‘Diverse’: Why We Need More Accurate Language in TV

There’s immense power in the words we use. Our choice of language builds and reinforces our ideas about the world around us. That’s why getting our words right is crucial to understanding and overcoming the challenges we face in the TV industry.

Though the last two years have thrown additional challenges on our plates, the TV industry has come some way since diversity and inclusion became a focus point for broadcasters and indies in 2020. Generally speaking, representation of the global ethnic majority is stronger than ever and representation of women, LGB+ and transgender talent is either comparable to or above the working-age population. 

We know there is still a way to go though.

Finding talent from under-represented backgrounds is one thing, but creating inclusive environments that get the best out of them and addressing toxic work cultures is just as important, and often overlooked. At Gritty Talent, we take a holistic approach to EDI and tackle these two halves as a whole, ensuring businesses find the best talent for the job and have the knowledge and tools to retain them.

But we’re one organisation and many of the challenges the TV industry faces aren’t easy fixes. 

That being said, some things are easy to change. Language requires no institutional overhauls, five-year plans, or back-and-forths - just some awareness and a bit of intention. This brings us to our main point of how we as an industry use the word ‘diverse’.

At Gritty Talent, we often read articles, find opportunities, or have conversations where ‘diverse’ is used to describe a single group. You can even see examples of this in sessions specifically designed to educate people on diversity and inclusion in TV - ‘diverse talent/writers/directors’... the list goes on. 

More often than not, it’s used as a somewhat lazy placeholder for ‘non-white’.

At face value using ‘diverse’ seems harmless - and sure, your audience will understand you. However, choosing to use ‘diverse’ rather than specific or more accurate language perpetuates the segregative attitude that remains a barrier to true diversity and inclusion in the industry, by centring one experience as the norm and perpetuates the ‘othering’ of everyone else.

Let’s not forget that something can only be diverse if there is diversity - that also includes white, heterosexual, cis-gender, and non-disabled people. Referring to Black talent, for example, as ‘diverse [insert role here]’ is grammatically and factually incorrect, and can come off as inconsiderate. 

Even a production comprised of a largely black crew and cast is not diverse by that fact alone. Is there a fair gender balance? What’s the age range like? Is their LGB+ representation? Are disabled talent welcome and working on this production? Are other ethnicities represented on set? These are the questions we should ask when we consider whether something is diverse.    

This isn’t to point fingers at anyone - misuse of the word permeates the entire industry and has become commonplace for many professionals. Even those most affected by the historical barriers of exclusion still use ‘diverse’ in this way, but by using it as a placeholder, you could argue that we’re doing more harm than good to all the hard work we’ve collectively put in over the years.

There’s a danger that by using catch-all phrases we trick ourselves into thinking that the groups considered ‘diverse’ are somehow monolithic - that by focusing on the challenges of one demographic or another, we’ve solved the problems of all. This only simplifies a highly nuanced topic, that won’t ever get solved until it’s treated as such. 

Maybe part of the reason we’re not seeing progress across the board is that the industry isn’t treating diversity as a multifaceted, encompassing practice?

The solution is simple - we get specific. If you mean global ethnic majority, say that. If you mean d/Deaf, Disabled and/or Neurodiverse, say that. Lesbian, Gay Bisexual+, socio-economically disadvantaged, and so on. Not only is this appropriate, but it also means we can address the unique challenges faced by groups within these wider demographics…

Looking at the Diamond Data 7th Cut report, we know that while GEM (referred to as BAME in the report) is generally well-represented, this isn’t the case when we look at separate ethnicities. In the same report, you can see that although LGB+ community has strong representation, there is a huge disparity between gay men and gay women/lesbians. 

In times when being specific doesn’t necessarily apply, consider using more accurate language. Typically, what some may consider ‘diverse’ groups are actually historically under-represented groups. By using under-represented, you’re acknowledging the historical and systemic barriers that have prevented some demographics from benefiting from the same privileges as others, without centring any one group as the standard, or norm.  

These are small changes that make a huge difference. You can’t have meaningful change without a conversation, and for that, you need the right language. By challenging our perception of what diversity truly means, our efforts to create a more diverse, inclusive, and equal landscape can be more efficient, more meaningful, and more impactful.

That’s the key - not just talking the talk but walking the walk. That may be easier said than done, but Gritty Talent’s business services are designed to have you speaking the language of inclusion fluently and implementing policies that have you, your team, and your business flying. 

Through a mix of consultancy, data analysis, learning, and strategy, Gritty’s bespoke and practical programmes give you the tools, expertise, and confidence to supercharge your EDI activities. Want to know more? Provide a few details here and we’ll be in touch to discuss how Gritty Talent can support your business.