Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

BBC disinvited us after we stood by Kate Forbes’s freedom of speech, claims LGB group

33 replies

IwantToRetire · 26/02/2023 22:09

The BBC has been accused of disinviting a gay group from a programme because it refused to attack Kate Forbes, the under-fire Scottish National Party (SNP) leadership hopeful.

The LGB Alliance (LGBA) was approached on Friday by BBC One’s Sunday Morning Live to debate whether “traditional Christian views are incompatible with modern politics” on a studio panel, in the context of Ms Forbes’s views on same-sex marriage.

When a producer canvassed its opinion, the group of lesbian, gay and bisexual people said it “completely reject[ed] her views” but insisted “we have freedom of religion” and that religious beliefs are protected under the 2010 Equality Act.

Shortly after that phone call, the BBC producer sent an email, seen by The Telegraph, saying the programme had “decided to go in a different direction with the debate, and we’ll no longer be requiring Kate [Harris, co-founder of LGBA] on Sunday”.

Instead, the BBC invited Natasha Devon, a bisexual campaigner, who argued Miss Forbes’s views should rule her out from replacing Nicola Sturgeon as Scotland’s next first minister.

More uk.news.yahoo.com/bbc-disinvited-us-stood-kate-194201144.html

(Article is from the Telegraph but reproduced by yahoo)

OP posts:
OhHolyJesus · 27/02/2023 07:32

Having an charity on that represents the LGB is more broad-minded that having on one individual activist who is bisexual.

The BBC in their assumed infinite wisdom chose a specific person to fit the narrative they were peddling rather than invite someone who represents a group of minorities sexualities (plural) on to share an alternative opinion.

It used to be that you would invite someone to speak because they had relevant experience, now you get someone to say what you want them to say, as you can't say it yourself and appear unbiased.

Original poster
IwantToRetire · 27/02/2023 01:47

Balance here would mean getting the perspectives of a range of people, not desperately trying to find the one person in England that thinks we should eat live bats.

Even people in the media now agree that them doing that during the Brexit campaign gave a false picture.

OP posts:
DarkOphelia · 27/02/2023 00:50

I wonder whether a lot of this is the legacy of Paxman. It seems that so many BBC presenters and interviewers want to emulate his style, but just don't understand how to remain neutral at the same time, so they paint themselves into an ideological corner by virtue of their questions, the framing, and their mode of delivery.

They also don't seem to understand that "balance" means a range of perspectives, not just parties that disagree. Pretty much everyone, regardless of what creed, will agree that no one should eat live bats, for example. Balance here would mean getting the perspectives of a range of people, not desperately trying to find the one person in England that thinks we should eat live bats.

Original poster
IwantToRetire · 26/02/2023 23:38

I think as has been said, this is not just about whether the BBC is captured, but their thinking to limited and boxed in.

Bev Jackson, co-founder of the LGBA, said the row showed how the BBC “wanted a specific narrative”.

She told The Telegraph: “Producers have the right to make the programme their own, but if you always only present these TQ+ people who are very aggressive and uncompromising, it gives the public a very bad impression of gay people.

“It looks to me as if what they wanted is a gay organisation to come on and join the attack on her and say ‘you can’t have those views’.

“It’s a cynical character assassination because it is now convenient to attack her religion – we totally reject her views on abortion, same-sex marriage and children being born out of wedlock, but we believe in the Equality Act, which protects religion.”

Ms Jackson claimed the LGBA had previously been disinvited from Newsnight too as the charity Stonewall would not appear alongside it.

She also questioned why the BBC continued to ask Peter Tatchell, a trans activist, onto programmes when the LGBA is “not anti-trans people, we simply stand up for lesbian, gay and bisexual rights”.

I now feel more and more that people saying they are alienated from politics are actually saying we are alienated by how politics is covered. If it isn't a presenter constantly interrupting because outrageously a politician has given an answer that doesn't follow the broadcasters fixed view of what should be said, it turns into silly persistent questioning on some issue or anther just because the presenter wants to be the one who got a "gotcha" moment.

Its all just become a silly game.

I really posted because I think it is good that LGB Alliance is prepared to stand by principles.

It isn't that long ago, that Blair was said to have agreed not to talk about being Catholic, but shortly after leaving as PM there was a news story about him joining the Catholic church.

I thought MPs were allowed to abstain on the basis of beliefs, and that on crucial votes them abstaining is meant they are paired with someone from the other side abstaining, or known not to be attending.

OP posts:
DemiColon · 26/02/2023 23:18

To me this may or may not be a problem.

It's possible that they were looking to get some examples of different viewpoints, or specifically wanted to explore the idea that there was a problem with a religious person being in politics. It's not always good to have guests that just agree. I think that can be fine if it's done properly.

The problem with the BBC, and some other news sources, is they don't do that. You don't hear serious discussion of the other views. Or if you do, they are very stereotyped. So you end up with the general public thinking, for example, that all gay people have pretty much the same opinions on some topics, when that is really very false. And those who disagree are all right wing nutters.

I would just once like someon on a show like this to point out that even non-religious people have all kinds of ideological beliefs, and they really shouldn't have any more, or less, of a free pass to impose them on others than religious people should. Why should a Marxist or humanist viewpoint be seen as somehow neutral, while a Presbyterian one isn't?

Rainbowshit · 26/02/2023 22:32

How can someone's religion rule them out from being First minister? That's just such an intolerant and bigoted opinion. I bet they consider themselves progressive as well 🤔

LizzieSiddal · 26/02/2023 22:19

The BBC always have to “balance” every single item so it doesn’t surprise me that they’d disinvite anyone who wasn’t up for a fight.

Ritasueandbobtoo9 · 26/02/2023 22:11

Everyone knows that BBC have certain views and certain other views can’t co exist if it doesn’t fit their doctrine.