SEENinJournalism thread about media consultancy company NEON

I think had a well paid job somewhere I can’t remember.

A middle class climate etc activist working for a left wing think tank IIRC. And obviously the least convincing "ordinary mum facing the cost of living crisis" ever.

The speed of online journalism encourages laziness. Once reporters had a certain amount of luxury in going out occasionally to talk to people in person but most often it was phone calls.
Databases of rentaquote types have always been used as well as a particular ‘expert’ favoured by one reporter or another. PR agencies have always pushed stories and packages for journalists to pick up with pre-cooked quotes or a list of quotes/contacts. And when they can speak well and to the point they get over-used. The main issue is to get a variety of voices that are vaguely representative but it would seem Neon have cornered a market. Once it would have been the friends of journalists or their kids or the producers/camera man, which is equally unrepresentative. It’s also important that experts get paid - not a huge amount but it’s not for free so a nice little earner if you get asked

I agree with this. They are clickbait.

Although it doesn't have the same commercial pressures as other media outlets, BBC News still needs to show it's creating content that people read and engage with. There's no doubt that these endless stories featuring drag queens and gender identity obsessives act as clickbait. You only have to look at the number of replies and reposts these stories get to see how successful they are. Because of that, I don't see them changing their approach any time soon.

I worked in a BBC newsroom and I'd heard of Neon but had no idea it was an activist led organisation, I just thought it was a useful database resource that journalists used to find 'experts'. If it included different points of view, ie if Helen Joyce or Maya Forstater were on it for example, I wouldn't have an issue with it so much. It's the fact that it is obviously not impartial that's an issue. I'm sure there used to be a link to it on BBC Gateway website. I don't work there anymore so don't have a login to check.

I hope MN doesn't delete this thread. Apart from anything else, it's a sobering insight for those of us not involved in news gathering into how activist groups (of any description) can manipulate national television news optics.

It is. It's really important to challenge these networks.

I think the point about NEON is much more important than quibbling about the language here.

I made exactly the point I wanted to make. You didn't understand it.

The comment from SeenInJournalism under mines them as an organistion that specifically should NOT be seen as politically aligned and stooping to the pathetic name calling of both the left and the right.

It undermines the work they say they want to achieve, and potentially alienates future members because it makes it look that they too are more interested in the "woke" war. As well as implying the issues listed aren't worth bothering about.

Women's rights are far, far more important than this sort of juvenile name calling.

And could well damage what could be a valuable support for women.

Sounds more like a Telegraph editorial than something that people who claim to be journalists would indulge in ie posture politics.

Also, it is exactly the grouping of beliefs you'd expect from an organisation that chooses to label itself as 'anti- oppression'. And I say that as someone politically aligned more with Kropotkin than Braverman. It's the Guardian-reader Bundle of Good Beliefs.

This.

Also, it is exactly the grouping of beliefs you'd expect from an organisation that chooses to label itself as 'anti- oppression'. And I say that as someone politically aligned more with Kropotkin than Braverman. It's the Guardian-reader Bundle of Good Beliefs.

Many of which I do believe are good - it's not the beliefs that are the problem. It's bundling them rather than assessing each on its own merits. That's how otherwise sensible and well-meaning people get swept up in the BeKind arguments and don't see how unkind they are to women.

The point you wanted to make was clearly not the one you originally made. That not on me.

" ... exactly the range you might expect from an ‘anti oppression’ consultancy. ... "

It seems to be that you keep missing the point.

If you read my link - or just the URL - you'll see SEEN lifted the term you objected to directly from NEON'S own site.

If you want to take issue with any other part of the statement that is a different point.

If you read the thread you will see that this is a direct quote from the SeenIJ twitter feed:

Another of Neon’s offers is Mika Minio-Palluello, of the male ‘breastfeeding’ controversy. Others are Palestinian activists, climate activists, exactly the range you might expect from an ‘anti oppression’ consultancy.

Sounds like the sort of reactionary comment Suella Braverman would make.

And yes, it does make me wonder about the politics within this Seen network.

I dont like the idea of gender critical / women's sex based rights politics being co-opted by what could at best look like sloppy politics ar at worst like the last bastion of "British" values.

Using phrases like "anti oppression" plays into the trans agenda that those who are gender critical are all right wing fanatics.

Anto-oppression is NEON's self-description. Not a SEEN term for them. https://www.neweconomyorganisers.org/about/anti-oppression

One of the replies gives this number for making complaints so I'll put it here to make it easier for anyone who would like to complain...

03700 100 222
The BBC complaints number . They are publicly funded and I urge people to call them to complain about their appaling journalist standards and disproportionate promotion on transgenderism and use of this organization

You do realise all reporters and news outlets get lobbied like this from any number of groups, political activists.

There is no manipulation. It is just part of the rot that has set into the UK news media where there seems to be a prevailing attitue that you are allowed to only take up stories that meet your existing prejudices. Or not reporting eg in the instance of Wes Streeting and puberty blockers.

And editors collude with it.

Or maybe it is just because so many reporters are just lazy.

The number of stories that are based on tweets that are never verified is far, far more troubling.

The real worry is that being a reporter seems to no longer require any one to do any fact checking or actual research. Just using what you are fed is what is dangerous.

Others are Palestinian activists, climate activists, exactly the range you might expect from an ‘anti oppression’ consultancy.

I must admit I find this sentence a bit sweeping, and wonder what the politics are in SEENinJournalism.

Using these two groupings used as examples seems a bit crass as within them there will be people having different analysis. Reflecting the range of views held by people on various issues is exactly what the BBC and other news services should be reflecting. Presumably Palestinian activists aren't claiming to represent Israelis and climate activists aren't pretending to represent heavy industry and other polluters.

This is totally different to having Trans presented in an unrepresentative way and at expense of women.

I suppose each SEEN sets its own political position but I dont think it looks good to lump in trans usurping women's rights, with political groups who have an analysis that is against the establishment one.

Using phrases like "anti oppression" plays into the trans agenda that those who are gender critical are all right wing fanatics.

Would be interested to see how other SEENs work.

I hope MN doesn't delete this thread. Apart from anything else, it's a sobering insight for those of us not involved in news gathering into how activist groups (of any description) can manipulate national television news optics.

This is really interesting, thank you, but depressing too: The Omnicause sounds Orwellian. I’ve also noticed this trend in the people featured in some BBC articles.

The BBC has become much more reliant on agencies for news than it ever was. This is due to the sheer amount of cuts to the number of journalists it has and it's had a massive impact on the organisation.

It infuriates me no end, how the BBC now puts up articles on things, particularly celebrity type gossip, several days after the original story has appeared on the Daily Mail. I mean what's the fucking point? It's not even a fact checking exercise due to how the articles are written. Whilst I appreciate it may be slower we are often talking 3 or 4 days on a regular basis.

It's led me to give up to an extent on the BBC. It used to be my first port of call, but I tend to use twitter or check the Mail first and then look around for other sources for the same story.

This is clearly being deliberately exploited by Activists.

Just had a quick look at what Neon are up in my area and they've been offering media training to people from organisations we already know about eg Friends of the earth.

I would hope if the thread could stay on the wider issue around the article, rather than about the actual article it could stay.