BBC fair and accurate reporting of the judgement

@nauticant not in my memory (and I've probably heard most if not every episode for 10-15 years).
I was expecting it to be dealt with in a very biased way but was absolutely astonished by how it was dealt with.

In the last series there was an episode where the host Andy Zaltzman bemoaned how everything was blamed on young trans people, and the laughter was pretty strained.

They did have it as a summary rather than a question but handled it in a cowardly #nodebate kind of way:

Next up was The News Quiz. It's the main satirical comedy show to discuss the big stories of the week. I wondered "will they go there?" and it seemed not as the end of the programme approached. But they'd left the judgment to be the final question. So, the host read out a legal-sounding summary at super high speed rather than a question (all of the rest of the stories were presented to the panel as questions), clearly done to make the audience think it was incomprehensible, and when he finished, rather than elicit panel responses he quickly said "and that's the end of the show" and it stopped there. It was a contemptuous and astonishingly cowardly way to deal with the issue.

I've just relistened to it on the repeat. I was again struck by this being a disgraceful way to deal with this massive story. Has The News Quiz ever done similar before? If so, I wonder how often and what kind of issues.

I watched HIGNFY specifically to see if it was included (well, at least I did once I realised it had just started, didn’t sit down to watch it). It also seemed to have gone downhill since I last watched it. Don’t think I will bother again.

And the News Quiz shamefully avoided it on Friday's show.

Sorry to disagree but The World at One has been appalling on this issue, on a number of days, because of Sarah Montague's handling of it. I posted this elsewhere:

Montague tried to put words into the mouth of Peter Carter (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Carter_(nurse)) who, contrary to what he was supposed to say, said that there have been issues with transwomen in the wrong-sexed spaces, and transmen too, and that there are problems being experienced by female members of staff.

Another observation by another poster:

I am worried about this too. On World at One BBC R4 yesterday Sarah Montague asked a chap commenting on the impact of the ruling on the NHS whether the answer was to do away with wards organised on sex altogether and just use gender as the determinant for everything.

I think their coverage has been mixed. Evan Davies is now a liability, PM appalling. Woman's Hour should have done a special on the verdict, should have interviewed FWS, should have done an in depth programme. Frankly I no longer care if Woman's Hour dies a death.
It interests me how much individual producers colour the coverage.
I will say that on the day of the judgement, the One, Six and Ten were all very good, impartial and factual. I would hope there's some questioning of what the hell is going on at PM after seeing the response to their coverage yesterday.

I think the last time I was in an AQ (not Al-Qaeda) audience having got chatting with the woman sat next to me she started ranting at me from out of nowhere about some Conservative politician who, horror of horrors, didn't believe that TWAW, but even worse, was willing to voice this heresy.

I kept my trap shut.

No, it's purely whoever applies for a ticket gets one till they run out. The audiences lean very progressive and on the occasions that a gender critical opinion is aired, it's common for the audience to sit in stoney silence. Cheerleading for gender ideology tends to get a very positive response.

Isn’t the audience selected to represent the national voting picture, as is Question Time’s?

It would certainly render the concept of sex discrimination meaningless.

I’ve had that exact same feeling!

The main thing I took from Sumption's analysis that delighted Evan Davis so much was that, apart from Sumption not being aware of the name of the statute he was being authoritative over, he declared that he, Sumption, had, through careful study using his considerable abilities, seen what pretty much everyone else had missed: that the Equalities (sic) Act stated that in some contexts service providers were entitled to provide single-sex spaces, but ... drumroll ... they were not compelled to.

I think I can be forgiven for being somewhat underwhelmed by this.

How can people possibly argue that sex is a spectrum, drives me insane

Sumption is your classic mansplainer, isn't he? It's clear he didn't know anything about the subject because he didn't even get the name of the legislation right, but that didn't stop him confidently giving an entirely wrong explanation of what it says.

Well they got quite a lot of funding from USAID….

There has to have been some nonsense by Shon Faye or similar that could have been sent in to Pseud’s Corner. I wonder if it just wasn’t chosen for publication…

I did this several times while I was still a licence fee payer. The answers I received completely failed to engage with the very specific complaints I had raised and on one occasion plainly responded to a different complaint entirely. It felt like I was being trolled by the complaints department!

Apologies for the transposition.

I hope this turns up on these videos.

bsky.app/profile/krissychula.bsky.social/post/3lm6fq5ydbk2n

Wrong way round. Use ‘judgment’ in the legal context and ‘judgement’ otherwise.

Hislop gets paid a five figure sum for each appearance on HIGNFY. Enough said.

I eagerly look forward to the detailed methodology and data analysis that supports the ‘majority’ claim in your final lines.

I think the progressive grouping at the BBC, being initially caught very badly off-guard by the judgment,

It feels like a 2016 Trump election moment got them.

They could do with reading on Matt Goodwin’s essay about the epistemic class and reflecting on it.
Quotation follows.

For much of the last half century, the new elite, whose families often descend from the professional and managerial classes, benefitted far more than others…

Shaped by their privileged family backgrounds, their educational qualifications, and their much greater ‘cultural capital’…the new elite hoovered up most of the gains from Britain’s embrace of hyper-globalisation and a political economy which was rebuilt around them, which both demanded and rewarded their skills.

They’ve benefitted culturally, too. After flooding into the creative, cultural, knowledge and public sector institutions, becoming a new “epistemic class” which creates, filters and determines what is or what is not acceptable or desirable within the national conversation, the new elite watched the prevailing culture be completely reshaped around their far more socially liberal values, tastes, political priorities, and interests.

Increasingly, when they’ve looked out at the institutions and what they create -the television programmes, films, adverts, books, museums, galleries, columns, and the national conversation more broadly- they’ve seen their worldview staring back at them while millions of others struggle to recognise their worldview at all.

www.mattgoodwin.org/p/rise-of-the-new-elite

Yes, the point with Sumption is that he shouldn't have been taken as the last word in legal authority over something he wasn't especially well informed about. And he most certainly shouldn't have been taken as that but only in respect of the "convenient" comments he made.

And yes, @Freysimo interviewing a fetishist on this issue is a clear example of boundaries being eroded in public life (thinking back to the adult nappy case recently where posters - I suspect not really acting in good faith - wanted us to provide evidence of this!)

I am struck by the contrast in reporting on the UK Court decision on the legal definition of a woman and on the US Supreme Court Decision relating to the deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia.

UK Court - yes but, no but, but, but but but, let’s appeal, this is not correct.
US Decision - this is a Supreme Court decision and must be implemented immediately, in full and without question.