By upholding the complaint against Naga Munchetty, the BBC are complicit in Trump’s racism. Here’s why.
Every person of colour will know that when someone suggests you “go back to where you came from”, they’re not talking about your flat in Kentish Town. The words are unequivocally loaded with racism. So, when a President elects to use that very language to tell four American congresswomen of colour to return “home”, its interpretation is as far from subjective as one could imagine. Trump has made a career out of populist far-right racism and backed it up with action. His latest outburst is of no surprise, and with no need for interpretation. It troubles me, therefore, that by simply stating, “Every time I have been told, as a woman of colour, to go back to where I came from, that [it] was embedded in racism”, BBC presenter Naga Munchetty would be informed by the BBC that she had breached their guidelines. Apparently, they “do not allow for journalists to… give their opinions about [an] individual making… remarks or their motives for doing so — in this case President Trump”. In other words, Munchetty was being disciplined for calling a Trump, a Trump.
This encounter between Munchetty and the BBC is telling. More so than their own innocuous coverage of the event would suggest. In fact, the disciplining of Munchetty’s remarks reflect not only the BBC’s complicity in Trump’s racism by chastising the use of objective statements, but also reflects the continuing policing of racial commentary by white-liberal institutions who, in an attempt to convince oneself of colour-blind impartiality, have instead suppressed any meaningful dialogue on race. What has occurred here is a textbook example of white, liberal colour-blind racism.
The revival of far-right British populism is unravelling the myths of a ‘post-racial and colour-blind’ Britain. As the country exorcises its Brexit-demons, we have exposed irreconcilable rifts in the country, and Britain’s economic, social and racial inequalities have been laid bare. Despite this, liberal institutions have continued to reinforce the myth of colour-blindness by not talking openly about race, and racism, and its impact on Britain. Instead the BBC is using the guise of institutional neutrality in a conversation uniquely about race and racism. They’re taking the “there are two sides to every argument” approach, that the BBC must remain impartial to. Such an approach only further diminishes the country’s understanding of racism and serves no-one but Trump and racists.
Neutrality is afforded to an institution at its own discretion, and the BBC’s ruling on Munchetty’s comments illustrate a tendency by these institutions to ‘manage’ their conversations on race. On crime, for example, the media has been far from racially neutral. A 2011 study by REACH demonstrated how 7/10 stories involving violent crime across the country in the mainstream news featured young, black men, with little context or explanation for the reasons why the crime was committed. The study also found that in many instances, the magnitude of knife crime as a contemporary social problem involving young, black boys were emphasised although very often each circumstance was completely different. Sympathy was also only afforded to one’s social respectability and lack of involvement in ‘gang crime’. Honest conversations around race and the criminalisation of blackness by the media are required, but we ignore it, perpetuating a myth of media impartiality on race and crime. Instead, what we watch are opinions, from editors, of what the story around crime is and despite the reality, typically, it is a black one.
The subtle interactions on race in the media are often missed but always the most telling. Earlier this year, Andrew Marr spoke with black MP, David Lammy, on his belief that the ERG, and Jacob Rees-Mogg, hold neo-Nazi sympathies and keep close ties with the AfD, a German neo-nazi Party. Rather than explore the idea further, Marr was quick to shut Lammy down and deliver Rees-Mogg’s explanation for him, “JRM has been absolutely clear that he does not support the AfD, and that grand wizard stuff, we don’t know where that came from, but its a dangerous thing to accuse him of being close to Nazi ideology.” Perhaps it’s just me, but, “absolutely clear” seems like a very subjective interpretation. The media doesn’t explore race because those who ask the questions are stuck in the myth of colour-blindness. It is more believable to Marr that David Lammy would conjure up stories of white neo-nazi networks than it is possible for a known far-right politician who RT’s fascists to be a racist in the UK.
When the shoe sits on the other foot however, white-liberalism has a way of metamorphosing racism into ‘misunderstandings’, free of any malice. For example, when interviewed during the London Riots in 2011, racial impartiality was not afforded to renowned Black British civil rights activist, Darcus Howe, who was accused of being a rioter. “You are not a stranger to riots yourself I understand, are you? You have taken part in them yourself”, BBC presenter Fiona Armstrong asked. Like Munchetty, after the incident, the complaints poured in. But there was to be no chastisement of Armstrong, no breach of guidelines for her opinion that a black activist must also be a criminal. Instead, the editors merely acknowledged that it had been a “poorly-phrased question”, that this sometimes happened during live interviews and the incident was compounded by technical issues. For Armstrong, it was merely a technical mistake, but for Munchetty it is an outburst, unfit for the BBC.
When a story involving race is forced onto the news agenda, it is void of neutrality. Instead, the temptation to use the aggressive diction ‘race row’ for any story involving race is all too compelling. It demonstrates a lack of self-awareness by our media who remain indifferent to the nuances of race. Not only does it insinuate equal guilt from black and white party’s regardless of the story, but it also limits the opportunity for meaningful dialogue, reducing it to something somewhat comical, temporary and foolish — a ‘race row’.
Colour-blindness is a luxury afforded to white people who support progress but only if it fits within their confines and at a pace they find comfortable. While acknowledging racism, this approach seeks to define what is the appropriate level of discourse, and what isn’t. Who can have opinions, and who cannot. But we cannot escape racism no matter how hard we try to sweep it under the rug. Munchetty cannot escape racism, it is her experience — and so when she speaks on it in a manner that reflects the views of everyone who heard those same words, it should be applauded, not diminished. By silencing Munchetty, but avidly reporting Trump’s Orwellian counter-narrative, the BBC is not remaining neutral but complicit in his racism.
For the most part, the right-wing of our country, and Brexiteers have defined the anti-immigration, xenophobic pendulum swing in British politics. But the liberal world, including the media, has been far too accommodating to its rhetoric. It is okay to the BBC to claim that there are ‘two sides’ to discussions on racism. They continue cover stories that suggest there is a ‘problem with immigration’, accepting that people feel ‘uncomfortable’ with people that look different to them and adopt the diction of anti-immigration where ‘cultural anxieties’ replace ‘xenophobia’.
This is the context in which Munchetty made her comment. A country eager to appease the far-right, fearing a breakdown in civil society. A country that has never been open and honest about its difficult history of race and racism. But, in light of growing populism, both seeing race, and talking about it openly is critical. Populism constricts attempts to articulate racism, turning the oppressed into the aggressor. We’re in a paradoxical reality where even the mention of racism runs the risk of a populist response, turning any comment about whiteness and race into that person being racist towards white people. It is those ideas, if not challenged by the BBC and others, because they choose to follow the logic that ‘we’re not racist so we don’t need to talk about it’, then it will only entrench the country deeper into our divisions. Change requires bold steps by broadcasters. It requires acceptance of the bias to move away from race and instead head towards it. It means providing licence to presenters, like Munchetty, to make objective commentary, but to also speak the truth of their lived experience. In Britain’s attempts to move past race, we’re telling society that reacting to racism is worse than racism.
