The BBC's official policy on "entertainers" who commit child rape is to post articles in the "Arts & Entertainment" section

[StewiesBack]

I've been complaining to the BBC for months about their coverage of the trials of Stuart Hall, Max Clifford, Gary Glitter and all the other male celebrities investigated, charger and/ or convicted as part of the Yewtree operation into Jimmy Savile's systemic sexual assault of children whilst working at the BBC. I've had a number of utterly ridiculous emails from them claiming that it is totally appropriate for coverage of the trials of "entertainers" to be placed as both "news" and "arts and entertainment" on the online sites.

I've started a petition to have the BBC change their official policy so that articles referencing child rape, sexual abuse or exploitation not be placed under the heading of "arts and entertainment" online. I'm not sure what the MN policy is on petitions anymore but I've written it up for my blog.

Why?

It's not revolting to equate women's rights with women's rights - it is revolting to categorise something as 'entertainment' when it's a story about abuse.

And again (sigh). It's not being categorised as 'entertainment'. It's being categorised as news pertaining to the entertainment industry. Very big difference. I'm surprised an adult cannot comprehend this.

I don't. If I meant to insult I would.

I would totally agree with all of you (petition signers) if it was in the fun section, but it's not, it's in the Entertainment and Arts section of a news website.

I'm not trying to be objectionable or snippy but I don't see the women's rights issue here.

Sorry. If it were in...

Of course not.

Well, that's up to you, we don't all have to agree, do we?

There are lots of women's rights issues some people don't see, or aren't interested in - a lot of it's based on personal experience and judgement.

Though I do appreciate you not being as rude as onesleep.

Yes, onesleep, those of us who care about rape and abuse are all exceptionally stupid.

Stop projecting your issues about silly touchy feminists. That's all irrelevant. I don't agree with the point you're making or your reasons behind it. If you see yourself as silly or touchy that's your issue.

Why do you need to go on the attack when you don't get your own way? I don't think you're stupid, I've seen a lot of your posts. I don't always agree with you, as now. But that's a cheap strategy that does do you no favours. I'm off to work now.

Ah, yes, when Harold Shipman was in the news I do believe they covered in in Health and Science. And of course anything related to Madeline McCann is also covered in Travel because they were on holiday at the time. Oh, no, hang on a minute, that would be fucking stupid wouldn't it?

Direct Link to the petition

Signed. Obviously.

Sorry. I mean could someone explain it to me because I really don't see the issue. Is it because it's about rape and abuse and that is predominantly against women?

Oh, lovely.

'You are all projecting, because I say so'.

Goodness, I do sure hope you come back and educate us poor fools, onesleep. When you have time from your terribly important work (almost like you're leaving because you realized you've no argument, innit)?

I really do not get this.

If you think someone is petitioning something actively dangerous or discriminatory, obviously, you argue against it. If you merely think 'huh, that's daft and pointless,' why would you get into it? You're entitled to do so, I just can't really understand why you'd want to?

thenumber - YY, I would think so, and because rape and abuse of children are issues that are usually pretty close to feminism in terms of getting signatures for a petition.

Ok, well that sort of makes sense for greater exposure for the petition.

I still agree with the BBC though. People read the BBC news website to read news.

The issue TheNumber is that serious sexual assault is not entertainment; it is news and serious enough to stand as news without being shuffled off to "entertainment". Also, there's nothing remotely entertaining about rape or sexual violence.

To give a some examples:

Stuart Hall being convicted is news because of the criminal aspect of serious sexual assaults and the social aspect of how this happened and was apparently condoned and covered up by one of the country's most revered institutions. That makes it newsworthy and is serious news.

Antony Worrall Thompson getting caught for pinching cheese in Tesco is "entertainment" news because the story on its own: Man steals cheese worth less than £4 is spectacularly un-newsworthy. The fact it is sleb chef off t'box that has done it is the interesting bit but it's fairly trite and unimportant so fine to go in "entertainment" for the vacuous titillation of the masses.

American rapper in a gang gets shot is entertainment news because it is only getting coverage because of who has been shot: Gang member in States gets shot in drive by shooting is not newsworthy in this country because it happens all the time and does not relate to us here. The interest aspect is who has been shot.

So, the test is what's the public interest? Is it just the "celebrity" angle or is it the actual content of the story? And in these criminal cases the focus has to be on the criminal aspect primarily and the celebrity aspect is secondary. By filing it in entertainment it is trivialising the seriousness of these cases and making the focus on the perpetrator's celebrity instead of the crimes committed.

People do read the BBC website for news. The various men who have been accused and/or convicted of raping and abusing children/women within the remit of Yewtree is news.

If i were to read the arts and entertainment section of the BBC website, I would expect stories about, opera, theatre, music, TV, radio. About storylines maybe, what's on, what's good, reviews, that kind of thing. You know, entertainment.

The difficulty here for me is that the BBC has ALSO put the stories (exactly the same story) in it's Arts and Entertainment tab. Which could cause difficulties for people who for whatever reason are trying to avoid the Yewtree related stories, but still want to know about arts subjects.

This is not to do with covering up, or not reporting, but everything to do with what the public perceive the BBC believes about Yewtree, because, at the moment, it seems disjointed. Abuse trials are news, not entertainment.

I'm not sure about this. I do tend to agree with the posters saying that this is news from the Arts & Entertainment world, so linking from that page is not 'wrong'

On the other hand, I tend to click through to that page to get some 'light' news and frothy titbits, so I can see how these kinds of stories don't exactly 'fit'.

I don't see, however, why it would be a big deal to stop linking these stories on that section if it does trigger or cause distress (and I can see how it could). Why would it be such a problem to those NOT triggered, to not have these stories appearing on that section?

But it doesn't just appear in the Entertainment & Arts section though. It goes in UK and Top Stories too.

Just like the Fried Food article is currently appearing in the Top News, Education, Health and UK sections on my phone app. (I apologise if anyone thinks I'm trivialising rape and abuse, it's just the first example I could see.)

I signed yesterday. Excellent post iK8.