all four are US citizens and only congresswoman Ilhan Omar was born overseas. These comments were widely acknowledged as racist in a broad spectrum of reputable international news outlets, including the Washington Post, New York Times, CNN, MSNBC, Sky News and the Guardian.
On 17 July 2019, Dan Walker, a host on BBC Breakfast, commented that a woman had shared a similar experience of being told to “go home” and that he found that remark “telling”. Walker added that the person in question had never been told that by the “man sitting in the Oval Office”.
Walker asked his co-host Naga Munchetty how she felt, inviting personal commentary.
On 25 September, the BBC’s Editorial Complaints Unit (ECU) found Munchetty had breached the corporation’s guidelines in issuing this remark
In a clarification of its decision-making, in response to widespread public criticism – including from an unprecedented number of black British entertainment and broadcasting figures – on 26 September it said: “[Munchetty] understandably feels strongly on this issue, and there was nothing wrong with her talking about her own experiences of racism. However our editorial guidelines do not allow for journalists to then give their opinions about the individual making the remarks or their motives for doing so … and it was for this reason that the complaint was partially upheld. Those judgments are for the audience to make.”
We, the undersigned group of black people who work in the media and broadcasting in the UK, strongly condemn this finding and assert that it amounts to both a misunderstanding of the BBC’s editorial guidelines, and a form of racially discriminatory treatment towards BAME people who work on programming.
The BBC’s editorial guidelines allow for “professional judgment, rooted in evidence”, and require “cultural views in other communities” to be taken into account. The ECU – which we believe does not reflect the diverse cultural views in the BAME communities in the UK – has failed to acknowledge the following:
Racism is not a valid opinion on which an “impartial” stance can or should be maintained;
For communities and individuals who experience racist abuse – including Munchetty – being expected to treat racist ideas as potentially valid has devastating and maybe illegal consequences for our dignity and ability to work in a professional environment, as well as being contrary to race equality and human rights legislation;
To suggest a journalist can “talk about her own experiences of racism” while withholding a critique on the author of racism (in this case President Trump) has the ludicrous implication that such racism may be legitimate and should be contemplated as such
While we stand in support of Munchetty, the consequences of this decision are widespread with implications for the entire media landscape in the UK and those who work within it. The scope of its effect is already evidenced in the unprecedented number of BAME media figures who have openly and publicly voiced their condemnation on social media.
In addition, we note the number of BBC journalists who have contacted us privately to express their concern at the climate of fear at the organisation, their feeling of being censored, and their apprehension at the consequences of their speaking out in support of this statement.
We demand that:
1. The ECU revisits and takes seriously overturning its decision;
2. BBC management issue their support for journalists and acknowledge there can be no expectation of “impartiality” over expressions and experiences of racism;
3. The bodies that oversee complaints about broadcasting, including the ECU and Ofcom, address their own levels of diversity and increase transparency as to how they reach their decisions, and how that process takes place in a manner reflective of the diversity of the population
We believe that, in addition to being deeply flawed, illegal and contrary to the spirit and purpose of public broadcasting, the BBC’s current position will have a profound effect on future diversity within the BBC. To suggest that future BAME broadcasters will be hired at the corporation on the premise that they remain “impartial” about how they feel about their experiences of racism is ludicrous. To require journalists of all ethnicities and races to endorse racism as a legitimate “opinion” is an abrogation of responsibility of the most serious nature.
• This letter is signed by Afua Hirsch, Lenny Henry, Adrian Lester, Krishnan Guru-Murthy, Gina Yashere, Hugh Woozencroft, Gillian Joseph, Michelle Matherson, Charlie Brinkhurst-Cuff, Elaine Dunkley, Amal Ahmed, Charlene White, Lina-Sirine Zitout, Marverine Cole, Tsedenia Skitch, Jayson Mansaray, Rabiya Limbada, Aaron Roach Bridgeman, Holly Henry-Long, Diana Evans, Anjana Ahuja, Katrina Marshall Beharry, Yemi Bamiro, Claire Clottey, Ayshah Tull, Shaista Aziz, Patrick Younge, Jamal Osman, Catherine Baksi, Liliane Landor, Bethel Tesfaye, Girish Juneja, Daniel Henry, Eno Adeogun, Dope Black Dads, Marvyn Harrison, Warren Nettleford, Nels Abbey, Henry Bonsu, Nisha Lahiri, Jordan Jarrett Bryan, Rowena Twesigye, Alex Murray, Asif Kapadia, Claudia-Liza Armah, Antoine Allen, Symeon Brown, Lynda Smith, Ayo Akinwolere, Reya El-Salahi, Warren Haughton, Anne Alexander, Ria Chatterjee, Natalie Morris
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Really good letter that.
What an own goal this is turning into, just one complaint and they've seriously undermined their position 
Brendan O'Neill just called for riots during BBC Politics Live. Anyone want to place bets as to when he'll next be booked onto a BBC show?
So much for diversity at the BBC.
I remember Naga when she was fat. She looks much better now.
Last time I was in the dentist surgery, the receptionist, of some eastern European persuasion took some ferocious call off some halfwit saying that they wanted a receptionist with an English accent, or who could speak English or something stupid.
I wonder if they tried any of that sh!t on with the totally foreign dentist lineup at our surgery.
My guess is not, they wouldn't dare.
Good. Because he talks rubbish.
It’s so messed up and unfair. Not like you get Indians telling Glaston to feck off home whenever spurs lose
From what I understand this reprimand was made by a body external to the bbc but who regulate it. Is this correct?
If so, who is in the group? How is it picked? And what influence does the sitting government have on them?
If so, who is in the group? How is it picked? And what influence does the sitting government have on them?
BBC Director General Lord Hall has come out backing Naga. Despite the source it’s a good article and Hall has spoken very well on the issue in my eyes.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...ty-row-bbc-declares-not-impartial-racism/amp/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...ty-row-bbc-declares-not-impartial-racism/amp/
Utter disgrace from the beeb and whomever sanctioned it. She was 100% right.
Makes me think of this
BBC presenters shouldn't be allowed to say the following:BBC News said:
"I aint keen on Trump myself"
"Trump has read the most books ever"
"Trump is a feckboy"
"Trump has read the most books ever"
"Trump is a feckboy"
"Trump loves money"
"Trump is your president"
"Trump is bad at the Bible"
"Trump's (racist) behaviour right there is embedded in racism"
"Trump is your president"
"Trump is bad at the Bible"
"Trump's (racist) behaviour right there is embedded in racism"
Easily defined statements that are easily evidenced should be fair game, certainly in the context of this story.
Well you say that fire is hot but what about the other side of the argument?
Pleased you enjoyed the little quip.
Nothing in the Guardian then, that bastion of neutrality?
Doesn’t Laura Kuenssberg simply give her opinion on everything? Can’t stand that woman.
@Pexbo a bit of a dodgy source:
https://amp-theguardian-com.cdn.amp...mily-maitlis-bbc-naga-munchetty-race-decision
https://amp-theguardian-com.cdn.amp...mily-maitlis-bbc-naga-munchetty-race-decision
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
how the feck have they turned it around on this girl the utter cnuts?
More I think about it, the 'single compliant' was personal politics against Munchetty, from someone trying to get her sacked, with Complaints Board in on the act.
They didn't expect anyone else to notice, let alone the massive outcry of injustice.
Since then, they've tried to cover it up, but the cats out of the bag, and they have lost control. Complete clusterfcuk.
Cant wait to see how it plays out and who gets sacked.
The BBC's stock continues to fall with every passing day. This is really damning stuff for them. I wouldn't hold my breathe waiting for an apology either. They're more likely to double-down and hope it all slowly blows over.
Been overturned
Hope that’s not the end of it. Person who made the decision also needs to be investigated as to why they reached this decision. Also any hint of racist culture must be purged.
BBC has had a very bad couple of weeks. Never seen so many allegations of right wing bias against them.
They really need to get their neutrality in order as we enter the most politically divisive general election in modern history. Else their reputation could also be permanent collateral damage in the upcoming chaos.
Omnishambles.