Guardian newspaper podcast on historical links to slavery hit by racist complaint from award-winning producer

EXCLUSIVE: The Guardian’s plan to produce a podcast about its historic ties to the slave trade has been the subject of a racial complaint from an award-winning audio producer who worked on the series.

The British newspaper has launched a major editorial project on its founder, John Edward Taylor, and his links to transatlantic slavery. The heart of the work is a podcast that will be published in the coming months.

Deadline can reveal that three producers wrote their concerns to executives after working on the show last year. The trio accused The Guardian of “institutional racism, editorial whiteness and ignorance” and added that the newspaper tried to “whitewash the story” in making the podcast.

The Guardian said it was “concerned” that manufacturers were not having a good experience. Her allegations were discussed during an arbitration process and are only a “partial” account of events. It added that the slavery podcast would make no secret of covering The Guardian’s story.

The manufacturers raised their concerns in an email sent to a mailing list of UK audio professionals on Monday (full email below). Deadline knows the identity of the sender of the email but has chosen not to identify him. A rising star in the audio world, he has produced originals for Spotify and the BBC and won awards for his work. The other two people who signed the email were freelancers from The Guardian Project.

Producers said they wanted to describe their experiences because they knew of other black producers who had been contacted about working on The Guardian series.

“Our experiences are often buried and production companies can carry on as if nothing happened and repeat the same damage while using our work for compliments,” the email to UK Audio Network members said.

They said the slavery podcast was “mismanaged” by a team of Guardian editors that Deadline knows included senior black journalists.

“We have been routinely undermined, unsupported and deeply frustrated by a global news organization’s lack of journalistic rigor and critical attention to its history,” the email continued.

“A key issue has been the Guardian’s lack of a genuine desire to engage with its own historical role and to question what that has meant for its journalism so far and what accountability might look like going forward.”

Producers said they experienced “microaggressions, colorism, bullying, passive-aggressive and obstructive leadership styles” and dismissed their concerns as “trauma.”

After “numerous attempts to have good faith discussions” with their team, the producers said they wrote a formal letter of complaint to their editors. They claimed they were “ignored and minimized” for weeks before being offered “ineffective” mediation sessions. Those familiar with the process at The Guardian said the producers’ concerns were quickly addressed and they were offered a mediator of their choice.

“We hoped to create a series that would help move the discourse away from the limiting conversations about race and capitalism that are typically held in our industry,” said the three producers.

“The result of this project is a massive indictment of the newspaper. The irony of dealing with institutional racism, editorial whiteness and ignorance towards a project about the legacy of slavery is not lost on us – and deeply undermines the integrity of the project.

Guardian: We have taken the concerns seriously

The Guardian has confirmed that producers working on the slavery series have filed a complaint. A spokesman said: “The Guardian has been working on a major editorial project related to its own story which will soon be published.

“The project is led by a diverse team of experienced and respected Guardian editors, with close involvement from a variety of colleagues and experts, who also represent diverse perspectives.

“We are concerned that some former colleagues and staff have not had a good experience with us, but we are disappointed that they have chosen to write a partial account of their time at the Guardian.

“We always take any concerns raised with us seriously and have acted promptly to respond to the individuals, including offering a mediation process carried out with a mediator from the individuals themselves.

“The project is largely complete and will benefit from transparency in terms of transparency. It will be released in the coming months and we look forward to discussing it with readers and colleagues.”

All three producers who signed the email are no longer working on the project after their contracts expired in December. The podcast is now almost complete.

The son of a cotton merchant, Taylor founded The Manchester Guardian in 1821. The Scott Trust, which owns the paper, published a review of Taylor’s links to slavery and said from the outset that there was no evidence that he was a slave owner or directly involved in the slave trade.

The manufacturer who sent the email did not respond to repeated requests for comment.

Full email from the producers:

Dear UKAN,

We – [redacted] – contact us to share our recent experience with the Guardian.

We do this because we understand that they are reaching out to Black producers, editors and sound designers to complete a project that we have been working tirelessly on for the past year. We want to give you, our colleagues, clear context so that when you are spoken to, you know what happened and can therefore make informed decisions. We also wanted to share our experience because we know from talking to many of you that our experiences are often buried when things like this happen and manufacturing companies can continue as if nothing happened and repeat the same damage while we use our work for a feather

We were commissioned to work on a multi-part series exploring the legacy of slavery, taking The Guardian’s explorations into its own history as a starting point. We were promised a supportive environment where we could have open, generative conversations about race and history without the usual defensiveness and pushback we’ve all experienced from leaders of different races. That did not happen.

Instead, we spent months working on a mismanaged project and struggled to get the job done due to the agency’s efforts to whitewash the story. We are routinely undermined, unsupported and deeply frustrated by a global news organization’s lack of journalistic rigor and critical attention to its history. A key problem has been the Guardian’s lack of a genuine desire to engage with its own historical role and to question what this has meant for its journalism so far and what accountability might look like in the future.

This left room for microaggression, colorism, bullying, passive-aggressive and obstructive leadership styles that caused frustration and stress among production team members. Our concerns are dismissed as “trauma” and “baggage” rather than sound expertise and analysis, often admitting or defending their own ignorance of the subject. We worked with managers who didn’t have an overview of the series or the theme and often had to solve and work around the poor leadership and lazy production of our full-time colleagues while working part-time.

We have made numerous attempts to speak to our team in good faith, without success. So we wrote a formal letter of complaint to the editors, raising these issues and the impact they have not only on the editors, but also on us as producers. Our letter was ignored and belittled for weeks until we had ineffective mediation sessions (which we were unable to attend) just before Christmas when our contracts expired. We heard nothing until two weeks ago, and although we had less than 48 hours to broadcast it, we were immediately banned from our email and Shared Drive accounts and told to stop our remaining work.

It was an incredible challenge for us, as we all care deeply about this story and we were excited to produce something in solidarity with movements in the different parts of the world featured in the series. We hoped to create a series that would help shift the discourse away from the kind of limiting talk about race and capitalism that is typically presented in our industry. The institution is now looking for other producers to complete our work and has ignored our concerns. The result of this project is a massive indictment against the newspaper. The irony of dealing with institutional racism, editorial whiteness and ignorance towards a project about the legacy of slavery has not escaped us – and deeply undermines the integrity of the project.

While this is both unsurprising and disappointing, we hope the series can continue to bring positive change and education.

Best wishes,

[Redcated]