Racist language (including racial slurs and racist/ethnic abuse)
Warning: this guidance contains language which may cause offence
Racist language by its very nature is offensive, derogatory, and hurtful. Its effect will depend on the choice of words, the speaker and the context. Different words cause different degrees of offence in different communities as well as in different parts of the world.
As the latest Ofcom research has shown [1], discriminatory language continues to be of concern to audiences:
Racist language, like other strong language, is most likely to cause offence when used gratuitously, in a discriminatory way, and without clear editorial purpose.
The use of racist language must be editorially justified, and signposted, to ensure it meets audience expectations, wherever it appears. Meeting audience expectations does not preclude causing offence, but there must be exceptional editorial reasons to use the strongest racist terms.
Although this guidance is about racist language, the same principles apply to racist gestures.
What is racist language?
An updated list of racist language in the UK is available from the 2021 Ofcom research at: [2]
The 大象传媒鈥檚 Editorial Guidelines give some examples of the 鈥渟trongest鈥� language, but Ofcom鈥檚 research sets out a fuller list including racist words perceived as highly offensive and requiring clear and strong contextual justification. The 2021 list no longer differentiates between 鈥渟trong鈥� and 鈥渟trongest鈥� words so for the purpose of this guidance, all words classified as 鈥渟trong鈥� will be covered by this guidance.
Under this updated guidance, all words in Ofcom鈥檚 鈥渟trong鈥� category for racist language will be a mandatory reference (see below) to the relevant Divisional Director or their named delegate.
The words which require a mandatory reference are: ching chong; chinky; coon; darky; gippo; golliwog; golly; half-caste; jungle bunny; kike; negro; nigger; nig-nog; paki; pikey; raghead; sambo; spade; spic; uncle tom; wog; yid.
Editorial Justification
Ofcom鈥檚 latest research states that 鈥淎udiences told us that, although they want broadcasters to give careful consideration to when and how offensive language is used on TV and radio, they stressed the important role it can play in broadcasting鈥�.
When it comes to issues around race, the report states 鈥淰iewers and listeners said they expect broadcasters to take the utmost care to carefully contextualise the strongest forms of discriminatory language to ensure that audiences are protected鈥�.
At the 大象传媒, the guidance since 2020 has been that using the strongest racist language even where the intention might be to expose or condemn discrimination is not in itself sufficient editorial justification. The guidance continues to be that justification for the use of strong [3] racist language requires that there must be a specific editorial reason why it should be used, for instance, where it might make a difference to audience understanding, or for particular reasons of clarity, or where a contributor is talking about their own personal experience, or where a term might be seen to have been 鈥渞eclaimed鈥�, or in history programmes, or comedy, drama, arts or music, especially with regard to freedom of expression.
The editorial justification test will now carry a presumption that such language will not normally be used unless, for exceptional editorial reasons, there is a judgement 鈥� at Divisional Director (or their named delegate) level 鈥� that it should be used because of the specific context.
Any re-use in another context (for instance at a different time or on a different channel or Video on Demand) would require a new and separate consideration of the editorial justification. This also applies to cut-downs for social media purposes.
When re-using archive content 鈥� written and broadcast 鈥� reflecting standards of the day is no longer, in itself, sufficient justification. Editorial judgement needs to be applied, including looking at purpose and context 鈥� and if the language is deemed to be gratuitous, it should be removed.
Mandatory referral
The Editorial Guidelines already require that use of the strongest language must be referred to and approved by the channel controller/editor (5.3.23). ). This same requirement applies to racist language on TV, Radio and Online/Digital. The Divisional Director or their named delegate should be made aware of and agree the use of the strongest racist language, as listed in Ofcom鈥檚 鈥榮trong鈥� column, in any upcoming programmes or output on TV, Radio and Online/Digital.[4]
The Watershed
The Ofcom Broadcasting Code does not permit certain offensive swear words and their derivatives to be used before the TV watershed, 9pm. Ofcom has not placed the same restriction on the use of strong racist language though it makes clear it is unacceptable to many without clear and strong contextual justification.
The advice for this guidance remains that the use of strong racist language should never be gratuitous or used simply for effect. It requires serious editorial purpose. Strong racist language should only be used on television before the watershed if there is clear and strong contextual justification and provided this has been signed off by the Divisional Director or their named delegate.
The watershed does not exist for Radio and Online/Digital. In Radio, considerations such as the likely audience, the remit and audience expectations of the station, the type of output played, and the person presenting the programme are all key considerations when deciding whether to play such language. For online/digital it is important that audiences have control over what they see and are alerted to any content they may find offensive. Considerations include: does the word have to be used in its entirety, is there another way of conveying what has happened, what is the editorial justification and, especially in the case of cut down versions for social media, is there sufficient context? The Divisional Director or their named delegate must be made aware of and agree its use as per mandatory referral above.
Audience Expectations
The following questions can help determine whether content will be within the expectations of the audience:
- does the identity of the individual using the language make a difference to its acceptability?
- is it being used by a contributor to reflect their own experience?
- is the language used frequently or repetitively?
- is the impact on audiences likely to be greater because of the platform on which it is delivered or the way in which it is delivered?
- what is the tone and intent of the programme or content?
- is use of the word seen as necessary for the audience to have sufficient understanding of the content?
- what is the likely composition of the audience, including the likely number and age range of children, taking account of school time, weekends and holidays? (We should be aware that school holidays are different in different places.)
- are different sections of the audience or different ages/experiences likely to have different views on the content?
- does the person (presenter, performer, writer etc.), slot, title, genre or service carry pre-existing expectations that may be at odds with the content?
- has any difficult or challenging content been clearly signposted to the audience?
- are there any special sensitivities surrounding the slot, for example religious festivals or anniversaries of major events?
- what is the likely 鈥榩ull-through audience鈥� (that is, what is the nature of the preceding content and what kind of audience is it likely to attract)?
Warnings and bleeping/dipping
The pre-meditated use of racist language will always be signposted whether on TV, radio or online/digital. It is important that audiences are not taken by surprise and have sufficient warning to avoid the offence that would be caused if they so wish.
It is preferable to decide whether racist language should or should not be used and to avoid bleeping/dipping. But there may be circumstances in which that is not possible, eg. in some acquisitions. When bleeping/dipping is used it must be done so as to completely disguise the words used. Care should be taken the bleeped/dipped words are not made obvious by visible mouth movements or by captions only partly redacted.
Live Output
As with all strong language it is important that presenters/reporters apologise speedily for the unexpected and unjustifiable use of racist language in live output: this language should usually be removed before being published on 大象传媒 iPlayer and 大象传媒 Sounds.
If the use is judged to be justified by the context eg. when a contributor is talking about their own experience, the apology should make it clear that we are not directing blame on to the contributor for using it but recognising the offence that may be caused to some. See Live Output guidance ().
Using abbreviations
In much output there will be a straightforward choice between using racist language and not doing so. Abbreviations may be used on occasion, for example, 鈥渢he N-word鈥� and 鈥渢he P-word鈥�. But it is important to remember that Ofcom鈥檚 latest research has shown that audiences do not always understand abbreviations, especially in relation to the P-word. Where they are understood, the offence caused may not be much mitigated. So use of abbreviations, which in any case might be editorially inappropriate in some output, should not necessarily be regarded as a safe alternative to the use of the words themselves.
[2] For the purpose of this guidance, the information referenced in this research is about racist language only. The Ofcom research applies to racist terms in the UK 鈥� for international audiences, words deemed racist in local territories must be referred to Divisional Directors or their named delegates.
[3] As identified by Ofcom in its latest research
[4] In output with an ongoing level of content in which for creative reasons the strongest racial language may be used, for example in some sections of Music, the Divisional Director or their named delegate may agree an overall approach.
Last updated May 2022