Dr Krishna Sarda - Ethnic Minority Foundation

Questions: Since our last interview on the recent controversy over Channel 4's Celebrity Big Brother (CBB) programme, Ofcom's sanctions committee has published its ruling. What are your thoughts on the decision?

Dr Krishna Sarda: We are very disappointed. The report sets out clearly how events developed and where there were breaches in standards. I found Channel 4’s justification both very weak and unconvincing.

I also suspect it was a negotiated report with lawyers on both sides working together; it is what you might call a ‘compromise report’.

As a regulator, Ofcom hasn’t done its job properly. When you read the report and its conclusion, you are left expecting more; which is why I suspect it is a ‘compromise report’. The 44,500 and more members of the public who complained deserve more than this.

Questions: Given the statutory sanctions at Ofcom’s disposal and the severity of the charges against Channel 4, do you think that requiring the channel to broadcast a statement of the regulator's findings is an adequate punishment?

Dr Krishna Sarda: Ofcom had the power to impose a financial penalty, five per cent of Channel 4’s revenue to be precise. The regulator should act as a powerful tool against those who flout the Code of Conduct.

Channel 4 is also a public broadcaster that receives taxpayers’ money. A financial penalty by Ofcom would have demonstrated the seriousness of the offences identified in the report. I think they’ve failed in their statutory obligations.

Questions: Given that Channel 4’s remit includes addressing the needs of minority ethnic communities, do you think that these viewers have been let down?

Dr Krishna Sarda: Yes. Channel 4 engaged in activity in which racism and bullying have been normalised and made respectable. They have breached the purpose and objectives for which they were set up.

Questions: Ofcom is entrusted with setting the highest standards of conduct within the broadcasting industry. Do you think that they upheld those in the CBB case?

Dr Krishna Sarda: They really should have responded to the members of the public who complained, given that there was such an unprecedented number of complaints.

As a regulator, they should have been able to communicate sufficiently with and inform all those who complained; it wouldn’t really have taken them long to do a formal response.

They had a responsibility towards consumers, and in the future there’s a real danger that customers just won’t bother.

A financial penalty would have concentrated the minds of Channel 4, who still remain defiant and still haven’t issued an unreserved apology, ignoring the viewers who objected to the broadcasting.

Questions: Why do you think Ofcom did not go further in its ruling?

Dr Krishna Sarda:There is a serious issue that regulators are trying to win over through persuasion rather than penalties.

This strategy fails the consumer and creates a perception that this is all about money and corporate greed, as opposed to public standards and matters of principle.

Questions: What sanctions would you have liked imposed on Channel 4?

Dr Krishna Sarda: As I said, a financial penalty would have been more appropriate. It has been shown that the breaches were not due to recklessness, but a management failure on Channel 4’s part; therefore what could they have done to prevent the incident occurring? Clearly the systems they had in place were not effective in dealing with this.

They need to be able to address these issues. The report has found Channel 4 was in breach of the Broadcasting Code; therefore we expect to see a penalty which is commensurate with the infringements that Ofcom found to have occurred.

Questions: What kind of message do you think that Ofcom’s ruling sends to broadcasting corporations?

Dr Krishna Sarda: There is a confused message; Channel 4 had a strong team and it is the right of anyone to defend themselves.

But this is where the regulator should come in to offer counter-challenges and demonstrate it is not frightened of doing so. Ofcom is entrusted with the power to take action within the ratings-led broadcasting industry, but they have not been able to do this here.

Questions: What impact, if any, do you think Ofcom’s ruling will have on minority ethnic communities?

Dr Krishna Sarda: The feedback that the Ethnic Minority Foundation (EMF) has received has been very negative. It is felt that however well a victim of racism may be able to defend themselves, like for example Shilpa Shetty, broadcasters are still exploiting issues of racism as a form of mass entertainment.

The reality of life in Britain in 2007, is that people suffer racial attacks on a daily basis. Minorities want to play an active part in civic life, and the government is rightly encouraging this role; but when they do, they are let down by organisations like Channel 4 and Ofcom. Disrespect is sadly being shown towards these communities.

Questions: What changes would you like to see in the way regulators operate and the powers they hold?

Dr Krishna Sarda: There should be an effective penalty for these occurrences. How do we create an effective regulator and, ultimately, who regulates the regulator? In my view, this should be us as consumers, the same over 44,500 members of the public who complained.

As consumers, we have the right to know the amount of money Ofcom and Channel 4 paid for their legal teams – these are public bodies and therefore there is an issue of transparency and openness. We will indeed be writing to ministers and the Commons public accounts committee seeking this information.

But what is even more preferable would be an honest conversation with Channel 4 and Ofcom and to know why the offences just didn't commensurate with the penalty imposed.

Questions: What is EMF doing to address the needs of minority ethnic consumers?

Dr Krishna Sarda: We have powerful social networks, and through them are trying to educate consumers who are vulnerable and exposed to the market’s treatment.

We need to get the corporate sector to listen and to respond. So we are really trying to create the platforms for a healthy dialogue where difficult conversations can take place – whether it is big businesses or public bodies talking to individuals or community organisations.

If you are a minority ethnic child excluded from school, for example, you have no way of securing legal recourse against a set of sector professionals within the school system.

The way that some public services treat certain groups is "because you are poor, you are lucky to get public services and I can get away with treating you with disrespect".

We at EMF are talking about the very basic levels of courtesy, about treating others with a bit of compassion, a bit of love, and a bit of understanding – and that goes a long way, and if we can at least secure that, I think it will be wonderful.