Oneness on lockdown - new idents for BBC One

I admit I misread the quoted line and didn’t spot the word ‘talent’ and (assuming that refers to on-screen talent) I don’t have any data on on-screen talent to hand. But here’s an article on the industry as a whole: https://www.businessfast.co.uk/the-bame-screen-test-does-british-tv-lack-diversity/

Certainly, anecdotally, it doesn’t feel like minority demographics are represented enough on-screen. Sure, there are people of colour in many different settings, but that isn’t the same as true representation.

Disabled people make just 5.2% of contributions off-screen, lower than the national workforce estimate (17%). Over-50s make 20.6% of off-screen contributions, which is low compared to the national workforce estimate of 31%. Those identifying as transgender make just 0.2% of off-screen contributions, whereas estimates indicate they represent 0.8% of the population.

Off-screen, Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) groups are again slightly underrepresented in this year’s estimates, making 12.3% of contributions compared to 13% national workforce estimate.

On-screen, we generally find a more positive picture. Those who identify as female, transgender, BAME, and lesbian, gay or bisexual (LGB) are all represented on-screen in line with (or exceeding) national population estimates. However, disabled people and over-50s are both still under-represented on-screen, making 7.8% and 24.6% of contributions respectively.

It is within these detailed breakdowns that we are able to identify additional imbalances within the diversity characteristic groups. For example, although our estimates suggest that representation by LGB people in TV production is higher than national population estimates,

Diamond data shows us that gay men are by far the most represented in the LGB group. This is particularly noticeable off-screen, where gay men are making more than three times as many contributions as lesbians/gay women, and account for around two-thirds of all off-screen contributions by LGB people.

Looking at the headline data by ethnic origin, we find that those who identify as South Asian are the least represented among different ethnic groups, both on and off-screen.

Only 3% of off-screen contributions captured in Diamond were made by people who describe themselves as South Asian, which is low considering that 4.7% of the working age population and 5.3% of the overall population consider themselves to be Indian, Pakistani or Bangladeshi.

Diamond data is building a particularly complex picture in relation to contributions made by those who are BAME. There are parts of the industry where BAME representation appears to be high, such as in many on-screen roles, but in contrast we find very low representation in other areas, particularly off-screen. We report on some of these variations later in this report, and in our published data tables. Later in 2020, CDN will also use the breadth of the Diamond data we now have to deliver a more detailed analysis report specifically about BAME representation across the industry

I'm sorry but I don't support this. Programme makers shouldn't be told they have to employ minorities. They should be able to cast/employ the people whom they feel are the best for the job. If a black man is best for the job, take him on. If a muslim woman is perfect for the role you're casting, take her on. Take someone on based on their ability to perform the role you're needing them to. Don't, though, force programme makers into a position where they have to say 'ah, we'd better get [a minority] in because we have to'. It's a bit of an insult to the candidate in that scenario if nothing else. Choose the person who's best for the role. Race/sexuality/religion shouldn't come into it at all.

What's with the huge BBC Sport DOG/logo bottom right of the screen on BBC One for MOTD Live? Do they think all football fans are short sighted?

It must be for the captures/illegal torrents/streams to brand the content.

Someone suggested this when we had this discussion a few days ago. Given it's not during the match, which is 99.9% of the interest on illegal streams, what difference would that make?

When the punditry is shared on Twitter and social media, people can see the comments have been made on the Beeb. That seems the more likely reason.

Looking forward to having this discussion again tomorrow.