>#The Guardian branded racist by slavery podcast producers
>James Beal, Social Affairs Editor
>Wednesday January 25 2023, 5.55pm GMT, The Times
>Three producers who worked on a podcast about The Guardian’s historical links to the slave trade have accused the media outlet of “institutional racism”.
>The newspaper has been creating an editorial project, including a podcast to be published in the coming months, about the connections between its founder, John Edward Taylor, and transatlantic slavery.
>But three producers who worked on the series, including one award-winning audio producer, complained in writing last year to The Guardian about their treatment before leaving the project.
>On Monday, after hearing that The Guardian was seeking to finish off the project, they sent an email detailing their allegations to a number of audio professionals.
>The email, obtained by the news site Deadline, said: “A key issue was the lack of any serious desire from The Guardian to face and interrogate its own historic role, what that has meant for its journalism to date and what accountability might look like in the future. This left room for microaggressions, colourism, bullying, passive-aggressive and obstructive management styles that have caused frustration and stress for members of the production team.
>“The institution is now looking for other producers to finish our work and has ignored our concerns. The outcome of this project is a huge indictment of the paper. The irony of dealing with institutional racism, editorial whiteness and ignorance on a project about the legacies of slavery hasn’t been lost on us — and deeply undermines the integrity of the project.”
>Taylor founded The Manchester Guardian in 1821 and edited it until his death in 1844. The newspaper was renamed The Guardian in 1959.
>The Scott Trust, which owns the newspaper, has launched a review into Taylor’s slavery links despite saying there was no evidence that he owned slaves or was directly involved in the trade. The podcast was part of the editorial project.
>One of the producers who sent the complaint email was said to be a “rising star in the audio world” who has produced work for Spotify and the BBC, winning awards. The two other individuals who signed the email were freelancers.
>The producers said they wanted to detail their allegations because they were aware of other black producers who had been contacted about working on The Guardian series. They said in their email: “Our experiences are often buried, and production companies are able to continue as though nothing has happened and repeat the same harm whilst using our labour for kudos.”
>They said the slavery podcast was “mismanaged” by a team of Guardian editors. Following “numerous attempts to have good-faith conversations” with their team, the producers said they wrote a formal letter of complaint to their editors. They claimed that this was “ignored for weeks and minimised” before they were offered “ineffective” mediation sessions.
>The email added: “We were routinely undermined, unsupported and deeply frustrated by the absence of journalistic rigour and critical attention to history from a global news organisation. We had hoped to make a series to contribute towards shifting discourse away from the kinds of reductive conversations about race and capitalism that are usually commissioned in our industry.”
>The Guardian confirmed that a complaint had been made by producers working on the slavery series. The project included input from a number of senior black journalists.
>A spokesman said: “The Guardian has been working on a significant editorial project relating to its own history which is to be published soon. The project is being led by a diverse team of experienced and respected Guardian editors, with close involvement from a large number of colleagues and experts who also represent diverse perspectives.
>“We are concerned that some former colleagues and contributors have not had a good experience working with us, but we are disappointed they have chosen to write a partial reflection of their time at The Guardian. We always take any concerns raised with us seriously and we acted immediately to respond to the individuals, including by offering a mediation process, which took place with a mediator chosen by the individuals themselves.
>“The project is largely complete and will not pull any punches in terms of transparency. It will be published in the next few months, and we then look forward to discussing it with readers and colleagues.”
>A key issue was the lack of any serious desire from The Guardian to face and interrogate its own historic role
If you’re not doing that, what even is the point of this project?
>We are concerned that some former colleagues and contributors have not had a good experience working with us, but we are disappointed they have chosen to write a partial reflection of their time at The Guardian.
That seems a really odd thing to say.
The way I comprehend this sentence, is they are saying they are disappointed that the ‘reflection’ doesn’t include the good things that happened as well as the bad things?
But surely if you are complaining about something, you do talk about the bad things. And if the bad things are really bad, does it matter that there were *some* good things as well? Especially if the bad things were so bad, that it got in the way of the project all together.
If I went to a cafe, and was served a really nice sandwich, but the cafe owner came over and randomly punched me in the face – my review would focus on the punch in the face, not so much the sandwich. Would the owner complain that I’d written a ‘partial reflection’ because I didn’t mention the sandwich?
You love to see it
We still haven’t forgotten about the slavery money, either
Again, who founded The Guardian? And where did that money come from? They do try to ignore the man that started the Guardian, with good reasons given the links.
>colourism
Is this the race card you pull when you want to accuse someone of racism but they’re not white?
6 comments
>#The Guardian branded racist by slavery podcast producers
>James Beal, Social Affairs Editor
>Wednesday January 25 2023, 5.55pm GMT, The Times
>Three producers who worked on a podcast about The Guardian’s historical links to the slave trade have accused the media outlet of “institutional racism”.
>The newspaper has been creating an editorial project, including a podcast to be published in the coming months, about the connections between its founder, John Edward Taylor, and transatlantic slavery.
>But three producers who worked on the series, including one award-winning audio producer, complained in writing last year to The Guardian about their treatment before leaving the project.
>On Monday, after hearing that The Guardian was seeking to finish off the project, they sent an email detailing their allegations to a number of audio professionals.
>The email, obtained by the news site Deadline, said: “A key issue was the lack of any serious desire from The Guardian to face and interrogate its own historic role, what that has meant for its journalism to date and what accountability might look like in the future. This left room for microaggressions, colourism, bullying, passive-aggressive and obstructive management styles that have caused frustration and stress for members of the production team.
>“The institution is now looking for other producers to finish our work and has ignored our concerns. The outcome of this project is a huge indictment of the paper. The irony of dealing with institutional racism, editorial whiteness and ignorance on a project about the legacies of slavery hasn’t been lost on us — and deeply undermines the integrity of the project.”
>Taylor founded The Manchester Guardian in 1821 and edited it until his death in 1844. The newspaper was renamed The Guardian in 1959.
>The Scott Trust, which owns the newspaper, has launched a review into Taylor’s slavery links despite saying there was no evidence that he owned slaves or was directly involved in the trade. The podcast was part of the editorial project.
>One of the producers who sent the complaint email was said to be a “rising star in the audio world” who has produced work for Spotify and the BBC, winning awards. The two other individuals who signed the email were freelancers.
>The producers said they wanted to detail their allegations because they were aware of other black producers who had been contacted about working on The Guardian series. They said in their email: “Our experiences are often buried, and production companies are able to continue as though nothing has happened and repeat the same harm whilst using our labour for kudos.”
>They said the slavery podcast was “mismanaged” by a team of Guardian editors. Following “numerous attempts to have good-faith conversations” with their team, the producers said they wrote a formal letter of complaint to their editors. They claimed that this was “ignored for weeks and minimised” before they were offered “ineffective” mediation sessions.
>The email added: “We were routinely undermined, unsupported and deeply frustrated by the absence of journalistic rigour and critical attention to history from a global news organisation. We had hoped to make a series to contribute towards shifting discourse away from the kinds of reductive conversations about race and capitalism that are usually commissioned in our industry.”
>The Guardian confirmed that a complaint had been made by producers working on the slavery series. The project included input from a number of senior black journalists.
>A spokesman said: “The Guardian has been working on a significant editorial project relating to its own history which is to be published soon. The project is being led by a diverse team of experienced and respected Guardian editors, with close involvement from a large number of colleagues and experts who also represent diverse perspectives.
>“We are concerned that some former colleagues and contributors have not had a good experience working with us, but we are disappointed they have chosen to write a partial reflection of their time at The Guardian. We always take any concerns raised with us seriously and we acted immediately to respond to the individuals, including by offering a mediation process, which took place with a mediator chosen by the individuals themselves.
>“The project is largely complete and will not pull any punches in terms of transparency. It will be published in the next few months, and we then look forward to discussing it with readers and colleagues.”
>A key issue was the lack of any serious desire from The Guardian to face and interrogate its own historic role
If you’re not doing that, what even is the point of this project?
>We are concerned that some former colleagues and contributors have not had a good experience working with us, but we are disappointed they have chosen to write a partial reflection of their time at The Guardian.
That seems a really odd thing to say.
The way I comprehend this sentence, is they are saying they are disappointed that the ‘reflection’ doesn’t include the good things that happened as well as the bad things?
But surely if you are complaining about something, you do talk about the bad things. And if the bad things are really bad, does it matter that there were *some* good things as well? Especially if the bad things were so bad, that it got in the way of the project all together.
If I went to a cafe, and was served a really nice sandwich, but the cafe owner came over and randomly punched me in the face – my review would focus on the punch in the face, not so much the sandwich. Would the owner complain that I’d written a ‘partial reflection’ because I didn’t mention the sandwich?
You love to see it
We still haven’t forgotten about the slavery money, either
Again, who founded The Guardian? And where did that money come from? They do try to ignore the man that started the Guardian, with good reasons given the links.
>colourism
Is this the race card you pull when you want to accuse someone of racism but they’re not white?