Fury as Paxman says middle-class white men have no chance in TV
Tuesday, 26 August 2008
Getty
Jeremy Paxman said it had become impossible for middle-class white men to make it in the television world
enlarge
A war of words between two of the nation's best-known news presenters has erupted after the BBC's chief interrogator, Jeremy Paxman, said it had become impossible for middle-class white men to make it in the television world.
The 58-year-old presenter, who is a Cambridge graduate, made his comments in a pre-recorded interview shown at the Edinburgh International Television Festival.
Responding to the suggestion that television had become a "man's world", Mr Paxman said: "The worst thing you can be in this industry is a middle-class white male. If any middle-class white male I come across says he wants to enter television, I say 'give up all hope'. They've no chance."
But yesterday, his counterpart at Channel 4 News, Krishnan Guru-Murthy, said the paranoia felt by men in the industry had caused Mr Paxman to lose perspective about the groups really struggling to make it on to our screens. "I feel awfully sorry for white, middle-class men who went to Oxbridge... but I'm not sure they are the ones at the greatest disadvantage," he said.
"Obviously, the people who really are facing the biggest struggle to make it into television are those from working-class backgrounds and people from ethnic minorities. If they are both working class and from an ethnic minority, they really are up against it."
Mr Paxman also argued that women were increasingly being selected for the industry's top jobs. The Newsnight presenter listed five female television executives, including the BBC1 controller, Jay Hunt, the head of Channel 4 news and current affairs, Dorothy Byrne, and the soon-to-be channel Five chief executive, Dawn Airey, as evidence for his view. "Do I think it's a man's world in television? That is the most ridiculous question I have been asked all week," he said.
His remarks brought strong criticism from the broadcaster Mariella Frostrup. "[Mr Paxman] lists five women because he couldn't possibly name all the men in positions of power in TV because he would be there all bloody day," she said. "It seems to me that TV is a fantastic place for middle-class white males. They are very much judged to be the people imbued with a sort of gravitas that women are still struggling to achieve."
Katherine Rake, the director of the women's campaign group the Fawcett Society, spoke out from the audience after watching the screening of Mr Paxman's interview. "Unfortunately, he's very out of touch with reality," she said. "When you look at who's making the editorial decisions, we found only one out of 17 people was a woman. If you look at the last series of Have I Got News For You, out of 20 contestants they had four women. There is a failure to represent women in terms of news and political content."
It is not the first time one of the BBC's top news presenters has caused a stir with fears of a growing pro-female bias. In 2005, Michael Buerk caused controversy by saying men had become little more than "sperm donors" due to a dramatic shift in the power of the sexes. His former BBC colleague Anna Ford described his comments as "bonkers".
-
Print Article
-
Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2008 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
89 Comments
Amazine site
Thanks, webmaster.
Posted by state select gas water heater | 31.08.08, 02:02 GMT
No I am right. I was explaining to you (with my knowledge of the media) why the female anti-man controller of BBC1 in the 90s enacted poilicies that promoted her female friends and black people over better white men, only commissioned women/ethnic-friendly drama and deliberately commissioned an ident that would show lots of ethic/disabled people - and this would make BBC1 touchy-feely diversity champions she thought (sensible people thought it was dire). THAT was why the rasta wheelchair guy was there. And it all boosted the beeb's diversity figures (it was on MANY times a day). BMEs are OVERrepresented on TV! One token black face this was not.
Kerris - why are you racist and sexist? Why is the first thing you see about someone their colour and sex? Why do you want to punish all white men for crimes they supposedly committed in the past?
I see people as individuals - you just see the colour and sex. Your attitude seems like an excuse for lack of talent. to me
Posted by Charlie | 29.08.08, 08:04 GMT
[Charlie: Kerris. You are wrong... The rasta guy in a wheelchair was in the Ident]
Then how am I wrong? I said, he was one man. Just one. Not the legion of "lots of wheelchair rasta dancers" as Sara-etc claimed. Your points only reinforce my own -- that in the ocean of middle class white maleness (and, in this case, able bodiedness) one token dark face (just the one) be it one shown several times, evokes vitriol, hatred, fear and calls for a cessation to the downfall of civilisation as you know it.
But you are right there. Changes are coming. White males of the middle class persuasion are being challenged (though only a vitriolic idiot could claim they are an endangered species). But so what? Why must you always be in the firm majority? Why is sharing space so threatening to you? What is wrong with taking your place as equals with all humanity?
Posted by Kerris | 28.08.08, 10:44 GMT
"Guess which one I am."
Are you the one with special needs and a brain like blancmange, Sara?
Posted by Hohoho | 27.08.08, 17:24 GMT
"The funniest part of it is, because of attitudes like yours who try and beat down and patronise women, they actually ARE legislating gender"
And so it's funny that men are being discriminated against because of their sex is it? But just now you were saying that doing the same to women was sexist and awful. Make yer mind up love.
You assume as usual that the fact that women are not 50% of all careers at all levels is due to sexism and 'attitudes'. No no no - it's due to differences in the innate aptitudes of males and female - males tend to be better at certain things (science, systems), females tend to be better at certain things (childcare, maternal-type caring jobs) and men tend to excel in all fields.
Therefore your argument is based on a fallacy and is an utterly false one - 50/50 male/female in all jobs ate all levels would NOT be equality or representative of talent and ability. Please try and grow up Sara.
Tim - yes, but UPPER CLASS white men in the past, not all.
Posted by Charlie | 27.08.08, 15:44 GMT
It sounds like they're talking past each other. Paxman's talking about the future, about middle class white men entering the buiness, and his critics are talking about the present, with its legacy from the largely white male controlled past.
Both could very well be right.
Posted by Tim | 27.08.08, 15:13 GMT
... affect on society.
But we're not allowed to comment on men's affect on society are we?
Some allowed a change when they recognised women had a lot to offer. Now, years later there are still men who think that women hve place rather than seeing people as individuals.
See, in this life we need realists and idealists. Realists needs to recognise how things are and idealists how they should be. No use telling me I'm a feminist and it's a bad thing and I will never be equal.
Guess which one I am.
Posted by Sara | 27.08.08, 14:52 GMT
I don't think I'm the one that sounds embittered with respect to this, Errol!
Yes, my degree was Maths. So by your definition, equality means someting to me.
The funniest part of it is, because of attitudes like yours who try and beat down and patronise women, they actually ARE legislating gender, I'll let Charlie tell you all about that.
Errol, it seems like you need to learn to let people have their own opinions. I will continue to make sure that I don't get overlooked because of my gender, and I will continue to ignore comments like this that seem to use feminism as a swear-word.
Did it occur to you that the demise of society which happened around the same time as feminism may be because the men couldn't cope with some women who turned out to be cleverer than them? some men not wanting to support women's rights nd sabotaging it so they could blame it all on women?
No, I'm sure you didn't because women have been astute enough to recognise their affect...tbc
Posted by Sara | 27.08.08, 14:49 GMT
Sara [27.08.08, 13:36 GMT] ... I am responding only to your comments not to any non-existent images. I don't have a doll into which I am sticking pins, although that might be my next step. Ha-ha.
We have ALL been affected by Feminism. People like you especially, because you have been brought up under an extremist, Third Way ideology represented by Blair's New Labour.
There is NO SUCH THING as "Equality." Get that into your sweet head if you can! Equality is a meaningless term unless you are a mathematician. What degree did you say you had?
You cannot legislate 'gender,' although I realize most members of this New Labour government thinks it can be done. This is what makes them failures as people, and so damaging to the country.
Stop living a life where your needs come first, second, and third; then maybe you'll attract the kind of respect that demands attention. Otherwise, you are beginning to sound like an embittered, obsessed, and deluded young soul.
Posted by Errol Flynn | 27.08.08, 14:27 GMT
Sara - but you do NOT want equality. You want inequality - unfair advantage for women through quotas and 'positive action'. If you wanted real equality you'd be prepared to stand on your own two feet not demand a headstart to make up for your lack of talent.
Accept biology and science Sara - if you don't you are rejecting scientific fact in favour of theories that prop up your sexist prejudices.
You are a fantasist - and you use your fantasy that all men are privileged by society to campaign for special advantageous treatment for you. Selfish you, then.
Why do you assume that you as a girlie do not have equality? Is it because females are given inequality in the form of unfair advantage through the courts and positive action policies? It's men who suffer inequlity not women. You embrace victimhood to hude your inadequacies it seems.
I wouldn't employ anyone who didn't know the difference betwen 'effected' an 'affected'.
You're a talentless excuse-making moaner. End of.
Posted by Charlie | 27.08.08, 14:22 GMT
89 Comments