BBC WTF

HoC debates about Wakefield were not covered in the BBC.

The only debates I've seen coverage of were ones where there is a vote and there's likely to be a rebellion.

Nah, medical scandals of this magnitude always give days, months, YEARS of news. Look at thalidomide, MMR vax/Wakefield, PIP implants.

If this was being treated like a normal broadcast cycle I'd expect the big splash on days 1 & 2, human/personal angles on days 2 & 3, legal and medical commentary on days 3 & 4, then big analysis segments on the Sunday magazine programmes and a week or so later, a Panorama or similar.

OP was right that the Beeb is conspicuous in trying to avoid this, but they'll have plenty of opportunity to nut up when the stat enquiry starts and the course cases gear up.

So, I guess we'll see which one of us is right in years to come!

There are debates every day in the HoC that get little attention.

Debates like this, on which both main parties aligned on a significant and extensive NHS commissioned review? Debates like this one, concerning extensive medical malpractice concerning the unnecessary medication and mutilation of children that people had been flagging up for years, where whistleblowers were hounded out of the service, silenced and accused of transphobia?

Pull the other disingenuous leg.

Glinner would be more likely to get an apology if he stopped tagging all his previous colleagues on Twitter and implying they are child abusers.

Plus calling people groomers. His twitter is a scary place, I wouldn't touch him with a barge pole if I was the beeb. Too high risk. They can barely cope with Vorderman and Lineker's fairly mild political activity.

Yes, it is.
My point is the BBC had covered it in depth a couple of days before. Nothing different came out of the debate that would encourage more coverage, plus there were other world events that day that were new.

There are debates every day in the HoC that get little attention. The House itself was pretty empty I thought. I just don't think this debate was as relevant to the general public as it might seem to people who have been following the story. So I don't think there is a cover up here.

On the day the report dropped, their front page article link was a welcome sight - until I clicked on it and saw that links to other pieces, including one perpetuating the suicide myth, were included within the text. The suicide one was there twice. They covered it but they're still being hugely irresponsible in that regard.

Are you kidding? Children have been sterilised, disabled and tipped into chronic illness because of a cultish online fad...on the NHS no less, whose waiting list time for heart surgery is now 11 months.

This is a HUGE story.

I've always been against the BBC out of political prinicple: I think the notion of a state broadcaster is patrician and ill-suited to our pluralist democracy. I can understand why Iran, North Korea, and Russia need a state broadcaster, but we certainly don't.

One of my many bugbears with the Beeb is that its undeservedly hallowed status means that people believe it to be a trustworthy source of accurate unbiased news. The closest thing to objective truth in news. It is anything but and one of the prime examples is the way it has covered the trans movement.

For about a day, with some dubious and biased reporting. Then silence, despite extensive discussion elsewhere in the media.
That’s the problem.

😂😂

It was headline news.

If you’ve been pushing gender ideology it can be hard to accept you’ve played a part in the harm to children

Adults can be very bad at hearing this and will protect their own world view first.

You’ve been listening to a different Radio 4 than I have, in that case.

And I’ve always said that I’d pay the licence fee for R4 alone.

I’m always interested in these threads as I only listen to radio 4 and I just don’t recognize what is said here. . For quite a number of years now radio 4 has had pretty good coverage. It’s one of the few media outlets that I’ve seen which has ‘both sides’ on to debate and discuss this issue. And by god do we need that. When there is a calmly spoken debate the GI proponents are badly exposed. It comes up fairly frequently I would say.

Some of the programmes covering this on radio 4 have been stellar. The Anti-Social on males in women’s prisons was brilliant. The BBC researcher ( they always have a researcher to report back on the topic) reported back really damaging information on the prison service. Completely exposed them.

Anywsy, my experience is that the BBC has really upped their game on this issue and I am glad they are there to do so. I do think we have a better press than say the USA. If we didn’t have the BBC we’d be a damn sight nearer the highly polarized media they have and that would lead to even greater entrenchment of positions, like in the USA.

I would say that an angle they have not covered is the violence ( both threat and intimidation and physical) against women from TRAs. But then no media really covered that. It seems to me a clear VAWG story, but then the fact it’s not covered is maybe due to wider societal misogyny in ideas about female victims. Society seems to only recognize female victims as victims if they are voiceless and feeble and never fight back. We aren’t that, so iIts not reported as a VAWG story. Though it should be. It really should.

I complained directly to the BBC and copied my complaint to both Victoria Atkins and Lucy Frazer. How useful is that? No idea, but at least I’ve done something.

I bet.

I actually hate them at the moment, they are complicit and they know it hence the the minimising of the issue.

This is the problem. Actually a lot of people who were / are complicit do the same thing - you see it on here.

But this human behaviour at the BBC is a failure.

I’m not sure what can be done, the BBC are woeful on this

At this point ITV probably need to do a massive story about the BBC being shite on this issue, it may be the only way to get the BBC to do/say anything.

Helen Joyce commented that many senior executives in all sorts of businesses have trans identified children and as a result are ferocious about silencing any questioning or dissent. I think this may well turn out to be the case for the BBC.

Also, there are over 400 trans people actually working at the BBC.

And i don't think that would have happened by accident. Capturing positions of power has been a tactic from the start.

www.bbc.com/news/uk-68786030

My hunch would be that it's not a policy of radio silence from the top. I suspect editors and producers are asking for stories, journalists are firing off copy full of "98% of studies ignored," and fact checkers are nixing them. So nothing gets through.

"Look over there, not over here! Over there!"

Stop it, Adam, it's just SO obvious.

"It's blatant, arrogant and obscene"

Couldn't agree more @Mollyollydolly. My friends who still work there do not agree the BBC is biased. Love them as I do, I honestly don't know how they can be in such a bubble

.. and patients and activists arguing how unfair and distressing it is that they can't have faster access to the plaster casts. And not just plaster casts but surgeries to shape the bones in the way that the patients know they should be shaped.

Only of course it's a whole lot worse. Given how life-impacting this is forever with no going back, it's more akin to them demanding access to faster leg amputations and prosthetic limbs and/or wheelchairs, depending on what the patient feels is right for them.