There can be few causes deemed more worthy by the BBC and Independent Broadcasting Authority than programmes for ethnic minorities. But are those programmes what ethnic minorities themselves really want?
Radio and television expend considerable amounts of effort and money in producing material for ethnic minorities, and no programme schedule or franchise application is complete without a commitment to cater for minority interests. These programmes and features are undoubtedly well-intentioned, and the people who produce the sincere. But are they doing the job? Are they really for ethnic minorities? According to the people who are supposed to benefit from them, the answer is an emphatic NO.
Minority broadcasting, in the very limited time made available to it, seems to fall into two broad categories, excluding for the moment, music. On the one hand is the educational type, which seeks to help minorities, particularly Asians, to improve their English and to adapt successfully to the British way of life.
On the other is the documentary type, which is not so much for Asians and blacks, as about them; glimpses of the culture, behaviour and problems of people who are already well aware of their existence. In-fact, although the latter type of broadcasting may well serve to increase racial understanding, its function in practice is to educate whites about non whites.
It is doubtful whether the people behind this output would be happy if they could truly put themselves in the shoes of their audience and see things through their eyes. Moreover, it could be argued that the very insistence on treating Asians and blacks as a minority is, in the long term, counter-productive.
So how do Britons of Afro-Caribbean or Asian decent feel about the current state of broadcasting? In a survey carried out by the Commission for Racial Equality, the following facts emerged about what they would like to see:-
These figures clearly illustrate the depth of discontent. So what can be done? And, since the question is bound to arise, why should anything be done?
The answer to the question is self-evident. Non-whites now form a sizeable proportion of the population. They contribute to the economy and play a vital role in its essential services. It is within living memory that British governments actively encouraged their immigration. They are part of British society and have the same right to a say in the running of its institutions as someone who can trace his or her ancestry to Alfred the Great.
As to increasing the provision made for them, one solution is better use of the existing media. However, both state owned and independent operators claim, with justification, that they cannot afford to devote more time to what is, after all, still only a minority.
The ideal alternative is a separate network. Television, of course, is economically impracticability because of its immense capital outlay and high running costs. A commercial radio station however, could provide the answer, but it is clear that, with the possible exception of London, there is no area which could support a purely black/Asian station.
A national station, though, would have a potential audience of 3½ million, as big a potential as all but the biggest ILR concern.
Such a station could easily be self-financing. Advertisers would be attracted to a potential market of that size; not only would specialist suppliers have the ideal medium, but the large national advertisers are aware that non-whites consume much the same goods as their white fellow citizens.
Financial self-sufficiency would also counter the dubious argument that separate ethnic broadcasting should not be funded out of the public purse. A national independent, non-white radio station could function comfortably, naturally complying in all aspects with the IBA regulations.
But what of other objections which might be raised? Perhaps the most fundamental is the view that totally separate broadcasting could be detrimental to race relations – to use a favourite phrase, could create a broadcasting ghetto. Though superficially attractive, the argument is untenable. Carried to its logical conclusion, it would mean the end of Radio 3 and S4C. It would rule out the ability of newspapers to adopt one or other political stance.
Folk, jazz and Country and western programmes could be deemed ghettos. Diversity is essential in broadcasting, unless we are to have homogeneous media which have to be all things to all people.
There is, however, a need for caution. The non-white population is a politically sensitive subject, and a radio station would have to take that fact into account. Nowhere would this be more important than in its speech content – news, drama, documentary and current affairs. Life as a non-white would obviously be very much a part of speech programming, which would inevitably touch on the problems involved. Reference to prejudice and disadvantage could not be avoided.
There could be a temptation to use the medium as a political platform, inadvertently or otherwise. But to harbour that thought is to overlook the fact that such a station would, like the present network, be subject to the scrutiny of the IBA.
A self-imposed insistence on balance would go hand in hand with the statutory one. There would be room for controversy and debate, but none for extremism. With this philosophy in mind, the putative station would have to address itself to the particulars of its programming and the purpose it would serve, not only to the non-white community, but to British society as a whole.
Music would clearly be the mainstay. Black music has had multi-racial appeal in this country for at least two decades, and continues to do so. It would be presented for anyone who cares to listen, black or white. Asian music may have a more limited appeal, but it would likewise occupy a prominent position. To Asians, it is their popular music; if anything the way it is presented now does more to create a ghetto.
Link-ups and music request programmes would maintain family ties for those with relatives living abroad while providing evocative listening for those who have never seen their ancestral homeland. Close links with radio stations elsewhere in the Commonwealth could be involved, and good relationships with them would also figure prominently in the news operation.
The station would be ever mindful of the fact that its audience would be British citizens, many of whom happen to have their ethnic roots in another country. To them, the invasion of Grenada or a typhoon in Bangladesh is just as important as a bomb in Northern Ireland or a strike in the Midlands.
An important spin-off would be close ties with areas where the existing newsgathering agencies do not maintain a presence, and it is possible to imagine instances where this contact could be used to augment the output of IRN. That leaves two other main areas: sport, the importance of which need hardly be described; and religion, which may well be more a part of the life and culture of non-whites than the rest of the population.
It has to be admitted that, in general, the service offered by the BBC and ILR cannot be rivalled. But there are areas in which a non-white radio station could be of service.
Greater coverage of test matches not involving England, for example, would find a wide audience. In the last cricket World Cup in England, coverage was, quite rightly, concentrated on the bigger fish and on the home side in particular. Separate coverage of India, Pakistan, West Indies and Sri Lanka (not forgetting Zimbabwe!) would have been appreciated. And it should not be overlooked that Pakistan produces some of the world’s greatest squash players, and India many fine tennis players, who receive very little attention.
Finally, religion. Here is a subject that could be said to cause more misunderstanding than any other. A comprehensive religious programming policy would serve a number of worshippers. It would remove the veil of mystery surrounding some of the eastern religions. And, dare it be said, it might even demonstrate that going to Church could be fun.
The foregoing clearly shows that there is a case for a genuine non-white radio station. Perhaps separate is the wrong word; parallel is maybe more suitable. It would educate whites and non-whites about each other, while allowing Britons of other creeds and colours to preserve their identities and cultures.
It would strengthen tradition, yet increase understanding and promote cosmopolitanism. Its philosophy would be not integration for its own sake but harmony for the greater good of all.
Photo Painting – Bob Marley – Youth Voices
Be the first to write a comment.
Your feedback