A few days ago, I wrote that Jeremy Vine has a simple path: apologise on air, challenge ableist rhetoric with the same energy he gives everything else, put disabled people on the panel when the story is us, and cover our unheard stories. Do that, and the kinder, private Jeremy his friends describe becomes real for everyone else too.
Instead, he has dismissed the disabled people and carers responding to him as a "pile-on" and released a glossy, produced video attempting to defend his show's balance.
Read that back. His answer to "you talk over disabled people" was to talk over disabled people.
Lived experience is met with a production package. Requests to listen are met with victimhood. A man with a national TV show would like you to believe he is the one being silenced.
He had the chance to prove his friends right. What he's shown is the second point of my original post: people are remarkably comfortable talking over disabled people and dismissing our experiences. It turns out that appears to include him.
The path forward hasn't moved, but it's definitely got a lot longer. It still starts with an on-air apology, and it needs no debate segment, no guest booking, and no permission from anyone but Jeremy. Disabled people have already told him everything he needs to hear. The only step left is listening.
One more thing, and I mean it: none of this should ever tip into direct harassment of the human. Criticism of a broadcast record, on-air/online personality, or the whole show, is fair. Harassment of a human being, is not.
It's fascinating how the people closest to Jeremy Vine are all coming out in his defence. That tells us two things:
1) He is apparently a *completely* different person in private than the one disabled people see on his show.
2) People are remarkably comfortable talking over disabled people and dismissing our experiences.
The uproar from the disabled community didn't come from nowhere. His show's account asked, in his name, whether it was "time to crack down" on benefits for sick and disabled people, and whether young disabled people should be called the "sick-note generation". He told his own panel there is something "fishy" behind the rise in people too ill to work, and recounted replying to someone who had just been diagnosed with ADHD with "we haven't got any money". Telling us you know a kinder man in private doesn't undo any of that. We don't watch him in private; we watch the show, and see it's posts.
Yes, we know he hosts a talk show, and debate is the format. A host can still correct disinformation and push back on ableist rhetoric. Good hosting includes both.
This situation could still end well, and the power to make that happen sits entirely with him. If the private Jeremy is real, here is what he could do with one of the biggest daytime platforms in Britain:
Apologise properly: Do it in his own voice, on his own show, for the specific things said in his name. A deleted tweet is a shrug, but an on-air apology is a statement.
Challenge the rhetoric: Bring the same energy he brings to everything else. When a guest claims welfare is "out of control," push back with the actual figures. He does it on other topics, so he should do it on ours.
Include us: Put disabled people on the panel when the topic is us. Nothing about us without us.
Cover unheard stories: Highlight carers in poverty and people losing the support they depend on. Show the human cost behind the statistics his show debates so casually.
That is the whole ask. Nobody wants him hounded, and nobody is demanding he disappear. The ask is to be heard instead of talked over, and he is in a better position than almost anyone in British broadcasting to show what listening looks like.