Gransnet forums

News & politics

BBC 'impartial' on racism?

(26 Posts)
trisher Fri 27-Sep-19 17:16:48

Naga Munchetty was disciplined by the BBC for saying Trump's comments about 4 women of colour (that they should go home) was racist. The BBC apparently wants to be impartial. Lots of people of colour have complained about her treatment. Can you be impartial aboout racism?
www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-49850738

EllanVannin Fri 27-Sep-19 17:47:53

I know one thing, this " racism culture " has to stop. It's beyond ridiculous and makes people scared to speak.

varian Fri 27-Sep-19 17:50:16

I don't particularly like Naga but I think she was perfectly right to refer to her own experience of racism in her criticism of Trump.

The Brexit Broadcasting Corporation needs to get a grip.

Anniebach Fri 27-Sep-19 18:03:13

She wasn’t disciplined for speaking of her experience of racism but for saying Trumps comments were embedded in
racism.

jura2 Fri 27-Sep-19 18:06:18

she was asked questions about her experience by her co-presenter, she responded.

Behind her all the way.

trisher Fri 27-Sep-19 19:00:00

She was disciplined for giving her opinion.
The actual conversation
Munchetty: Every time I have been told, as a woman of colour, to go back to where I came from, that was embedded in racism. Now I'm not accusing anyone of anything here but you know what certain phrases mean.
Walker: Do you hear that quite regularly?
Munchetty: Yes. Not regularly, but I've been told it.
Walker: You're sitting here not giving an opinion, but how do you feel as someone when you've been told that before, and when you hear that from him?
Munchetty: Furious. Absolutely furious. And I imagine a lot of people in this country will be feeling absolutely furious that a man in that position feels it's OK to skirt the lines with using language like that.
Walker: Do you feel his use of that then legitimises other people to use this…
Munchetty: Yes. Yes.
Walker: As our guest was saying there, it feels like a thought-out strategy to strengthen his position.
Munchetty: And it is not enough to do it just to get attention. He's in a responsible position. Anyway I'm not here to give my opinion.
Perhaps Walker should have been disciplined for asking her and pushing the point.

Anniebach Fri 27-Sep-19 19:01:49

I agree, I think Walker was more at fault

Ilovecheese Fri 27-Sep-19 19:30:38

She wasn't at fault at all.

EllanVannin Fri 27-Sep-19 19:35:20

I like Naga and much prefer BBC news in the mornings than the other side with the giggling twits.

Ilovecheese Fri 27-Sep-19 19:49:40

And no, you shouldn't be impartial about racism.

SirChenjin Fri 27-Sep-19 19:50:37

She did nothing wrong and spoke the truth. The BBC was wrong but it’s not surprising.

lemongrove Fri 27-Sep-19 21:07:44

Walker was an idiot for pushing things too far. In my view he is more at fault than her, however the BBC has guidelines and what she said transgressed them, she may have realised this or not.Impartiality is what the BBC aims for from presenters.
So, she could have said whatever happened to her personally but not comments about Trump.

lemongrove Fri 27-Sep-19 21:10:07

Otherwise, where does it stop? The presenters on Breakfast aren’t free to air their opinions on every politician/celeb in the same way that we are on GN.

HildaW Fri 27-Sep-19 21:19:30

I can distinctly remember this incident - and although I am not a fan of Naga (I find her manner often rather abrasive) I did find myself agreeing with her.
To learn that she has fallen foul of something within the BBC does seem a little strange. I thought the general consensus was that strident 'isms' should be challenged. If someone I know makes an ageist, sexist and most definitely a racist comment I will at the very least give them one of my looks. Even my DH who I know deep down is only being daft will get a heart 'tut tut' if he makes a silly remark.
Racism is wrong....there is no other point of view so how can one be impartial? As is so often said.....this is Political correctness gone mad.

Eloethan Fri 27-Sep-19 23:54:21

The two presenters on the early morning programme often exchange thoughts on various news items. They are not newsreaders (who stick to reading the news, without indicating, by word or expression, their opinions on what they are reading). The early morning programme has a more informal setting and atmosphere and the presenters often engage in brief discussions or add a little humour to the proceedings.

She made a comment, he continued the discussion and asked her opinion on several issues relating to it. So why was she the only one disciplined?

Whitewavemark2 Sat 28-Sep-19 13:49:19

Laura☮️Marcus🇬🇧🇪🇺 #FBPE
@MissLauraMarcus
Today the #BBC allowed a white privileged man #BrendanONeill to call for riots. But it sanctions a woman of colour for speaking the truth about racism. The BBC has lost its way and when they come for the BBC, as they will, there won't be anyone left to defend it.

LondonGranny Sat 28-Sep-19 13:57:41

The BBC acted on one single complaint. I don't watch BBC Breakfast and hadn't heard of either presenter until this happened. Racism is wrong, whoever makes racist remarks, whether Trump or the man on the Clapham omnibus. The impartiality defence is bonkers. Do the BBC require impartiality on paedophilia, domestic violence, animal cruelty or fraud? Of course not. I support Ms Munchetty.

lemongrove Sat 28-Sep-19 13:58:34

Is Brendan O’Neill a presenter for the BBC then?

The Beeb has stringent guidelines for it’s own staff ( I know somebody who works for them in Salford.)

Breakfast ( show) is quite informal, but they still have to adhere to the rules.
This is all about rules....nothing to do with racism.

Eloethan Sat 28-Sep-19 14:54:10

Even if you accept that Naga Munchetty's comments were so gravely out of line as to require her to be disciplined (which, personally, I don't), why is it only she who was disciplined and not her male co-host who was engaged in the discussion also, and who sought her responses?

oldgimmer1 Sat 28-Sep-19 17:16:48

Is that Brendan O' Neill of Spiked?

I think Naga was out of order, as was Dan Wotsit.

They're presenters imho, not pundits and should not be giving their opinion unless required to do so as a part of their jobs.

Moocow Sat 28-Sep-19 17:53:21

If they really are following the book why is she the only one in the wrong? Why not her co-presenter as has already been said and why not the producers who talk in their ears? She did try to stop and could have made her colleague look bad by refusing to reply then it wouldn't have been a very pleasant exchange and she would probably have been in the news for being rude!

Moocow Sat 28-Sep-19 17:55:55

Also news readers give their opinions allllll the time. It's obvious they do and are allowed and expected to. Their tone and body language changes with every item.

absthame Sat 28-Sep-19 19:39:26

My 22year old GS was very upset by my reaction to the ruling. Iu told hi that I thought that the judgement was right for a presenter, who I agreed with, but equally she should not have ascribed a motive to the racist Trump as her position under the BBC rules she should not have done.

The stupidity was that the panel agreed to make a judgement on a rule that they know full well the public would not support.

LondonGranny Sat 28-Sep-19 20:09:11

Slightly off the subject except every article I've read about the Naga Munchetty thing it's been mentioned too.
I didn't see the Newsnight thing where Emily Maitlis got in trouble for a 'sneering & bullying' interview with Rod Liddle but I think I'd probably take the same line as Ms Maitlis.
Rod Liddle left his honeymoon early so he could be with his girlfriend. I think it's the same girlfriend he was convicted for assaulting when she was pregnant. What a vile little specimen that man is. Not surprisingly he's racist too.

Whitewavemark2 Mon 30-Sep-19 19:31:41

BBC reversed the decision.

Sense has prevailed