Reply from BBC on "clashes on both sides"

we would of course aim to reflect a range of viewpoints over time

This is the get out clause
1 it doesn't say a balanced range
2 it doesn't say over what period of time

So one 30 second soundbite with Julie Bindel next March would qualify

You could write back and ask them to confirm they aim for balance

One must always escalate, but there's no question now that its engaged in deliberate transactivism

(ps AllAboutTrans had an 'interaction' ie super cosy access/face to face chat with the Head of Complaints about four years ago. Seems to have been phenomenally productive. That, plus Editorial Policy's multiple meetings with trans lobbyists, and the Head of Diversity's regular meetings with the fragrant Helen Belcher - there's really no respect at all at the BBC for women without penises.

Except that the 'clashes' are unequal.

I’ve heard that a notorious feminist viciously assaulted a TRAs fist with her chin.

www.pressgazette.co.uk/ofcom-to-review-depth-of-analysis-and-impartiality-of-bbc-news-and-current-affairs-output/?utm_source=CCNet+Newsletter&utm_campaign=29d527abba-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_10_26_12_50_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_fe4b2f45ef-29d527abba-20172901

Ofcom said it had noted an increase in the proportion of panel-style current affairs programmes shown on BBC TV which it said “do not tend to reflect in-depth investigative journalism”.

“The BBC has a particular responsibility here, given its remit, and can provide an important counterbalance to news accessed through social media.

“We think there is value in looking further at how the BBC provides depth of analysis and range of content in its news and current affairs across its TV, radio and online platforms.”

We should send Ofcom to the BBC Bias thread...

Might be worth seeing if you can dig out how the BBC covered Charlottesville and Trump's appalling "violence on both sides" crap. If they had any op-eds showing that they'd drawn attention to Trump's egregious use of false equivalence, send this to them as a follow-up and ask why they're not applying the same editorial standards to their coverage of trans issues and physical violence by trans activists versus no violence whatsoever by GC feminsts.

The BBC is still pondering over my complaint about the online newsbeat article last week. They have said it may take a bit longer than usual to respond.

Sharing these responses is really exposing the BBC as an intellectually bankrupt organisation. No trace of honesty or self-examination at all.

I have never once seen them do anything other than strongly imply the complainer is wrong. When lined up, their responses actually start to sound a little gaslighty...

this thread has collated some of the examples.
Its worth updating:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3296433-BBC-Bias-Collecting-Examples-here

while I appreciate you feel these assertions should have been challenged, the aim of this interview was not to dissect suicide rates among trans people. The focus here was on the issues raised in the debate about the GRA consultation, and Ms Simms was asked to respond to some concerns that have been raised around self-identification.

I'm getting to the point where I think we're in need of rolling reminders of the BBC/whomever's avowed scope and remit at the foot of the item in any vaguely current affairs/news item. In the same way that adverts can't state something without including footer text that explains the context/survey/whatever - it's becoming too important to know what the scope and remit is and that nobody stands behind any of the figures being cited and the BBC/whomever feels it isn't their role to challenge them.

That and experiment with something along the lines of the Jay Rosen Simple Fix for Messed Up Sunday Shows: www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/cnns-problems-jay-rosen-o_n_638658

(Sadly, original no longer available but this later version is good.)

Where is the discussion of gender critical feminism that doesn't include some dismissive TRA?

I wrote to complain about the fact that in their discussion on Breakfast of 'Butterfly', they only had the writer plus Susie Green and a TRA to talk about it. Got this:

"I understand you felt the discussion of the ITV series ‘Butterfly’ was unbalanced and should have included someone against gender transition in children.

This was not a debate or factual report but a discussion of a TV series. We heard from the programme’s writer, the CEO of Mermaids UK, and an author whose experience was similar to that of the programme’s protagonist.

While we would of course aim to reflect a range of viewpoints over time, this does not mean that every discussion relating to transgender issues needs to include someone against confirmation. Again, this was a conversation informing viewers about a new television series, and not a factual report on gender dysphoria."

In other words, we just brought on people who would say how 'realistic' it was.

I wrote to complain specifically about suicide stats(trying to focus on specific issues). I had asked if this issue had been discussed by editors as it has happened several times. Got this reply, am going back with fact that they are not treating Stonewall as a lobby group.If anyone else has references for use of these stats it would help.
I understand you felt that Dawn Simms’ comments about transgender suicide rates should have been challenged during her interview on 18 October.

In a fast-flowing interview situation, it may not always be possible for an interviewer to cross-check every statement and claim that is made by a guest. Our coverage is intended to be balanced and informative in the long run - where issues can be examined in more depth, when time and research permits further analysis over weeks and months.

The figures quoted here were in line with recent reports from the UK’s leading LGBT rights charity, and while I appreciate you feel these assertions should have been challenged, the aim of this interview was not to dissect suicide rates among trans people. The focus here was on the issues raised in the debate about the GRA consultation, and Ms Simms was asked to respond to some concerns that have been raised around self-identification.

It was put to Ms Simms that that women who have survived sexual attacks are also going through a difficult mental journey, and that this should be taken into consideration in potential changes to women’s spaces. She was also asked whether the public were adequately informed on the issue, what she thought of the GRA consultation questions, and what the process of applying for a Gender Recognition Certificate was like for her.

With regards to ‘appropriate scrutiny’, this doesn’t mean that every point made by any interviewee or contributor must be dissected, but that, taking into account the context of the discussion and the role of the interviewee, our interviewers should seek answers that inform the audience.

Please be assured that your comments have been circulated to the producers of this broadcast, as well as senior management within BBC News, on our daily feedback report.

Hasn't reece Lyons now dropped out of his woman with a penis dancing for safety reasons?

Was that the report that showed footage of people in dresses beating up other people? Without any comment regarding the biological sex of the people in dresses doing the actual violence?
I was a bit taken aback watching that.

Except that the 'clashes' are unequal.

Looking at wider reports in the press, they report on incidents taking place on both sides for example?