TV Home Forum

Danny Cohen - Director of TV - BBC

Leaving Corporation (October 2015)

This site closed in March 2021 and is now a read-only archive
MI
Michael
Sometimes PD is more about giving things a nudge to be more representative, not this perceived position of 'promoting someone who may not be the best for the job'.


Sorry but in my mind you cannot separate the two. The minute you start making value judgments on which industries, areas of life, jobs, roles etc need to be "representative" of "society", then you open the can of worms I alluded to in my previous magnum opus. A nudge is a noble aim, but what we've seen from Cohen is a ruddy great clumsy sledgehammer.

It can happen organically in male dominated worlds. Vicki Butler Henderson, Azi Farni, Suzi Perry, Sian Massey, Pippa Mann, Suzyn Waldman and others have proved that no PD is needed to break through.

When I said PD does nothing positive, I stand by that. It diminishes the person being discriminated for because it distracts from their talent and trade. It alienates audiences and the people being discriminated against. It is mostly done by supposedly well-meaning but ultimately misguided do-gooders. It forgoes talent for accidents of genetics. It leads to accusations of tokenism. And it can snowball uncontrollably before you know it.
BR
Brekkie
I like how the word "digital" keeps being repurposed. BBC Three already is a digital channel!

I'm sure every Olympics since 2000 has been labelled "the first digital Olympics".
MD
mdtauk
The only time Positive Discrimination doesn't work, is in a society where there is no discrimination of any kind. When the white middle class is the status quo, and they want people to believe there is a meritocracy. Then you can see why some are fooled into believing that only the best get chosen.

The truth is, this has always been a value judgement, and if the producers are part of the status quo, their opinions on what is best, or who is funniest, or who tells the best stories etc, will more likely than not be skewed.

By mandating that more women should be included in the mix of guests or panels, will not only introduce more diversity to what people see, introduce new acts to the public, as well as better reflect the modern audience.
:-(
A former member
I believe you need to take action to improve the diversity on TV. Inaction just encourages the Status Quo


Positive discrimination achieves nothing positive.

Any promotion of a person based on their gender, ethnic origin, nationality, religious beliefs, sexuality, health, physical or mental ability or otherwise is an ill-advised and quite frankly offensive mistake.

It boils down to this : by actively positively discriminating in favour of a female comic, or an Asian comic, or a lesbian or a Jew or anything else "different" to the "norm" (which is a whole other sociological and philosphical argument), for all your good intentions what you are actually doing, however inadvertendtly, is reinforcing two fundamental truths.

The first is that the person in question is perceived to be in need of artificial help to succeed - i.e. that their trade (comedy) and the way they have pursued and worked within this trade (jokes) is not valid or strong enough in itself to allow them to succeed. What sort of example does that set? Where a person can succeed not based on their ability or their capability to make people laugh, but by an accident of conception? What kind of message are you giving that person themselves? You're not that funny but because you don't happen to have a penis you can sit next to Paul Merton and crack some half-assed observations? The ultimate irony of course is that these decisions are more-often-than-not made by hand-wringing white middle class males...which makes it possibly an even more patronising set of circumstances. Chauvinism with a smile and a latte. Don't make me vomit.

The second relates to the audience reaction to this policy. Having an open public policy of positive discrimination is an alienating concept to many. We may think of ourselves as a tolerant and open-minded nation but in fact on the whole we are not. We are opinionated, closed-minded, selfish and intolerant of change and difference. We believe lies and sneer at the truth. We turn blind eyes to swearing by children in the streets, public displays of aggression and anti-social behaviour, people in need of help and disrespect figures in authority or those who would help us. We donate pennies to charity and spend hundreds on phones. We watch Jeremy Kyle in our millions and ignore worthy, intelligent programming. The Sun and the Mail sell millions of copies, the Indy and the Guardian f--- all. We are a horrible, judgmental, sneering and cynical country. So when we see and hear of positive discrimination, instead of subscribing to the aforementioned "good intentions" by the bleeding-hearted television executives, we straightaway reach the natural conclusion that the person hasn't earned their right to be there. Which immediately casts them as a negative distraction, the outcast, the bad seed, the elephant in the room. Which colours the programme, and the channel, and the medium.

I say all this as a bleeding heart lily-livered liberal myself. I don't want women or Asians or gays or lesbians or the disabled wrapped up in their own little packages and stored in the far reaches of the television universe at 11:35pm on Channel Crystal Fragments & Waterfalls. But having policies of positive discrimination are self-defeating. They are in themselves exclusionary and discriminatory. If women deserve a leg up, what about Asians? What about disabled people? If we continue with positive discrimination, Mock The Week will begin to resemble a Bennetton advert, by which I mean the focus will be more on fulfilling quotas and less about comedic talent and satirical nous.

Women comedians don't need the help of a few well-meaning but misguided male small-screen-sugardaddies to succeed. Joan Rivers, Josie Lawrence, Jo Brand, Jennifer Saunders and Joanna Lumley all managed to break through in a male dominated era. The fact that they are female in a male dominated world makes them more memorable and more noteworthy inamongst the sea of mediocre men. They are geniune role models to young female comics because of their scarcity, not in spite of it. They achieved fame, noteriety and respect off their own backs, not because someone hoisted them artificially. It can, and does happen - Sarah Millican, Miranda Hart and Holly Walsh are recent examples.

Finally, (thank god I hear you cry - even cwathen isn't this bad!) comedy is subjective. It is an entirely audience-based art form. Only you can find something funny because only you can "get" a joke or not. It makes little difference where that joke is coming from. When I read a joke online (a bit like you are doing now!) I don't immediately seek out the gender of the author if it makes me laugh. It's true that there are different styles of comedy, and female comedy is generally different to male comedy topic-wise, but still, if it's funny, you laugh. If it's not funny or you don't understand it, you won't laugh. Being male, female, Asian, transgender, Jewish, Welsh, having one leg or Down's Syndrome won't change that fact. It's like doing any other job really - if I can drive a train, a woman can. Or an Asian. Or.......

The problem with your argument here (which fwiw I completely respect and get where you are coming from) is that you are almost entirely focusing on its impact on the people who take part in these shows. Surely the more important point is what it means for the show and the viewers?

I'd much rather watch a panel show featuring a variety of guests (who may not all necessarily be amazingly funny) than one featuring just white men (however hilarious they may be). I'd also rather a show appealed to as wide an audience as possible and, rightly or wrongly, a good way of doing this is ensuring the viewer feels like the show is inclusive of their own particular circumstances.

I would apply the same logic to positive discrimination in the workplace. I'd rather have a well-rounded team of people from different backgrounds than everyone being the same. Overall it is much more productive if you have people approaching the same position from a different angle.

Not saying you're wrong and I'm right, but I think to say that positive discrimination achieves nothing positive is VERY short-sighted.
RS
Rob_Schneider
Won't miss him. He'll be remembered as the man who killed Top Gear for many.
BR
Brekkie
Won't miss him. He'll be remembered as the man who killed Top Gear for many.

You're getting him confused with the bloke who punched another member of staff.
Neil__, London Lite and mediaman2007 gave kudos
ME
mediaman2007
Won't miss him. He'll be remembered as the man who killed Top Gear for many.


Wouldn't that be Jeremy Clarkson, who assaulted a member of BBC staff after repeated warnings from Cohen and other BBC executives? Just how far would he have been able to go, may I ask?
RS
Rob_Schneider
No. Cohen was on a mission to get JC because he didn't fit the political agenda Cohen stood for. I'm sorry if you don't like that but to deny that Cohen managed Top Gear (as we knew it) off the schedule is folly.
ME
mediaman2007
No. Cohen was on a mission to get JC because he didn't fit the political agenda Cohen stood for. I'm sorry if you don't like that but to deny that Cohen managed Top Gear (as we knew it) off the schedule is folly.


And I'm sorry but there is no evidence for that and more importantly, even if there was, Clarkson was warning time and time again for nor minor offences and then went and capped it off by smacking a colleague. Whoever was in charge at the BBC would have had a hard time justifying keeping him on, and Tony Hall was the one who did it.
[[Mod edit: Can we try and keep things civil please.]]
DO
dosxuk
No. Cohen was on a mission to get JC because he didn't fit the political agenda Cohen stood for. I'm sorry if you don't like that but to deny that Cohen managed Top Gear (as we knew it) off the schedule is folly.


If Cohen wanted to get rid of Clarkson because of <whatever> he had more than enough opportunity to do so. He didn't need to wait for Clarkson to send someone to A&E.

If you're going to call "conspiracy" you need to make sure the circumstances look suspicious. And there ain't nothing suspicious about someone assaulting a colleague finding themselves with their contract not renewed.

[[Mod edit: Can we try and keep things civil please.]]
CW
Charlie Wells Moderator
Bringing things back on topic I noticed there's a letter in the Guardian by a former BBC controller...
BBC’s Danny Cohen is great – at bureaucracy
Letter/article: http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/oct/18/bbcs-danny-cohen-is-great-at-bureaucracy

I hope whoever replaces him will take a look at the layers of management below them and ask whether they're all really necessary. At a time when the BBC is coming under scrutiny and having to cut costs it doesn't needs layers of bureaucracy.

Newer posts