The 2026 Bafta Film Awards are the latest topic to make headlines and stir online debate, and not because of a starlet’s eye-catching red-carpet attire, or which film has been robbed of the highest prize, but due to the broadcasting of racial slurs shouted by a guest, Tourette syndrome (TS) activist John Davidson, at Black actors Michael B Jordan and Delroy Lindo. As the BBC finds itself embroiled in yet another reputational challenge, there are several lessons for crisis communications professionals to glean.

It is an impossible situation. Coprolalia, a symptom of TS which causes involuntary outbursts of obscene, socially inappropriate, and derogatory remarks, is a highly stigmatised and misunderstood condition. Meanwhile, the deeply harmful impact and consequences of racial slurs, in this case rooted in the subjugation of Black people, cannot be understated. Public response has shown a difficulty for the media and individuals to reconcile these two facts in order to come to a balanced consensus on how the situation should be handled: on the one hand, some are calling for the incident to simply be forgotten as a harmless consequence of a serious disability; others are calling for accountability for the harms caused by racism.

Some commentators are seeking to draw attention back to the role of the Baftas and the BBC as the event’s broadcaster. Is there any way such an impossible situation could have been made tenable by the responsive actions of the corporates involved?

Inclusivity supreme

According to reports, the audience in attendance at the ceremony were advised in advance that they may hear some offensive remarks from Mr Davidson due to his TS. At the end of the night, host Alan Cumming reiterated this, explaining the involuntary nature of the “strong and offensive language” caused by TS tics.

While appreciation was initially voiced for the steps taken by the organisers to encourage TS awareness and inclusivity, the approach met its limitations due to the imbalance in the live vs. television audience experience, and the noted lack of duty of care following the incident. The viewers watching at home were not privy to the learning exercise prepared for the ceremony attendees. The slur heard on screen would not have only impacted the individuals to whom they were directed, but the countless Black viewers watching from home; furthering the harm caused.

The broadcast aired two hours after the actual event, and it was noted that some comments from award winners during speeches likely to spark controversy were edited out. This caused many to question why the BBC did not take the opportunity to edit out the racial slurs.

The BBC did indeed later make this edit to the on-demand stream of the broadcast, but the damage had already been done: it took a mere matter of hours for the backlash to take hold and attract the interest of international media and high-profile celebrities.

The sins of the “sorry if you were offended” sorry

The immediate response of the BBC focused on explaining the slurs as a consequence of Mr Davidson’s disability: “Some viewers may have heard strong and offensive language during the Bafta film awards 2026. This arose from involuntary verbal tics associated with Tourette syndrome, and was not intentional. We apologise for any offence caused by the language heard.”

Neutral, factual and to-the-point – the typical hallmark of an effective media statement. This sentiment was further echoed by Alan Cumming’s on-air apology on behalf of the Baftas, “if [you] were offended”.

On this occasion however, the neutral inflections of the apology have served to draw more scrutiny to the broadcaster, with some noting that it did little to acknowledge or reflect the seriousness of the slur: notably, Oscar-winning production designer Hannah Beachler, who also experienced a racial slur tic at the ceremony, took to X to criticise the “throwaway apology” as offensive in itself.

This has been the tone of much commentary online and in media articles; questioning the extent to which the BBC’s response shows real empathy to those on the receiving end of the harmful language.

Perhaps recognising the limitations of its initial statement, the BBC hours later provided a follow-up statement claiming that the production team simply did not hear the slur, before confirming that it would now be removed from the on-demand version.

One culture war after another

The unfortunate and predictable consequence of conversations around tough topics like racism and disability in this day and age is that they rapidly become cannon fodder for the outrage machine. Anyone who works in crisis communications will tell you that social media simply isn’t the place for productive discourse about complex matters, as was quickly evidenced in the thousands of social posts and comments the incident sparked within hours.

Due to the nature of the rapid-fire, hot-take posting style that characterises social media today and the propensity for trolls, bots, and rage bait to cannibalise online discussions, the opportunity was quickly lost to foster thoughtful discussion about the harm of racial slurs and the difficulties of living with TS. It only took hours for misinformation to take hold as to the validity of Coprolalia and for attacks to be directed towards Black commentators voicing concern or outrage towards the incident.

This has not only put the BBC – already mired in scrutiny over accountability and broadcaster responsibility for a number of issues – in the position to have its motives and ethics questioned but has also generated reputational risk for the individuals involved – Michael B Jordan, Delroy Lindo, John Davidson and Alan Cumming, and an unhelpful environment for TS and racial justice advocacy.

For vocal critics of the BBC, it provides yet another line of attack: Conservative party leader Kemi Badenoch has been outspoken in criticising the organisation’s response.

The value of sentimental communications

What can communications professionals learn from this incident?

Firstly, it serves as a reminder that the “sorry for the offence caused” apology can be not just deeply unhelpful, but in fact add to the offence. As much of the response shows, an apology that does not acknowledge the actual harms, demonstrate accountability and present a solution for righting any wrongs won’t go very far in winning over those to whom harm has come. There can be legal reasons for being reserved in language around apologies; but in instances like this, there was ample opportunity to use thoughtful and empathetic language while protecting the corporate position.

Secondly, this could have been a crucial opportunity for the BBC and BAFTA to use this sudden attention to raise awareness about TS. Beyond a line in a statement seeming to explain away the broadcasting of a racial slur as an inevitable consequence of the condition, the unparalleled platform the BBC has could have been used for good: to foster an environment of learning around misunderstandings of TS and Coprolalia, and to emphasise the historical significance and seriousness of racial slurs. Such has been the response of charity Tourettes Action, who expressed understanding for the hurt caused while calling for public understanding about the disability – advocacy from stakeholder groups like TA should be centred in these discussions.

Finally, it underlines that any exercise in inclusivity requires full, detailed planning to grasp potential risks and blind spots – in this instance, the failure to consider the impacts for the audience watching at home and to provide adequate follow-up support to the individuals in attendance impacted by the slurs. What could have been an important opportunity to advocate for disability inclusion in the entertainment industry has been unfortunately overshadowed by missteps which could have been planned for and avoided. There are still remedial steps the BBC and BAFTA could take to rebuild trust with the communities impacted by this incident, starting with a commitment to cut through the noise of back-and-forth discourse to really listen to what these stakeholders need now.