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.

lol at a coverup in the News section
and lol at people being so silly as to expect light'n'fluffy being categorised as entertainment

i do take the point about a moviestars' death not being light and fluffy. but it's different,too in that it's ok to focus on the moviestar they are the ones that matter in their own death, after all.

when it comes to crime it's the victims who matter, surely. They should be given respect for what they have gone through.

sorry about terrible typing, bfing wriggly baby

So, child abuse is, to your mind, comparable to a car crash?

Wow!

The E&A section should be, as I stated pretty clearly before about E&A, so, opera, arts, reviews, theatre, film, TV possibly, exhibitions etc, including obits about people who have worked within the field. Not whether or not entertainers used their positions to procure children and women to abuse and rape.

As PP said, maybe there should be a crime section, and then the stories could just sit there.

I agree. Child rape is not entertainment. Have signed the petition.

That's a very good point Buffy. Does somebody famous dying in a car crash have far reaching implications for society? If it does then it's main news. If it does not then it is news related to a soecific field of interest.

Systemic abuse facilitated and/or covered up by a publicly funded national organisations is BIG NEWS because it relates to all of us. We all have an interest in that organisation (we're paying for it!) and in the social conditions that existed to allow it to happen because if it continued it could happen to you or someone you know and care about. That is significant.

Significant and far reaching = main news that the majority is interested and cares about.
Trite, niche or limited interest = specific interest news where people with that specific interest will seek it out.

Not hard is it?

Some of you are going out of your way to be offended.
That is what this whole thread is about!

I'm pretty certain that the BBC will carry on tagging news articles related to celebrities in the E&A section.

There is a big difference between Entertaining & Arts or For your Entertainment & Arts and Entertainment & Arts .

"So, child abuse is, to your mind, comparable to a car crash?

Wow!"

Come on now I haven't come close to saying that have I? I'm just pointing out there are lots of things in the section that are not "entertaining" as support for my assertion that it isn't supposed to be entertainment - it's a source of news. IMVHO of course.

Some of you are going out of your way to be offended.

Lol. That's tantamount to "Women! Know your place!"

I'm not going out of my way to offended.

Offence is going out of its way to find me. If you will.

Women, know your place???? Where did you get that from?

Look, if I'm honest I read the post late last night and thought, well, it's just another thing to worry about when there are zillions of things to worry about and went to bed.

Then I slept on it, read the blog post and thought: what is the impact of just not doing this? What is the amount of effort I need to expend to do something about this? The effort to achieve both was negligible because to stop doing one thing is a negative effort and the time taken to sign an online petition is about 30 seconds so a teeny, tiny effort on my part. Worth it when the potential benefits are much larger.

Therefore, why not support it? I cannot see an argument for the status quo to remain other than "things are ok as they are". Well they would still be ok with the tiny change and they would potentially be better for some.

I am a woman. I have two wonderful daughters. I want them (and me) to live in a world that is as equal as possible, no matter what your gender, colour, disability etc.

I do think that petitions such as this are ridiculous.

Disgusting perverts that rape and abuse women, children and men should be brought to justice and it should be reported. If they are entertainers then it is news relevant to 'Entertainment'. Arguing about which sections it should be included in trivialises the matter.

I would call it censorship!

"I asked that question upthread and as far as I can tell none of those against the idea have answered it: i.e. what's the impact of not having it in entertainment?"

None to very little impact either way probably.

Why on earth would it be censorship?

On the internet, we have the lovely power to hyperlink one single article in several different places. Deciding not to categorise child rape as entertainment is hardly censorship.

Then I think you need to consult a dictionary because filing an article in one section instead of one section plus a trivialising one is not censorship.

I do love 'going out of your way to be offended'.

This argument always works so well:

Well, yes, rape and child abuse are upsetting, no doubt, but it is far more important to, er, er, well, you know ... mock the people who're upset, because otherwise, er ... someone would have to read the news section of the website as well as the entertainment one!

And their typing fingers might get tired!

And they might be too thick to realize a news story would be in news, and they might spend hours forlornly clicking refresh on the Entertainment section, unable to figure out how to find the content they so passionately needed to find ...

It fair makes my heart bleed.

Can I say how nice it is to see Stewie back? :)

You want to censor E&A news to fit your narrow definition of it being 'trivial'.

I don't think it should just contain 'trivial' stuff. Neither does the BBC so good luck with your petition...

Did you not read our posts?

Are you censoring us?

I actually gaffawed at "You want to censor E&A news to fit your narrow definition of it being 'trivial'."

Damn you, you bastards! We should be defending the rights of the people to read about sex offenders in Arts & Entertainment!

I repeat

Disgusting perverts that rape and abuse women, children and men should be brought to justice and it should be reported. If they are entertainers then it is news relevant to 'Entertainment'. Arguing about which sections it should be included in trivialises the matter .