Sunak telling Robin White that biological sex is important live on GB news

Literally second post of the thread

Read the first 5 pages of the thread before I joined - it's not me that started the GB news chat. 🙄

That media in this case being the BBC.

Most of this entire thread posters have been saying, it's not black and white. Trying to get YOU to see at least 2 sides.
You though have been criticizing only GB news(possibly the fail too, it's a long thread, I forget) and the think tank for its address. I mean how one sided can you get.
I haven't sensed any defensiveness in any posts, more a willing you into being more open minded.

Yes, I've looked everywhere and can't find him. He's not come home for his tea and it's very unlike him as he's usually there in the kitchen crying to be fed at 4pm sharp. I'm missing his soft fur and little chirrups.

Oh never mind he's just come in looking rather wet and forlorn.

But enough about my cat, I am starting to worry about our local policeman, maybe he's accidentally locked himself in his handcuffs and had been unable to get help. Should we send out a search party?

Anyone else missing Felix?

I take that back, I don't know if he got paid. Rees Mogg et al. certainly do

Here's some more context around the ofcom investigation and what OFCOM have ruled in similar cases:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/news.sky.com/story/amp/ofcom-launches-investigation-into-pms-appearance-on-gb-news-13075472

The "due impartiality" requirement in current affairs output does not mean that the same amount of time needs to be given to opposing views. However, audiences need to be exposed to alternative ways of thinking.

Ofcom said its investigation found the programme was "overwhelmingly reflective of the viewpoints of different strands of opinion within the Conservative Party" [Esther McVey interviewing Jeremy Hunt] and the news channel "failed to represent and give due weight to an appropriately wide range of significant views on a matter of major political controversy".

Lack of transparency about funding means that organisations may be getting money from interested parties to produce research that tells them what they want to hear. For example a tobacco company paying for research into the effectiveness of vapes in stopping smoking. Or porn companies paying for research showing that everyone watches porn.

If people don't know about the funding, they can't identify those kinds of agendas.

Do I expect them to be impartial? No. But I do expect them to be transparent about their partiality.

I also disagree that "we can all read them and check the references". Critical analysis of research is a taught skill, that is taught at university level on some courses. Not everyone has the tools to do that analysis, hence why openness is so important.

Sunak's appearance is being investigated for breaching OFCOM impartiality rules (I did link this upthread). There are also meant to be rules about media appearances in the run up to elections and media appearances generally but he signs those off himself. So basically he got to risk assess and approve his own appearance that he got paid for. That makes the risk assessment process a joke.

You're not answering my questions. I've asked you these questions twice now, and I haven't had an answer. Here they are again.

You keep talking about 'non-transparency' of think tanks such as Policy Exchange. What do you think is the significance of lack of transparency about funding?

Political organisations obviously have a bias and an agenda. Were you expecting them all to be impartial? We can all read the reports and check the references and decide whether we agree with the conclusions.

And you also didn't answer when I asked you what rules Sunak broke by going on GB News.

I'd quite like some answers, and I'm perfectly prepared not to like them.

And you know what hell This is a public discussion board. You insisted I respond, I did so. It's very poor form to then decide I am producing "pages and pages" of content. You don't agree with me, fine. There is no need to imply I have some agenda. What I think and the evidence for that are both apparent.

So let's pick apart the question "to what extent are parents informed when a child expresses feelings of gender distress at school?"

Firstly the question is badly framed. It's not clear what's meant by "gender distress" and it could incorporate a range of scenarios, from identifying as trans and demanding social transition, to saying they don't know what their gender identity is, in a lesson about gender identity. This lack of clarity is going to make it hard for schools to answer properly.

Second the analysis of answers is poor. There are 3 categories, "reliably informed", "not reliably informed" and "insufficient details provided".

It is impossible from these answers to establish how many schools aren't informing parents, which is key to the whole argument the paper is trying to make. I don't know why they haven't include a "not informed" category but its a bit suspicious.

The definition of "reliable" is very important to the interpretation of the answer. If "not reliable" means not in all circumstances, that's a different interpretation to if "not reliable" means "our records don't tell us in every case" or "we didn't informed in a certain timescale".

Because the findings are so poorly constructed its impossible for me to say whether I agree or not.

I also feel its indicative of a priori research, e.g. the researcher decided what they wanted the answer to be and made the evidence fit that. That's very bad practice, but in line with bodies producing "research" to meet a certain agenda.

And just to follow RTB with a flex about my credentials I have a PhD and published papers, so am very familiar with critiquing peoples research.

Not really. I have just finished a project and have time to revisit threads I had decided were going absolutely nowhere.

Considering you spent how many pages telling us that discussing schools should be on another thread when it was right there in the clip that OP posted, and that you then decreed that out of 9 recommendations you disagreed with 2, and complained it was not peer reviewed when no one has ever said it was and used that as justification for your continued blanket statements.

I have looked back and while I missed probably 10 pages, this thread has really gone on in the same vein. You doubling down on GB News / Policy Exchange / Tufton Street / and on and on and on. Where the fuck did discussing those topics actually finish that you 'started discussing it again'?

I have looked at your 'analysis' and frankly there is fuck all there that merits your continued outright dismissal of the Policy exchange document.

Although annoyed I typed starmer instead of sunak now! Could have done without seeing that typo!

Here's my first post, page 5, with my views on Sunak - they haven't changed.
Interesting to go back through the first pages of the thread and realise this obsession with the idea that everyone is criticising you for watching GB news started before I even arrived on the thread. Goes to show its not to do with the faith of my posting and is to do with posters own views. It's always interesting to read back.

It's good that the thread is constantly bumped and hopefully more people will watch the clip in the OP, which is excellent.

There certainly is some sealioning going on, but not by me. I'm answering people's questions. They may not like the answers but I can't help that!

I saw Frood talking about “sea lioning” recently, which was new to me, but interesting.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning

You've nailed it right there.

And why it's so disengenous and bad faith.

It's about discrediting politically by any means, rather than the issues Sunak actual comments raise.

If rules have been broken then I'm sure that whoever broke them will be reprimanded.

In the meantime who needs rights for women LGB people, and a prime minister with sensible views on them?

Oh. What a coincidence you came back just at the same time we started discussing it again.

Yeah no issues with breaking rules. Pesky rules. Who needs safeguarding anyway? People can make their own decisions...

Quite! People seem to be unable to do anything but get irate with me if I post anything and just ask endless questions...it's pretty circular.
Who knew that criticising right wing think tanks and GB news would be so incendiary to FWR!

To be honest @RedToothBrush i haven't really followed the 20 pages of arguments of bias of the media, so I'm not clear who is supposed to have broken which rules.

I just find the whole derail baffling to be honest.

Adam doesn't like the Tories so it seems to me that if they say something sensible, which they did in that interview, the agenda is to discredit by whatever means possible. In this case by changing the subject onto media bias.

I just wish that the Labour Party would come out with the equivalent. Having reasonable views should not be controversial.

The trouble is that in doing so, whilst claiming to be GC, Adam is missing the opportunity to say that this proposed approach is great for women and LGB people. So is, in effect, doing the TRA job for them.

I thought the argument was that it WASN'T Sunak that broke the rules. It was evil GB News that broke the rules.

Sunak said something relevant and truthful.

I wonder what the reaction would have been if he'd said the same on a debate on another channel with other politicians present.

There'd be a hissy fit over something being unacceptable and probably comments about why Channel X had 'allowed' it from some quarter.

Taking aim at GB news strikes me as a strawman argument because GB news is an easy target and it's gaming the system to report to Ofcom and plays to restricting free speech and is fundamentally undemocratic in nature.

If the remit of broadcasters is to not be biased we need to be considering the point in this context.

Would Sunak be able to say things that are (not just the trite 'some people believe') true.

It's been framed as anti LGBT when Sunak pointed out that the LGBT contains more than one vested interest group who aren't a homogeneous blob.

Given the efforts to keep the LGB Alliance off mainstream channels in order to maintain the Stonewall monopoly, I think we have questions to ask of others over political bias.

But it's an argument that keeps getting dragged back to party political shite, rather than issues with hidden bias in the mainstream media despite efforts on this thread, because apparently this is an unacceptable view to have because GB news is evil. I

What you actually answered? Well, I left the thread because all we were getting was absolutely bollocks about your blanket generalisation about Policy Exchange.

I shall go back and see exactly what you wrote.