Where’s That Handbasket?

I see that others have picked up on this story already, but I can’t resist a comment of my own.

The BBC was yesterday plunged into a row over its foreign reporting after its new “diversity czar” said there were too many white journalists reporting from non-white nations, particularly in Africa.

Mary Fitzpatrick said that she was tired of repeatedly seeing programmes where the situation was “here we are in Africa, and here’s a white person saying, well, look at these people”.

No, what you are doing here is projecting your own prejudices onto the audience. I don’t think any such thing – I prefer to listen to what the reporter has to say rather than note their skin colour – but, then, I don’t have any racial prejudices…

She said it was vital that BBC news reflected the audience that it was serving, with “valid and culturally accurate voices speaking.”

She added: “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.”

Where do you even start with such patent nonsense? What is going through Fitzpatrick’s mind? Logic, it certainly ain’t. So because a report from Africa is presented by someone with black skin the piece is suddenly more authoritative? While I was in France last week, did the aliens land and steal everyone’s brains? That must be it; an invasion of body snatchers. It’s the only rational explanation for such tosh.

What Mary Fitzpatrick is positing here is that journalists are selected not on the basis of their suitability, qualifications and expertise; not on their understanding of the situation because they have relevant experience in the field, but on “supposed” authority on the basis of their skin colour. I wasn’t aware that skin colour gave people authority in their subject. Must be those body snatchers again.

People who believe that discrimination on the basis of peoples’ skin colour is acceptable behaviour are racists. By her own terms of reference, Mary Fitzpatrick is, therefore, a racist. That, or she is a fool.  Whatever she is, or is not, her comments are despicable.

Another absurd story to hit the headlines on a similar note was this one:

A five-year-old girl’s passport application was rejected because her photograph showed her bare shoulders.

Hannah Edwards’s mother, Jane, was told that the exposed skin might be considered offensive in a Muslim country.

The photograph was taken at a photo-booth at a local post office for a family trip to the south of France.

Because of the way the camera was set up, the picture came out showing Hannah’s shoulders.

The family had it signed and presented it at a post office with the completed form but were told that it would not be accepted by the Passport Office.

A woman behind the counter informed them that she was aware of at least two other cases where applications had been rejected because a person’s shoulders were not covered.

Sigh… Why should we care about someone in a Muslim country being offended by a five year old girl’s bare shoulders? Do Islamic passport offices care about whether we are offended by their acceptable passport photographs? Of course not. And, likely as not, no offence will be caused anyway. This is, once more, someone being over sensitive and seeing an opportunity for offence where none exists.

Update: Mr E picks up this story over at the Devils Kitchen.