Is it now the norm for the BBC to lie?

The Butterfly drama was on ITV. But 'I am Leo' was shown on CBBC back in 2014, just before the enormous increase in GIDS referrals.

https://www.transgendertrend.com/uk-cbbc-childrens-tv-i-am-leo/

Radio 4 Arts seems to have been infiltrated by someone with a TRA agenda. I've lost count of the number of letters I've written to Front Row complaining whenever they have a programme about gay or lesbian artists or writers and they interview a young academic who talks about the subject being Queer. The BBC says 'We have no control about what our experts say' and I argue that they could choose academics who don't promote a queer agenda. You only have to google the name of those concerned and you can see from their online profiles what they represent. I've also asked why presenters such as Tom Sutcliffe don't, when someone 'queers', say, Patricia Highsmith, ask what's wrong with the word lesbian. Apparently that's not what they're there to do. Sutcliffe, of course, described JKR as transphobic during one of his Front Row interviews. I've always been a fan but something seems to have come over him.

Obviously not everyone in Radio 4 Arts programming is a trans ally, but someone, somewhere, is quietly promoting it, quietly working to blur boundaries, persuade the world that lesbians and gay men are just a little part of the Queer family.

The BBC also played a massive part in promoting gender ideology to children via its children's channel, online content for children, and dramas about transgender children. Was there one called Butterflies or Mermaids about a 'stunning and brave' young 'trans child'?' They also made the programme about the 'pregnant man.'
And yes to the silencing of women's hour presenters, WH platforming 'women' such as Helen Belcher, and Evan Davis and his disingenuous wide-eyed crap.
Another corporation that should be sued.

That's good that you think things are improving. I think it's partly to do with the nature of the debate changing and the BBC being, as ever, very slow to catch up. (Hence everyone must always complain, complain, apply pressure etc etc). I don't think it's about individual reputations, more to do with removing cause for complaint and trying to maintain the BBC's right to exist. The BBC is very cautious by nature so it took other organisations parting ways with Stonewall to make that happen I think.

The climate change / Brexit debates have certainly forced them to think much more carefully about what impartiality means which is also good. And I think that making this an issue of impartiality is also a good move, because it gives everyone clarity and proper measures by which the coverage can be judged and against which it must be defended.

By the way, I think that the changes in the BBC's handling of the trans issue haven't been as a result of Stonewall losing influence, but there's been something else going on, a realisation that impartiality in this area is going to make reputations and that acting partially is going to lose them, and people in the BBC have begun to assert themselves. In other words, the move away from Stonewall is a symptom rather than a cause.

I think things have improved considerably Bovrilly. It seems now to be permitted for people opposing gender identity ideology to have a platform. But there are still problems. Evan Davis is incredibly partisan over the issue and his apparent more recent moderation is, I believe, down to the complaints he's attracted in the past. There's still a tendency to forget that balance means also hearing from "the other side", even if they have "bigoted views". When "the other side" are given a platform, there's still a tendency to scold them for "not being kind". You don't see the same knid of challenge levelled at trans activists.

Ok, and since then, do you feel the coverage has become more balanced and that Stonewall's influence has diminished since the BBC stopped working with them?

By "institutionally captured" I mean that until about a year ago, just about all of the coverage of the trans issue was on the side of the supporters of gender identity ideology, there was very little opportunity for those opposing it to have their say, and when there was and they did, they'd typically be scolded on air for not being kind to the most oppressed and marginalised people in the world. A low point was the wholly uncritical documentaries cheerleading the transitioning of children.

And when someone with a high profile at the BBC did make a stand, they were encouraged to leave the organisation. Then there's the unquestioned influence of Stonewall in the BBC which no gender critical organisation could even hope to have a fraction of.

I think that blanket statements like claiming the BBC is full of anti-women backroom staff do need to be backed up imo if they are to be taken seriously. I have provided evidence that it's not true but so far there is very little to suggest it is, apart from some of the WH production team did not want the programme to criticise gender ideology, and an unidentified someone stormed out of an unidentified meeting at an unspecified time.

What do you mean by institutionally captured? There must be some evidence that makes you believe this to be the case? Not forgetting that the personal views of staff are not the same as the BBC's editorial position. Do you agree with the decision to make this an impartiality issue?

I assume you're coming from the position that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence Bovrilly. My view is that over the past several years I've seen a BBC that's been institutionally captured over the trans issue, although for institutional capture in general, it's often difficult to provide clear evidence of the mechanisms and the individuals involved.

Maybe there will be a court case at some point? In some of the recent court cases involving other organisations, it's amazing the things that can be seen if all of the relevant emails have to be handed over.

I agree with the advice to complain. I've done this myself but unfortunately experienced a process involving continual goalpost moving and other unfair characteristics.

Yes there's definitely been a shift over the last few years - this is why it's so important to complain, complain, complain if there's something you take issue with. I am not TD's biggest fan but I can see why he made the decision over impartiality.

Have you evidence of this? would love to see it, along with there was a corporate decision to protect Saville? or was that cover up by the Tory party ?

I meant to include this tweet by Stephen Nolan:

twitter.com/stephennolan/status/1448377495036772353

That's good to see but for seasoned observers this looks like part of a welcome refocus on impartiality in the BBC, whatever the subject, whoever the interested parties.

I left in 2020 and have worked with them on and off ever since.

I'd be interested to hear when you left the BBC Bovrilly and whether that was after 2016 when this became a contentious issue after which the number of people actively engaged increased considerably.

To understand what's gone on it's helpful to have watched the BBC's handling of the trans issue over the past 5 years or so. For the early part of that, the bias in the BBC's handling of it was striking. That meant that many ideologically-driven and factually incorrect statements were practically unchallengeable.

There has been a shift in recent times. One key point was when the BBC seemed to realise that having Ben Hunte, a committed activist, as the LGBT correspondent was unsustainable. That seemed to happen after a run of partisan articles by him and the BBC having to investigate an uphold complaints. Another was Nolan Investigates looking into the influence of Stonewall. Both of those were in the past year and followed the arrival of Tim Davie and his stated support for impartiality.

Again, the official BBC line is not defined by the views of individual staff. If you feel the BBC's coverage is biased in favour of trans people, as many do, or that it's transphobic, as many do, it does not follow that the backroom staff are all women haters or transphobes. As I said, most people are not really bothered either way.

As a matter of interest, who stormed out of what meeting when and in which dept?

It's a very difficult issue for the BBC I think - it's trying to protect the women and the trans people on its staff, and also trying to report the debate fairly and impartially. They really do try to do that, it's not true at all that journalists set out to push their own agenda. They would not last five minutes. Of course people make mistakes all the time (still cringing from the 1997 election coverage when a reporter whom I have never seen since used "we" instead of "Labour") and mistakes should always be called out and complained about vigorously. But there is no organised campaign to eliminate women or anything like that.

Oh yes, didn’t Owen Jones report that BBC staff were openly crying on a conference call about the “cotton ceiling” article? (Jones seemed to think that the tears should have influenced editorial decisions.)

Here we go then, maybe a bit outing but hopefully this is more convincing than an anonymous hint - I worked at the BBC for 20+ years as staff and still do now as a freelancer. I must have worked with hundreds of BBC staff over the years from many divisions and departments, including radio, tv, studios, public service, drama, arts, music, news, current affairs, factual, entertainment, marketing, hr, legal, finance, NHU, children's, religion, commissioning, all the nations and editorial policy. I know one anti trans person (or at least one person who doesn't mind openly making fun of trans people), I have never known anyone be anti-women (apart from one misogynistic boss but that wasn't a trans rights thing), I have never known anyone be more than mildly interested in this debate. Every now and then a question about this or another controversial issue comes up and people are unsure what to do, so it's referred to ed pol and they advise. So unless sport (which I have never had much to do with) is where all these pro trans people are, or I've somehow managed to avoid them through sheer luck, I can confidently assert that it's bollocks to say that the BBC is full of pro trans anti-women backroom staff. In my experience it's full of people trying to do their jobs with ever decreasing resources who would like everyone to feel supported but have no time to spend campaigning one way or the other.

Indeed. You prove that there isn't bias in the BBC, Bovrilly. It doesn't have to be everyone in the BBC, it just has to be a few key people. We know that after the Stephen Nolan podcast and Tim Davie's statement insisting on the primacy of impartiality and the need to cover the all sides of an issue several trans people threatened to leave the BBC in high dudgeon. We know that Ben Hunte was censured for bias and let go. So we know there's been bias for some time and that no one did anything about it.