February 12, 2009
BBC and Golliwogs
Playing catch-up on this debacle as i’ve been pretty busy over the past week.
I wasn’t sure what I made of the Carol Thatcher sacking until I read this piece by Catherine Bennett in last Sunday’s Observer.
Bennett’s articles are consistently the amongst the best in the Observer, surpassed only perhaps by Andrew Rawnsley’s. In this case Bennett’s argument as usual manages to be powerful, witty and convincing.
However I think it’s wrong, and here’s why.
The Thatcher case is not symetrical to the Max Mosley privacy case for one crucial reason: If the BBC, a publicly funded broadcasting body sworn by statute to impartiality, were to continue to employ somebody who thought it was acceptable to use the word “golliwog” in front of colleagues, this would be inconsistent with its duty to promote racial equality as a publicly funded body which itself claims to be committed to promoting racial equality.
The BBC is (rightfully) committed to moving beyond crass racist stereotypes, and doing so is part of its right to exist as a publicly funded broadcaster. It is straightforwardly impossible for the BBC to be committed to this and to continue to employ Carol Thatcher – especially after she refused to apologise.
The case is therefore not symmetrical with Max Mosely. Formula 1 is not committed to not promoting or condoning Germanic S&M orgies. It is still up to the discretion of Formula 1 if it wants to sack people who engage in this sort of behaviour, but it is not duty-bound in the way the BBC is duty-bound to promote racial equality. And furthermore, the Max Mosely case is most especially about privacy and the press – which is not analogous to racism not being tolerated by one’s employer.
So thank you Ms Bennett for writing a thoroughly good piece which allowed me to clarify my thoughts – even if ultimately that clarity allowed me to decide that you got it wrong.
