A BBC article that included a claim that a trend for bare nails was linked to “white supremacist standards of beauty” has been permanently removed from its website, after editors concluded it did not meet the corporation’s editorial standards.
The article, which first ran on the BBC’s website on ۲۷ September, examined an apparent “viral craze” for bare rather than decorated nails. It said the trend had been flooding social media and fashion catwalks.
It also covered criticisms of the trend, which suggested it could “stigmatise bold manicures”. The article noted that nail art had its roots in black, Latino and Asian communities.
In an early section of the article, it quoted the beauty journalist Kristina Rodulfo 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.
“They are often called elegant or tasteful and these are often usually euphemisms that perpetuate white supremacist standards of beauty.”
Later in the piece, Rodulfo was quoted again as saying: “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 Tuesday after the piece had attracted criticism from media outlets in the US, particularly on the political right. The corporation stated it had been removed “pending an editorial review”.
However, the BBC has since confirmed that the article had been permanently removed. Bosses concluded there was no challenge in the piece to the quotes linking bare nails to white supremacy, or any context that such opinions would be seen as extreme.
A Wall Street Journal piece stated the BBC article was “embarrassingly retrograde – displaying outdated intellectual fashion – in its attempt to locate offences against social justice in the decisions of individual women whether to paint their nails or not.
It stated: “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 criticising the piece, as did Fox News.
An opinion piece in the Telegraph also attacked it. “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 feature writer.
On its corrections and clarifications register, the BBC stated: “This article examined the trend of bare nails and what might be motivating it, hearing from a range of contributors as well as looking at the cultural significance of manicures. It was removed on ۲۹ September pending an editorial review.
“Following this review the article was permanently removed on the same day because it reported criticism of the bare nails trend without sufficient context or challenge and so did not meet our editorial standards.”
The BBC has not revealed who made the decision to remove the article. However, the BBC’s deputy director general, Rhodri Talfan Davies, was appointed to the new role in order to catch potential editorial rows that plagued the leadership of the former director general, Tim Davie.
Matt Brittin, who replaced Davie, was also keen to have a deputy for support on editorial matters, given his lack of television and editorial experience.
The BBC is still the subject of legal action from Donald Trump over the way an episode of Panorama edited together two parts of a Trump speech. While the BBC apologised for the edit, it has always maintained the documentary did not defame the president.
