- Rod McKenzie
- 8 Jun 07, 04:27 PM
I've known Megan (who produces the Sara Cox show on Radio 1) for a long time. She popped her head round my door on Thursday night... "Can I just ask the thinking behind your decision to use the N-word on air?"
Given its ability to shock it's a fair question and I should let you in on the answer I gave Megan.
Firstly when the Big Brother row broke we gave it careful thought. We ruled out mentioning "nigger" itself on our two-minute news summaries, online and in entertainment news... choosing instead to refer to "the N-word". But in our longer programmes - the 15 minute Newsbeat editions on Radio 1, and TXU on 1Xtra - we wanted to open up a debate, and we felt that the full context of what Emily said and the reaction to it was worth running on air.
We preceded the word's use with what we call "a health warning" - telling listeners that we were about to use it and giving them an opportunity to switch off. Overall, we believe that putting in facts of audiences in full - then allowing them to judge the rights and wrongs - is what our job is all about.
The N-word is frequently heard on both Radio 1 programmes such as Tim Westwood's and across the specialist music strands of 1Xtra - because the word is commonly - though not universally - used in hip hop and street slang. For example Jay-Z and 50 Cent use it, though Eminem and the UK rapper Ty don't.
I'm glad we did, because it triggered a fascinating debate among our audience with no clear consensus, beyond a feeling that Emily's use of the word was ill-judged. Some felt Channel 4 over-reacted because of the previous furore over Shilpa Shetty and Jade; others said it was all good publicity for the show. Some thought that Emily was being scapegoated, while others said that she was a racist.
But there was much debate over the word itself: has it now been re-invented in a non-racist setting because of its common lyrical usage? Is it OK for black people to use - but always a no-no for white people? Some of our listeners felt there is a strong double standard operating: if it's fine for the stars of black music to use and for young black people on the streets then why shouldn't it be acceptable for others, given its "new" context and meaning? 1Xtra produced a documentary on this subject - it's worth a listen (click here). Incidentally, 1Xtra news presenter G-Money shed light on the row and appeared on PM on Radio 4, the Six O'Clock News and News 24.
Kaiko from Weymouth texted us to say that if black people don't want it used then they shouldn't say it to each other. After seeing the show on TV, we rang him back to see if he'd changed his view - he felt that it had been used in a joking way and that Charley made "a big deal" of it, perhaps more than she should have done.
The arguments continue... and in case you were wondering, on day two of the story we have dropped using the word itself. We feel it's now in the public domain and audiences are well aware which word is at the centre of the controversy. To use it again, to me, now feels gratuitous.
PS: My colleague Simon Waldman from News 24 also blogged about this - you can read his piece here.
PPS: UPDATE 11 June My original version of this entry used the spelling "nigga", though a colleague changed it to "nigger" for consistency reasons before publication. Actually I meant what I wrote. No-one (even those who use the term) would dispute that the word when spelt with "er" at the end is a racist term, offensive to most black (and other) people. The people who use it in hip hop lyrics spell it a different way, with an "a" and with a "z" as the plural, because they argue this gives it a different meaning. It's in this context that Big Brother's Emily used the word.
Rod McKenzie is editor of Newsbeat and 1Xtra News
- Simon Waldman
- 8 Jun 07, 02:49 PM
When Emily Parr was ejected from the Big Brother house for using a "racially offensive" term, we had to decide - quickly - whether or not to broadcast the word itself. The 91Èȱ¬'s editorial guidelines include advice for our terrestrial TV channels, radio stations and online pages on such matters:
Offensive language is one of the most frequent causes of complaint... Judgements about its use are difficult because they depend on tone and context. There is no consensus about words that are acceptable, when, and by whom. Different words cause different degrees of offence in different parts of the world… We must not include offensive language before the Watershed (that's 2100 - ed) or on radio when children are particularly likely to be in our audience, or in online content likely to appeal to a high proportion of children, unless it is justified by the context and then its frequent use must be avoided.
On News 24, the offending word "nigger" WAS used - sparingly. By which I mean that it was included in our full report on the story, and in interviews on the subject. It wasn't used in headlines or in the introduction to items on the row. The One O'Clock News followed suit, but the Six O'Clock News - mindful of the number of younger viewers watching at teatime - plumped for "the 'n'-word".
So, why did some parts of the 91Èȱ¬ transmit the word, while others did not? Did we change our minds as the story developed? And what did our audiences make of it all? The term is clearly highly offensive to many people from all ethnic backgrounds, but it is also commonly used by many young black people. As we pointed out, it's a word heard regularly in more and more styles of pop music - and not only by black singers.
To explain the story and to try to put it in context, we decided initially neither to disguise the word, nor to keep repeating it. Not to have used it at all would have left many viewers wondering what all the fuss was about; to have kept saying it would have smacked of sensationalism.
So, by broadcasting the racist term in some - but not all - of our output, you might think the 91Èȱ¬ is having its cake and eating it.Or perhaps we're simply indecisive? Other media organisations wrestled with the same issue - one national newspaper managed to print both both the word in full and "n" on the same page.
Audiences were quick to let us know what they felt by text, e-mail and phone. And they seemed unable to agree. Opinion was divided on whether the 91Èȱ¬'s use of the word was offensive in itself, or whether it helped illustrate the issue. Many thought there were double standards involved: what do you think?
PS: My colleague Rod McKenzie from Radio 1 has also blogged about this - you can read his piece here.
Simon Waldman is morning editor on 91Èȱ¬ News
- Matt Morris
- 8 Jun 07, 12:04 PM
Let me quote Fran Yeoman, in the home news pages of the Times:
Labour's six deputy leadership candidates went "speed dating" on radio yesterday. Each was given 6 minutes on Radio 5 Live to chat up two listeners: Vicci Goulding, Miss Wigan 2007, and Ged Sweeney, a former Labour Party member who left over tuition fees. Mindful of the forthcoming final of Miss England, Ms Goulding asked Harriet Harman what her special talent would be. "I think my talent would be encouraging people," the nonplussed Justice Minister managed.
The listeners had been tracked down by our audience editor Lou Birt and the item was brought to air by the team led by Simon Mayo's editor, John Cary. It was engaging, informative, and it challenged the politicians. I rather think they enjoyed it and I am certain that William Hague - who appeared on the Mayo programme just after the speed daters - enjoyed it even more. (Listen here to the programme.)
But in the week or so following the that Five Live will be among the services transferring to Salford, a question arose in my mind: is this the sort of item that Five Live simply will not be able to do so well in the future?
Every Wednesday, the Mayo programme decamps to Millbank, to frame Prime Minister's Questions and to talk, face to face, to a panel of MPs. The panel conversation, and the speed-dating type of treatment, tend to work well because Simon can engage his guests with glances, body language and gestures - as well as words.
This is the sort of problem we've now got to grapple with as the countdown to Salford begins in earnest. Five Live will remain the home of continuous news on 91Èȱ¬ domestic radio - so we have to ensure that the right systems are in place to guarantee that its news coverage is as authoritative, stylish and engaging as ever.
Matt Morris is head of news, Radio Five Live
- Peter Barron
- 8 Jun 07, 11:12 AM
We've had a lot of complaints about Kirsty's interview last night with the Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond.
Some questioned the premise of the interview - that the new SNP government appeared to be picking a fight with London - others thought that Kirsty's line of questioning was too aggressive and therefore discourteous. But all agreed that the way the interview ended was, to say the very least, unfortunate.
The encounter was indeed intense and at times tetchy - Mr Salmond is always a robust and challenging interviewee - but for most of the interview I don't think we strayed outside the boundaries of what viewers expect or find acceptable in a Newsnight interview.
In the last minute, however, that changed. As the programme producer tried to wind up the interview because of time pressure we cut off Mr Salmond in a way that came across as rude and dismissive. We have apologised to Mr Salmond for that.
Peter Barron is editor of Newsnight
The Scotsman: Reports that an SNP MSP has written to Mark Thompson, calling for a "Scottish Six" news bulletin. ()
Daily Telegraph: Business editor Jeff Randall on the type of comments he received from audiences when he was the 91Èȱ¬'s business editor. ()
The 91Èȱ¬ is not responsible for the content of external internet sites
