On Naga Munchetty and the difficulty in calling racist people racist

BBC presenter Naga Munchetty
Support us and go ad-free

The BBC has come under fire for reprimanding presenter Naga Munchetty because she described remarks made by Donald Trump as racist. The broadcaster has said that Munchetty’s stance on Trump breached their guidelines on impartiality.

Many prominent journalists have signed an open letter condemning the BBC‘s decision. In the wake of this controversy, the BBC‘s approach to reporting on racism has come into question. BBC executives have since issued a response to say that they are “not impartial on racism”. Still, this controversy tells us a lot about how we understand and approach racism in general in the UK today.

White fragility

There has already been much discussion around impartiality at the BBC, and the irony of censoring a Woman of Colour for her views on racism. What’s noteworthy, however, is the broader context in which this debate has taken place. I want to refer to what Munchetty actually said that the BBC found worthy of reprimand:

every time I have been told as a Woman of Colour to go home, to go back to where I came from, that was embedded in racism. Now I’m not accusing anyone of anything here, but you know what certain phrases mean.

During the discussion in question, Munchetty did in fact, more than once, say she didn’t want to share her opinion on Trump himself. So why the reprimand?

Yes, at times, the BBC does seem to have clear double standards when it comes to implementing impartiality, but it goes beyond that. One of the key issues here is the general discomfort, particularly for powerful white people, evoked by the term ‘racist’. This discomfort, which can also be described as white fragility, is owed in large part to the fact that people today, in what we would like to describe as a ‘post-racial’ society, find the accusation of racism more unacceptable than racism itself.

We can repeatedly witness someone saying racist things, but the second we ascribe racism to the individual who said them, the discussion is derailed. It then stops being about racism altogether. It is no longer about the fundamental injustice of racism or how it impacts the people it affects. Instead, the discussion becomes centred around the feelings of those who insist that they are not racist.

Read on...

Support us and go ad-free
Who can we call racist?

In popular discourse today, we have developed a distinction between someone ‘doing something racist’ and describing them as ‘a racist’. This distinction isn’t limited to the media but can be witnessed in many spheres including politics, academia, schools, workplaces, etc. We see it online as well as in real life. And it explains, in part, why we are where we are today with the BBC‘s stance on Munchetty.

It explains how people like Donald Trump, Boris Johnson, or even the liberal Justin Trudeau, can repeatedly ‘do racism’ without ‘being racist’ themselves. The distinction is, of course, both absurd and pointless. It’s resulted in the label ‘a racist’ now having an impossibly high burden of proof. It’s almost as though calling someone ‘a racist’ is only justified when they flash swastikas or wear white pointy hats.

We need to realise that racism isn’t an abstract concept, but a reality that people are responsible for creating. Whether it’s one-off microaggressions, discrimination, or sustained hatred, it’s all done by people who are racist to varying degrees. But the stigma attached to the label ‘racist’ seems to have superseded all concern for racism itself, and for the pervasive, traumatising effects of racism on those who experience it. So we can talk about racism, but only as long as we don’t say someone is actually being racist. And this has become a way to shift the focus away from victims of racism and towards the feelings of its perpetrators.

Why diversity and inclusion matters

Perhaps what’s most worrying about the entire situation is the realisation that our national broadcaster has such a poor understanding of racism and how it functions. The reprimand against Munchetty must be seen within the context of the BBC consistently giving a platform to far-right views. I wonder if the BBC realises that by being so weak on challenging racism, it could be enabling racist and fascist ideas. What’s more, it has decided to discourage staff from protesting against the ruling on Munchetty.

In response to the backlash, the BBC has said: “diversity matters hugely”. However, when we talk about diversity in the media, we must acknowledge that it’s about more than representation. It’s about actually allowing marginalised groups to have a voice, and taking their concerns seriously. The BBC, along with other mainstream media in the UK, has protected the establishment for far too long. In doing so, while also airing far-right views without sufficiently challenging them, it continues to disregard the risk its reporting creates in the lives of marginalised people.

Featured image via YouTube/ news672

Support us and go ad-free

We know everyone is suffering under the Tories - but the Canary is a vital weapon in our fight back, and we need your support

The Canary Workers’ Co-op knows life is hard. The Tories are waging a class war against us we’re all having to fight. But like trade unions and community organising, truly independent working-class media is a vital weapon in our armoury.

The Canary doesn’t have the budget of the corporate media. In fact, our income is over 1,000 times less than the Guardian’s. What we do have is a radical agenda that disrupts power and amplifies marginalised communities. But we can only do this with our readers’ support.

So please, help us continue to spread messages of resistance and hope. Even the smallest donation would mean the world to us.

Support us
  • Show Comments
    1. On Naga Munchetty and the difficulty in calling racist people racist
      Please! – Please!
      Can anybody fully explain to me WHAT punishment B.B.C. Bosses? gave Ms Naga?
      My points below. was she given any of the following?
      P-1 -Was she Sacked or going to be yes or no?
      P-2 -Did she have her pay stopped in any way yes or no?
      P-3 -As she been removed from the news team live permanently yes or no?
      P-4 -Will she lose any of her pension cash money yes or no?
      On reading this article it seems or could be or maybe the B.B.C. may have been trying to get shut of Ms Naga now they may or could do or possibly use this mess to do so.
      Latter problem that may or could unfold now.
      Could this mess lead to programs being blocked-out?
      Or some live programs not being shown by a possible,
      strike action by over staff members B.B.C?
      I as a B.B.C. license payer would like to know the truth on the latter,
      problem in this post, that may unfold B.B..C Broad member + Managers,
      will programs be affected In time? Yes or no?

      1. B.B.C. where has our Freedom of speech gone in U.K. in your firm, as if this was a Govt member nothing would have been done to stop them talking about Trump or U.S. mess.
        This is’ why I think they is more or could be or maybe to this problem than the public are being told by B.B.C. Bosses plus Broad members
        We wish the full truth now B.B.C on this mess thankyou

    Leave a Reply

    Join the conversation

    Please read our comment moderation policy here.