BBC WTF

Which health scandal(s?) are you thinking of?

Imagine if they had actively minimised and covered up other health scandals in the same way!

You are naïve to assume they haven't.

I find the majority of that sentence petty but I'm not so sure about the lack of self-awareness. I guess it could be.

It's either a) I really can't stand that woman but I'll do my best to write a balanced piece or b) let's see if I can get away with sticking this bit in at the end.

I watched a great documentary called Hypernormalisation a few years ago and it really opened my eyes up to the way "impartial" reporting uses language (and image) choices to help shape or reinforce opinion. An example it covers is using the word "regime" to describe a government/leader in a country that is often the "baddy" in prevailing public opinion. It explores how the notion of nations as goodies and baddies in the news bedded in much more under Reagan - obviously it was already there with the Cuban missile crisis and cold war, but it's an interesting idea that he might have brought a little Hollywood with him in to the news reports that pitted him against Gaddafi as individuals.

When it comes to news on issues where there is a greater division of opinion (I'm not sure many Brits were backing Gaddafi), choice of language perhaps stands out more.

By contrast to the JKR report, here's a fawning article about Eddie Izzard:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67745594.amp

Setting aside the she/her pronouns, there is no concern whatsoever about the same points: a) that Eddie might find it difficult to attend parliament amongst other commitments (despite a quote in the article about Eddie having to campaign remotely, ahead of the election) or b) Eddie having a "say in the work of Parliament's [first] chamber, considering draft laws and potentially participating in select committees".

Presumably the BBC thinks that Eddie's "vision of the future" and being "openly spoken about her gender fluidity" are the right kind of values for the British public, so there would be no issue with Eddie having a say in parliament. Not the worrying kind of values that that Rowling woman might bring along 🤦‍♀️

and if she found the time to attend sessions, she would have a say in the work of Parliament's second chamber, considering draft laws and potentially participating in select committees.

So petty, so unselfaware (the journalist).

Screenshot ⬇️

Ha! Comedy timing.... After writing the above, I opened the news headlines on my phone. This was the first one:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cg4q6prkgz0o.amp

It almost feels like balanced journalism... until you get to that dig at the end (my bold). Also adding a screenshot in case they decide to rein it in a bit in an update:

and if she found the time to attend sessions, she would have a say in the work of Parliament's second chamber, considering draft laws and potentially participating in select committees.

Of course she would have a say. Like every other member of the House of Lords does. That's how democracy works. I'm no expert on impartiality but I'm guessing that giving away your own personal derision (and fear?) in such an obvious way shouldn't really qualify.

Thank you for the Linehan article.

Despite the lack of interest from the police, I'm sure the story could be kept in the news.... Perhaps Crystal the drag queen has been on holiday to Guernsey in the past and could be interviewed on Newsnight to talk about how distressing and invalidating it is that a postbox she [sic] once used to send a birthday card to her [sic] late [elderly relative, sadly now passed away] has been destroyed in this way.

Too far fetched? Not really. Here's Crystal being wedged into a story about Israeli and Palestinian tensions in what appears to be a similarly contrived way by the Newsnight team:

https://x.com/BBCNewsnight/status/1788692478540779634?t=X6VSu0doCmLXmPdg-qwasg&s=19

And sticking with Newsnight, here's a complete lack of journalistic curiosity from Sarah Smith when interviewing Graham Linehan regarding the use of unevidenced medical interventions like puberty blockers (perhaps if Graham had appeared in drag she'd have focused more on the story itself rather than on sticking the boot in to him?):

It's entirely possible that she finds Graham Linehan too crass when he tweets/speaks in short form - I avoided reading any of his stuff for ages for this reason when I first started looking in to all of this. I'm happy to accept that I had completely misjudged him. But it's the BBC news team's job and purpose to be curious, to investigate, to push through and find and then tell the real story. It's clear that Graham didn't want to be the story: the moment you listen to him in long form, or if you read his book, it's abundantly obvious that he's been trying to raise awareness about what Miriam Cates rightly describes as one of the biggest safeguarding and medical scandals of our generation (and would far rather been known for his comedy career). I'm so glad I pushed through and listened to what he has actually been saying, along with JL and the contributors on his substack.

In contrast to JL (the main substack writer), the BBC is failing the British public with its lazy journalism and the impact of the directive from the top down that "it's [more] important to be nice" than to investigate the story.

My own experience with the BBC has been mixed. I've already given up complaining as it just feels like a wasted effort. I tried a different approach at one point, because I really do (did?) value their place as our national broadcaster. I had some positive dialogue, by phone and email - the news team were briefly interested in what's been happening to thousands of children from an autism angle (and were certainly considerate regarding my family's situation) but ultimately it felt like there really is no desire to investigate this at all.

Instead, I'm sure we'll just see more of the same: an occasional great piece of journalism that's somewhere isolated, which is lost in a sea of emotionally charged "news" about lack of access to "gender affirming care" and literal-genocide type stories about the fight for acceptance and validation... told through vandalised post boxes etc. And of course plenty more pushing of gender identity belief as fact in its programming schedule - for children as well as adults.

PBS over here is equally sold on the trans cult. There was an item on the news today about suicidal ideation among youth whose states have said "gender-affirming health care" mustn't be given to minors. It turned out to be based on a "study" using a survey which people self-selected themselves into, but this was never questioned by the interviewer. I was shouting at the telly but luckily DH is used to that.

The BBC has approached Guernsey Police for comment.

And presumably even Guernsey Police thought, nah mate, can't be arsed. 😄

The idea that our national broadcaster is so in thrall to a powerful pressure group that they are keeping quiet about some important stories, whilst filling out their webpage with inconsequential non-stories designed to show that group somehow in a better light: that would be an appalling state of affairs about which there'd be debates in Parliament, surely?

I hadn't seen anything either - thanks. When you compare this to some of the things they do deem newsworthy on the LGBTQIA+ etc. front, it's difficult to see this omission as anything other than strategic. I'm so sickened by them.

Pasting without comment:

In the same year, the BBC’s drama commissioning team spent a delightful day with trans activists at the London Aquarium. Why the London Aquarium? Who knows. But I suspect they lingered at the Clown Fish.

A Google search suggests not.

I was reading on another page in the GL substack (15th October update) that the timing of the crickets release was just as Jamie Reed was about to speak about the risks to children of "gender affirming care".

In a previous update (7th October), it talks about Jamie Reed's spouse now choosing to detransition, after 15 years.

This really is the kind of event and backstory that the BBC should be deeming newsworthy and knitting together:

Six young females, all with trans or non-binary identities, attacked an LGB conference in protest about the lack of access to "gender affirming care" where the next speaker is a lesbian woman who wants to speak about the harm that such care brings, coming from a place of both professional and personal experience.

The optics on attacking an LGB conference look terrible. It just screams homophobia.

Sadly though, it's just crickets from the BBC (metaphorically) instead.

Edited to correct typo

Brilliant article - thank you @BonfireLady

Did the BBC (and Guardian) ever report on the LGBA cricket fiasco?

Link to substack below. I think these links are allowed but can't quite remember.

grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/how-the-bbc-was-captured

Rather than starting a new thread for this, it feels like this one is the right place for a fantastic article (it's actually the wording of his speech at Genspect) from Graham Linehan.

I'm not sure if we're allowed to put Substack links in here so I'll go for two posts, with the link in the second one.

If you Google his name and "BBC captured" it should come up.

From the article:

I would suggest at the very least, The Director General of the BBC should be summoned before the Parliamentary Select Committee for Culture Media and Sport, and made to answer for the channel’s behaviour over the last decade

I fully agree.

That link on the BBC complaints 'system' shows it up for the joke it is. I didn't read the 29 page (!) complaint, but good for SEEN for pursuing it.

Commenting to easily re-access this excellent post. Thanks @BonfireLady

Trying the Spectator link again (not the archived version) as the one above didn't work:

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-are-bbc-staff-trying-to-get-me-fired/

A few interesting links to add to this thread:

Here's the tweet from Journalism SEEN with all of them in:
https://twitter.com/JournalismSEEN/status/1787414281320882581?t=pXUolL73W5WXQtemcvZyVA&s=19

Trying to raise stories in the newsrooms (not BBC specific):
https://seeninjournalism.substack.com/p/the-hurdles-we-face?r=3lemhw&utm_medium=ios&triedRedirect=true

On the BBC complaints system:
https://seeninjournalism.substack.com/p/the-lowdown-on-a-bbc-climbdown?r=3lemhw&utm_medium=ios&triedRedirect=true

On being an undercover whistleblower at the BBC:
<a class="break-all" href="https://archive.ph/2024.05.05-072211/www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-are-bbc-staff-trying-to-get-me-fired/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://archive.ph/2024.05.05-072211/www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-are-bbc-staff-trying-to-get-me-fired/

Hopefully we will continue to see more BBC stories coming out which flag the harmful impact of gender identity belief but, without a doubt, the BBC still has a very long way to go. They also have a huge back catalogue of programmes to address, particularly those aimed at children.

E.g.
https://twitter.com/berk_hamstead/status/1773094127640412386?t=bADmy8jBFbdScRfp_iHTBw&s=19

A future Public Inquiry will hopefully include the BBC but in the meantime, they may want to start their own internally and consider taking action on a) more content that is still available b) editorial guidelines (news and programming) and c) supporting staff who want to break the story.

To finish on a plus note - I can't remember if I added it up above - this is a great piece, starting at the beginning of the show:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001y28p

Ah, procrastination. I know it well 😁

Yes, he said in his conversation in parliament (the one where he said it was important to be "nice") that he didn't have Twitter/X. I'm not sure if having it would make any difference or not. I have regularly looped Deborah Turness, Head of News, in to X comments after I saw other people doing this too but it's not clear that doing this helps in any way.
Hopefully there will be lots of different ways that the information can make it's way to him. @AutumnCrow's suggestion sounds like a good one to help highlight how it's all getting stuck in the complaints system, for example.