Steven Baxter

Patrolling the murkier waters of the mainstream media

Is Radio 4 too middle class?

The station's voices are most likely to be drawn from selective and private schools, white, middle aged and male. Does that matter, though?

By Steven Baxter Published 26 July 2012 16:22

BBC Radio 4: too middle class?

Here’s a story for the hand-wringers at the BBC to think about: according to a survey by OurBeeb, Radio 4’s voices are most likely to be middle class, drawn from selective and private schools, white, middle aged and male. At least, that’s what they found when they spoke to 42 presenters and guests on Radio 4 on 4 June this year. The findings are not a shock to anyone, I’d imagine. But should Radio 4, the leading speech radio broadcaster in the land, be something other than a home for the establishment?

A similar diversity audit of any media outlet or publication might arrive at similar numbers. The route from fee-paying school to what we refer to as "the media", via Oxbridge and a stint as an unpaid intern, is fairly well-paved; and if you didn’t have to worry terribly about money, you’d want to do something fun and glamorous. (Which working in the media seems, I suppose, for a lot of us, until we got there.) As far as the Oxbridge aspect is concerned, you could see it as evidence that candidates from the "best" universities are rightly scooped up by the BBC. Another way of looking at it, of course, would be to suppose that not everyone reaches the peak of their abilities at 17 years of age, nor continues that upward trajectory throughout their lives, and that where you went to university shouldn’t matter as much as what skills and abilities you have. Call me a graduate of a former polytechnic with a chip on his shoulder if you like, I don’t mind.

Is this something that’s limited to Auntie? I doubt it. Even the less glamorous quarters of the media in which I’ve worked have been overwhelmingly white and middle class, and mainly managed by men, as are many other industries, I’m sure. Highly desirable jobs will attract highly motivated, highly qualified candidates. There are probably socio-economic factors behind some of the lack of diversity – who can actually afford to intern for free, for example, unless they’ve got some kind of family support? But there’s still a whiff of suspicion that "non-U" types are calibrated to fail the recruitment process.

I’ll always remember that the only ever job application form I completed which asked for the name of the school I attended - just the name - on the front page was for a national newspaper. Look, maybe they saw that as being a really, really important piece of information for some reason, and was therefore worth putting ahead of qualifications or experience. I’m sure there are plenty of sensible reasons for it. There’s no point getting worked up about these things, because you can never prove anything, and you end up looking rather bitter and jaded.

Regardless, there is a suspicion among some folk that the BBC, like the dustier quarters of the civil service, retains a "nod and a wink" policy for the old-school tie; and that the usual Tristrams will get waved through without having to be terribly bright. I don’t know if I share that particular paranoia, even though I’ve applied for BBC jobs a handful of times and never made the interview stage. Was that because I went to a state school, or because I just wasn’t good enough? (I suspect it’s the latter.)

What’s the answer then? Well, first we have to see if there’s a problem, which would require a more extensive survey than this, with many more participants. Secondly, we have to ask if it really is a problem of bias or a problem of lack of opportunity. Finally, if there is a problem, and if it is because of some kind of selection bias, employers could do worse than look at the principle of the "Rooney rule". That states that if you select from a diverse slate of candidates, and you end up through affirmative action seeing more candidates from different backgrounds reach the final phase of selection, you end up hiring a wider range of people, while still retaining quality. That is, if there’s a problem.

Maybe the Radio 4 audience is happy with the voices it has, and wouldn’t want anything to change. But maybe the country’s leading broadcaster has more to consider than that.

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

Tags: BBC Radio 4

More from Steven Baxter

View the discussion thread.

25 comments

Thu, 2012-09-13 22:53 — Caroline Crampton

Comments on this article are now closed. Thanks for the contributions.

Thu, 2012-09-13 22:32 — Roger McCarthy (not verified)

Seriously just fuck the fuck off.

Radio 4, Radio 3, BBC4 and BBC Parliament are the only reasons to keep paying that monstrously regressive poll tax called the license fee at all.

Fri, 2012-08-10 22:31 — Dunc (not verified)

Reasonable article. I work in the regional media and would like to move to the natiaonals but I can't afford to give up everything and move south for little or no pay until they decide if I'm worth keeping on A lot of people I know are in a similar situation.

I don't like the sel-righteous tone though, how many staff at the Staggers, Guardian and Indy are from a working class background? Very few, I would wager.

Thu, 2012-08-02 17:13 — swatantra

I like R4 and am proud to be Middle Class. Its good that midde class values are being passed on for the benefit of all concerned. I also like R3 which is highbrow and educational as well as being entertaining.

Mon, 2012-07-30 15:38 — Matt Wardman (not verified)

The survey is so incomplete as to be meaningless.

I'd have expected you to catch that, Steven.

Mon, 2012-07-30 01:33 — Stunned

Oh for gods sakes leave Radio 4 alone. Why is it whenever something is for the majority of people in the UK its considered bad. What's so wrong with the middle classes having a radio station ? No one ever complains that Asian Radio Stations are too Asian or that black radio stations play too much black music. Funny that but I suppose thats the English guilt complex again.

Sun, 2012-07-29 23:52 — mbrecker (not verified)

The BBC should decide. Are we a commercial or national network? In many ways, it's starting to turn into the Stateside version (PBS and NPR). Both have commercial sponsors. It's obvious that they are commercial sponsors. Yet, they always says "support comes from _____".

What does this selective amnesia mean? If you don't specifically say "commercial" or "sponsor", then magically they're not? Now, many "public stations" get money from listeners AND have sales staff to sell advert times. Does this mean that commercial networks can do the same thing? Will NBC say please send us money so we won't cancel your favorite show (because we're too poor to pay for producing it ourselves)?
Imagine if the BBC had a "NewsNight Telethon" to keep Paxman from getting sacked due to budget cuts. Would YOU donate?

Sun, 2012-07-29 12:35 — Indu Pendent

- no one has to listen to R4 if they dont want to yet its a long term popular station
- there are many working class stations -- R1, R2, many of the private stations etc -- for people to choose if they dont like R4

I dont like R3 much and very rarely listen to it and can see it appeals to ultra middle class ask the family types. But I get it and still think we should support R3.

Why does Britian suffer from the desease of trying to self destroy itself? R4 is harmless and creates diversity --- you might not like it but there are people who move up the social scale. If they dont interfere with us and help generate wealth we all get to enjoy then why do we want to stop them?

Fri, 2012-07-27 19:45 — Pavlova

The BBC has a remit to be representative, so what's wrong with them representing the middle-class with one of their radio channels?

Fri, 2012-07-27 22:56 — Keir

Because the BBC has remit to be representative of everyone, irrespective of the arbitrary divisions 0f channels. So R4 needs to be representative in matters political, philosophical, literary and religious— and it damn well isn't. R3 needs to employ presenters from all social groups— and not indulge in contemptible snobbery. The BBC remains a bastion of anti-democracy, and really ought to be closed down.

Sun, 2012-07-29 12:48 — Indu Pendent

BBCs remit is to cater for different tastes across the range of its output not in every single piece of its output.

Half of all adults are let down by the state and leave the Labour designed school system without GCSE maths and english. Less than 1% of people leave university with a 1st class degree. A lot of the audience are under 10. Should all BBC tv and radio programmes cater for everyone at the same time (surely that would be democratic)?

Fri, 2012-07-27 15:16 — Sam Gisoad (not verified)

Even if R4 were resolutely middle class and nothing more, what of it? Why can't one - or maybe even two - station/s be? There are quite a few middle class people (and since other people have brought the dreaded race into it, quite a few white people as well); they pay the licence fee, should they not be permitted a station? Just because some people don't like it, why does that mean it should change? I don't much care for Radio 5 or Radio 1, but I don't try to deny it to anyone else, or demand that they air more programmes about literature or choral music.

To quote the late, great Simon Raven:

"The cry, 'If I can't, you mustn't', had some trace of justification, however sullen and unlovely the sound of it. Nowadays we hear instead an even less lovely cry, 'If I don't want to, you mustn't' ie. 'It is just possible that I am, after all, missing out on something of value which you have been shrewd enough to detect and I haven't, and that wouldn't be fair and equal, now would it?'"

Fri, 2012-07-27 09:43 — NotepadOnLife (not verified)

How come this kind of angle only sees the light of day when it involves the dreaded middle class?

'Why does so much radio pander to oiks?' - now THERE'S a story.

Fri, 2012-07-27 08:11 — frances smith

i find radio 4 very very very boring. this may well be because of the background of people who work for it. but i would fear that given that it is made up of conformist ex oxbridge graduates without an original idea in their head, that if they tried to create diversity by having a few people from other backgrounds they would be bound to go down the incredibly unoriginal route of dumbing down, rather than look for intelligent and original thinkers from other backgrounds.

so this is a difficult problem, as it is so boring it is hard to see how such boring people can create change that is not of itself also boring.

Fri, 2012-07-27 07:32 — THENIGHTPORTER (not verified)

Radio 3 listeners probably regard Radio 4 as almost as chavvy as Classic FM, and as for the overarching BBC attitude towards the serious arts, well, just look how they took Mark Lawson off the screen.

Down down down, as Daryl Braithwaite sang.

Everything in the UK is middle-class, from the people who programmed this website, to the left-leaning lecturers in the universities who buy the actual paper, talking about a revolution, like it was a tastefully arranged Tracey Chapman track.

(Yes, I like '80s music, how gauche of me, but wait, so do Newsnight producers...)

Thu, 2012-07-26 22:57 — NC81 (not verified)

Yes, Radio 4 could do a lot more to feature new and different voices and perspectives - and be a much richer experience for it.

For me - someone in my early 30s I'm long adrift from Radio 1. I yearn for an intelligent, topical, radio station, but I just can't stomach the whole Oxbridgeness of R4. I'm postgrad educated, but to even to me most of the stuff is esoteric, plummy and out of touch. It says nothing to me about my life.

Fri, 2012-07-27 00:20 — camilla Potter (not verified)

Esoteric? Plummy? Oxbridgeness? Sounds like you are simply quoting what the "chattering classes" say. For a start, John Humphrys didn't attend any university, let alone Oxford or Cambridge! Perhaps you would like the airwaves to be filled with the "Gurriers" who have now taken over the television channels. Leave Radio 4 alone; If you can't stomach it, don't listen to it. Try reading a book that says something to you about your life, whatever that is. Such a ridiculous hackneyed statement.

Thu, 2012-07-26 21:25 — McMac

No.

And anyway how can something be too middle class, and what does that mean?

I find Radio 4 to be a bit too arts dominated and the constant feminist critique applied to every book, film and play gets a bit repetitive and boring. I'd be interested what the ratio of male to female producers is? But I don't hold with the racist, sexist and ageist opinions expressed in this article.

Thu, 2012-07-26 19:11 — lizoid (not verified)

Yeah, radio4 probably is too white, too middle class and too male, but it's good at what it does. That's the market they cater to and why shouldn't they? Other BBC radio stations cater to distinct markets too.

I know loads of clever and interesting people who've applied to the BBC in recent years, and the only person to get a job was a distinctly mediocre and obnoxious person whose dad happened to work there. Like you I am very suspicious of their recruitment policy.

Thu, 2012-07-26 18:32 — Keir

Radio 4 at least has some rationale for its elitism, due to the intellectual nature of its output. That's just reflection of English society. Radio 3 listeners have names like Sara Mohr-Pietsch and Fiona Talkington to get past.

Thu, 2012-07-26 18:18 — nicol (not verified)

I am so sorry my post kept appearing - I had to press the comment button several times
before it worked, then overtime.

Thu, 2012-07-26 23:42 — Gareth

You've certainly got the hang of the repetitive sound bite; have you considered a career in politics?

Fri, 2012-07-27 04:31 — ClaireL (not verified)

In my 60 yrs I've listened to Radio 4 / Home Service and for people of my age and older, it's become a prop (of respectable and decent reporting) and a gauge that the world hasn't turned upside down quite yet. There have been sad times, like when Alister Cook sent out his last "Letter from America", and when Kenneth Williams' manic humour could no longer be heard on the comedy shows. Women's Hour "saved my sanity" almost literally when a speaker talked about her "hidden" illness, up to then unheard of by most, and still very rarely known about. It has lulled me to sleep many a night in the wee small hours with the shipping forecast and "Sailing Away". So I think it's a very important radio station loved by many, and should be, perhaps is, listened to by young and old alike. I'm certainly not from "Yuppie, yah yah land" and I don't think you have to be to recognise quality reportage, despite the accents. I hope, rather selfishly, that it continues until I die.

Thu, 2012-07-26 18:16 — nicol (not verified)

Great that the middle class (numerous) have at least one station to listen to
without the chavvy chat and c**p on all other stations except R4 extra and R3.