BBC removes article linking bare nails to white supremacist beauty standards

BBC cited failure to challenge source quotes on white supremacist beauty standards

The BBC has permanently removed from its website an article that linked a trend toward bare, unpolished nails to “white supremacist standards of beauty,” after editors concluded the piece did not meet the corporation’s editorial standards. The article had drawn criticism from outlets in the United States and the United Kingdom before the BBC pulled it.

The article, which first ran on the BBC’s website on September 27, examined what it described as a “viral craze” for unadorned manicures flooding social media and fashion catwalks. It also covered criticism of the trend that the piece said could “stigmatise bold manicures,” and noted that nail art had its roots in Black, Latino and Asian communities.

In the article, beauty journalist Kristina Rodulfo was quoted as saying: “That trend really promotes blankness and this kind of sameness and erasure of culture and identity that is so important to black and brown communities.” She added that bare nails “are often called elegant or tasteful and these are often usually euphemisms that perpetuate white supremacist standards of beauty.” In a later section, Rodulfo said: “The examples are almost always white women or celebrities … [and] they’ll often conflate class and taste with that bareness.”

The BBC initially removed the article from its website on September 29 after it had attracted criticism from media outlets in the US, particularly on the political right. The corporation stated at that point that the article had been taken down “pending an editorial review.” The BBC later confirmed the article had been permanently removed the same day. Editors concluded, according to the BBC’s corrections and clarifications register, that the piece “reported criticism of the bare nails trend without sufficient context or challenge and so did not meet our editorial standards.”

The BBC’s stated reason focused on the absence of internal challenge or context, which the BBC described as an editorial-standards failure. The corporation has not revealed who made the decision to remove the article.

The article had drawn criticism from US outlets before its removal. A Wall Street Journal piece called it “embarrassingly retrograde – displaying outdated intellectual fashion – in its attempt to locate offences against social justice in the decisions of individual women whether of not to paint their nails.” The article added: “When you see someone dressed for a costume party, you notice how conspicuous that person is. So it is with the BBC’s attempt to gin up outrage over the semiotics of nail polish.” The New York Post, part of Rupert Murdoch’s media stable, also ran an article criticizing the piece, as did Fox News.

In the United Kingdom, the Telegraph published an opinion piece criticizing the article. “I’ve had some rude awakenings in my time, but being told I’m a white supremacist before I’ve had my coffee? That’s got to be up there,” wrote Celia Walden, a Telegraph feature writer.

The episode comes amid a wider editorial climate at the BBC. Rhodri Talfan Davies serves as deputy director general, a new role created in part to catch potential editorial controversies that had plagued the leadership of Tim Davie, the former director general. Matt Brittin, who replaced Davie, sought a deputy for editorial support given his lack of television and editorial experience.

The BBC is also the subject of ongoing legal action from Donald Trump over the way an episode of Panorama edited together two parts of a Trump speech. While the BBC apologized for the edit, it has maintained the documentary did not defame the president.