Woman's Hour now: BBC walking away from Stonewall

I've just caught up. Have to say, I nearly wept. Emma said everything that I want to say to my boss but can't. Good for her.

As the State broadcaster with a history going back to 1922, the BBC as an organisation likely doesn't fancy being on the 'wrong side of history'. In-the-past, that appears to have been interpreted as meaning it needed to be distinctly seen to be on the TRA side. Perhaps now there is a realisation that it needs to be impartial and unbiased.

By way of example, the BBC managed to avoid any poor association with the SRA (Satanic Ritual Abuse) scandals, and The Daily Mail and The Times managed to escape censure as well. ITV, The Guardian and The New Statesman though fell for it utterly, broadcasting and printing material from conspiracy theorists without any proper critical thinking.

wonder if the trans issue will ultimately bring Stonewall down?Stonewall has done a great deal of good work until it lost it's way getting tangled up with trans issues.

It's the anti-woman, pro-homophobia activities of Stonewall that is undermining its legacy. It's nothing to do with transgender issues as such and everything about the over-reach that is part of thought totalism and an authoritarian framework in political, social and public life.

I'm so pleased to see the focus on the style guide. There's been such an insidious move to embed these in media organisations and then use them as proof to approach Collins, OED, etc. with these style guides as a justification for 'updating' the canonic dictionary definitions.

nauticant - I envy your facility in coming up with a good analogy (dodgy person packing your flight luggage).

I've just listened to this on sounds. Who activated Emma Barnett? Such a change!

m.youtube.com/watch?v=GKWZlWaGKgc

They should have run the entire thing past the Director of Better.

Amateurs.

I think it is good that a senior BBC executive has now said on BBC Radio that this culture war is about transgender rights and women's rights and is a debate about public policy. Until now, it has almost always been described as a fight for the rights of transgender people only.

BUT I do not accept the executive's assertion that the BBC's output has not been biased (in favour of transgender rights and against women's rights).

@Manderleyagain
Sorry, I included the wrong link - it's from this 2018 DM article

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5905129/BBC-chief-stunned-secret-staff-sex-survey-reveals-417-workers-transgender.html

I've left postive feedback on BBC! Well done Emma Barnett

He is called Rhodri Talfan Davies. He is Director of Nations. I assume that's to do with the BBC's different output across the UK.

That title alone (if that’s entirely it) is a clue that there’s something very wrong with the BBC. It combines grandiosity and lack of meaning in equal measure.

Boreofbabylon where is this from?
Tunde Ogungbesan, the BBC's director of diversity, has now launched a major reform to make the Corporation more 'trans-friendly' following the findings.

Mr Ogungbesan told the Westminster Social Policy Forum that the results would lead to the rewriting of the BBC's 'style guide', which sets out the rules on 'fairness and terminology' at the corporation.

That's the BBC saying that in order to be more welcoming as an employer to a particular demographic (2% of staff) it decided to change its public language as a broadcaster and news organisation, changing how it is able to discuss an issue which is currently live in our democracy. And as EB pointed out because of the beeb's cultural position, that influences the language in the public sphere of this country.

The political positions are baked into the choice of language on this issue. They indicate the framework you are using to see the issue, and restrict what ideas/concerns you can communicate clearly. And that was chosen by the broadcaster in order to be seen as friendly to 2% of its staff.

This goes against what the BBC bloke was saying on WH. He kept trying to separate BBC the employer from BBC the impartial news organisation.

No debate and the culture of fear means that not only do people not speak out, they don't hear other people talking about it, so some don't always get the issues.

Once you can talk, it's a snowball effect. People who didn't know, or were on the fence, suddenly get a whole load of new info.

Plus of course there's always that marvellous phenomenon, where the reaction from transactivists to anyone asking a question, means people listen a lot more intently to the answer.

I want to thank all of you who have posted the links to the interview and to the feedback form. I’m very happy to have listened and then fed back, I did get a little carried away with the latter 🤣

I can hear the sounds of gloves coming off from those stonewall statements.

Pressure, shame, not safe, attacks, historical and inaccurate homophobia.

Good. Let's have it.

People are really, really going to want to see a different set of statements about the LGB than they are the T.

You can't keep saying LGBT, when they are in direct conflict with one another.

People are saying ' when did Emma peak' but isn't she doing what a good journalist should? That is, really question and challenge interviewees on political topics?
Yes agreed. I'm one who asked when did she peak, but I think you're right really. And that's her job.

Stonewall's post on twitter

twitter.com/stonewalluk/status/1458423921116602368

It really makes me wonder how many people in media etc are just spouting what they're told/toeing the party line while in their heads and hearts they know it is BS. That must be soul-destroying.[/quote]
‘I was only following orders’…