Last Updated on 23/09/2023 by Emma Purcell
Following the backlash on the decision to name Rosie Jones’ ableism documentary Am I a R*tard?, Channel 4’s Disability Consultant Ally Castle has spoken out to explain why she advised Rosie to choose the title she has for the Channel 4 documentary. Here, Ally discusses why she feels this is the right title and the considerations around using it.
Channel 4’s decision making process
There has been much discussion on social media and in the mainstream press about the title of a Channel 4 documentary in which comedian Rosie Jones tells her personal story of online and real-world ableism and abuse. It has been widely – and correctly – reported that the broadcaster’s inclusion of an upsetting ableist slur in the name of the film was “carefully considered in conversations with the editorial team, Rosie and a disability consultant”.
I am that disability consultant – Ally Castle. I am disabled and I have worked in TV for over 20 years. Throughout my career, fair and authentic representation of disabled people behind the camera, on the screen and in the audience at home has been my passionate commitment.
The backlash against the title of the documentary has largely been directed at Rosie, for understandable reasons. Next in the firing line has been the faceless “they” of Channel 4. But Rosie was not alone in being a disabled person who, after a great deal of thought and discussion, a few tears and moments of anger, agreed with shining a spotlight on that particular word in this very particular context.
And Channel 4 is not just an amorphous brand or organisation; it’s made up of human beings who have to make sometimes difficult – even impossible – human judgements about the best way to tell stories so they have meaning and impact. Including how to title them to reflect the topic, tone and purpose of their content in just a handful of words. It’s a delicate, difficult balance.
We discussed other titles, of course, we did. But Channel 4 owes its very existence (and continued existence) to the distinctive remit to champion unheard voices, to take bold creative risks and to inspire change in the way we lead our lives in the UK. Provoking and challenging are in its DNA. Channel 4 causes controversy not for the sake of it, but to push boundaries and prompt conversation at a national level on issues from poverty to the menopause via body image and paedophilia.
Combine that broadcaster’s mission and mindset with the force of nature which is Rosie Jones – brash, bold, tell-it-like-is – and add in this highly emotive but appallingly under-represented subject matter, and it was always going to be uncomfortable. But equally, it was always going to be powerful and thought-provoking. And believe me, it is.
This title wasn’t forced upon Rosie Jones
There have been concerns raised that this title was foisted onto Rosie. No. Rosie is on record as being absolutely adamant that she wanted to use that word in the title. There have been assumptions – accusations even – that it was chosen solely and deliberately to shock, as a kind of clickbait. No. It was chosen because it is deeply relevant to the subject, story and objective of the film.
There have been inferences that Rosie is abusing her privileged position to claim to speak on behalf of all disabled people. No. Rosie is telling her story and her story alone. There have been accusations that we didn’t consider the impact on other disabled people in using that term in the title. No. We did. But this isn’t a film about other people, this is a film about Rosie. Hence the deliberate use of the personal pronoun and the fact the title starts with her name. There have been misunderstandings that Rosie is trying to reclaim the word and inject it with a new, positive meaning. No. She is absolutely, 100% condemning it.
No intention to offend disabled people
There was never, ever any intention to hurt or offend any disabled people by settling on the title. Quite the opposite. The intention is to highlight a broad and important social issue, which speaks to the heart of who we value and how we treat each other. And this is through the very personal story of one woman who, precisely because of her profile, puts herself in the line of fire for disgusting, horrendous abuse and ableism on a daily basis.
When you watch the film, you will see a side to Rosie that she hasn’t put into the public domain before. And you will also hear her categorically answer the question which the title poses.
It is, again, an absolutely resolute NO. No to the bullies and the trolls, no to the people who throw abusive ableist terms around as if they’re just a minor insult or a bit of casual slang, no to the people who don’t even consider the meaning of the language they are using. No to that word.
But to make that point absolutely loud and clear, Rosie, the editorial team and I made the incredibly difficult decision to include that word in the title, to shine a light on how appalling and damaging it really is. In the spirit of Ian Dury’s Spasticus Autisticus and the Piss on Pity campaign, Rosie, like other disabled game-changers is confronting a brutal reality about being disabled in a brutal way. Not everybody agreed with their approach, but the impact is undeniable.
Someone has said to me in the last few days: the use of that word is never acceptable under any circumstances. I disagree. It is unacceptable in 99.9% of circumstances. Here, where the story is about ableist slurs and online abuse. Here, where a woman who just wants to make people laugh and challenge their perceptions along the way has become a lightning rod for so much vitriol against disabled people and wants to turn that daily horror into a force for genuine change. Here where that word is hurdled at her again and again by total strangers and considered inoffensive by social media platforms. Here and only here, on the balance of probabilities, I think it is acceptable.
Why has this title caused so much controversy?
And let’s ask ourselves why this title has caused so much controversy. Because disabled people are, rightly, deeply offended by that word while mainstream culture can’t necessarily see what all the fuss is about. When Channel 4 originally announced the documentary, the title went out without an asterisk. Nobody batted an eyelid. That disconnect – no, that deep chasm – between what we as disabled people feel and experience and how wider society thinks of and behaves towards us is where the root of the issue lies. And it’s that which we should be focusing on.
You may disagree with me, of course. And, of course, I fully respect that. I’m not here to tell you how to feel or think. Neither is Rosie. As disabled people – up to 20% of the population – we will inevitably have different views and take different approaches. We don’t all have to agree, there’s actually no such thing as “the” disabled community. As I once heard Tanni Grey-Thompson say, we don’t all live in a care home together.
I hope that one day we do live in a world where that word and other ableist slurs are considered so universally unspeakable that we don’t need to make documentaries about them. We’re not there yet. But maybe we will be one step closer once this documentary airs.
Read Emma’s article review: Rosie Jones Gives A Personal And Honest Account Of The True Scale Of Ableism In A New Documentary
Rosie Jones: Am I a R*tard? will be available to watch and stream on Thursday 20th July, at 10pm on Channel 4.
What are your thoughts on Rosie Jones’ documentary and the choice of title? Let us know in the comments box or on social media.
