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.

You know, this reminds me of the campaign to get mothers' names on the marriage certificate. It was such a simple, basic change to ask for, the response should have been 'ah, damn, we are in violation of the Equality Act, that is so stupid of us! Right, sorted, here you are'. And instead it's turned into a massive argument.

Same thing here. It should be so simple. Some people are upset and offended by seeing child rape categorised as entertainment. Others don't care if it is, and could access the same content in multiple other ways anyway. Yet, instead of the response being 'hey, whatevs, go for it' it's 'OMG CENSORSHIP!!!'.

It's as if it'd somehow be a tactical defeat to ever admit feminism might have a tiny little point.

But it isn't categorised as Entertainment. It is categorised as 'news relating to the entertainments and arts industry'. It is also categorised as News, UK, England etc.

Just a thought, if the perpetrator was a well known sports person would it be reported in the Sports News?

"Just a thought, if the perpetrator was a well known sports person would it be reported in the Sports News?"

Yes it would. When Mr. Pistorious was charged with murder it appeared in the sports section (no examples of child abusing sportspeople off the top of my head) - because its a categorisation, not a judgement of the seriousness of the crime.

I don't see why it shouldn't be reported in the entertainment section. The BBC site isn't heat magazine full of celeb gossip. Its a news section so news stories about well known people in the entertainment industry belong there.

Is it just sex crimes you wouldn't want to see reported in there or any crimes?

Having been back to the BBC website E&A section, the only frivolous article is about Dangermouse returning. Everything else is proper news...

Dangermouse returning isn't a frivolous article. How dare you suggest that it is?

And at someone coming on here calling us all a bit stupid and then accusing us of attacking them.

The entertainment industry clearly had a big problem, I don't think it's wrong to write about it. This isn't the 'fun' section, or the 'what's on' section, it's a NEWS section and as the offenders are/were well known entertainers/artists, I think it's appropriate for it to be placed there. If there was a dailymail type gossip page on the BBC, then it would be completely wrong to put it there, but that section is news- serious news, with big implications for entertainment business. I don't think it's censorship to want to move it (how would moving it to another section magically hide the news from the public exactly?) though.

As someone pointed out earlier, the Oscar Pistorious case is ONLY news because of who he is. Men kill their wives and girlfriends on a weekly basis and sadly it tends not to make the headlines. This is a HUGE ongoing investigation and would be news no matter what the perpetrators did for a living.

I think that it is a good point TheSarcasticFringehead in that having 3 out of 8 stories in the entertainment section about child sexual abuse (as was the case last week) does highlight the issue of male entitlement and rape culture in the entertainment industry and that is a big problem...

if (and it's a big if)...

anyone was actually joining up the dots, naming the problem and doing something about it.

But they aren't (other than us and we don't need it pointing out in an entertainments section). So that aspect doesn't really come into it.

I think as a number of people have pointed out, it is the lack of sensitivity towards the victims. Rape and abuse of women and children is minimised all the time. Hell, the rape and abuse of women is used as entertainment. So it just doesn't need to happen in this way. We aren't asking for anything to be removed, just moved to a more appropriate section. I'm failing to see why that is causing so much controversy on this thread.

Some really don't enjoy challenging the status quo. If you dont want it to happen then don't sign the petition. Simples.

Feminism is a political theory in the same way as marxism or neoliberalism are political theories. This means everything can be analysed as a feminist issue.

Personally, I think this part of our culture of minimising sexual violence and perpetrator responsibility from claiming that false rape accusations are a massive issue to using the word sex when the crime is rape. This is why I support the campaign and training organisation Ending Victimisation and Blame, as well as writing nearly weekly letters to the BBC about the misuse of terms like "child sex" when they mean child rape. Oddly, I can campaign on more than one issue at once (and do on a daily basis).

Never thought about that before - I wonder why they use the term "child sex" instead of "child rape"? I can't believe they are intentionally trying to minimise - but it is a bit....odd.

Child pornography and child prostitution are both written in law so there is very little we can do to challenge it even though they too are horrible. But, the BBC is one of the worse offenders in the media for "child sex", "child sex parties", "child sex rings" etc. I know Ending Victimisation and Blame have had lots of submissions (and not just by me) on the BBC's misuse of of language.

Stewie what do they say when you write to them about this?

I am really not seeing this argument. It's not that I don't agree with it I just don't think it's logical. If a sports star was invovled in a crime then it probably would feature under sports same as politician would probably feature in politics. It's because these people are well known in the entertainment world they appear in news from the entertainment world.

HaroldsBishop I usually link the guidelines on reporting violence against women set out by the National Union of Journalists and by the AVA project both of which are very clear on the importance of appropriate language. I send the complaint via the complaints form on the website

I'm not sure the sports argument holds up. Firstly, drink driving footballers, those who abuse women and those who post obscenities on Twitter and the like are covered in the main section of newspapers, not the sports section. Even alleged affairs do not feature in the back pages of the newspapers. Ironically I suspect this is because people like their sport unsullied by such unsportsmanlike behaviour rather than judicious filing.

I don't know if the BBC cover this in their sports section and the main section because I've never looked. I would be be surprised if it's different for the reasons given.

I agree with you about the wording- child prostitutes should be prostituted children, child sex should be sexual abuse and so on. My brother is a survivor and I have previously worked with sex offenders so this is very close to my heart! Even subtle changes will make a difference in a long run, to changing how people see sexual abuse (and sex as a whole?) when all put together. The BBC and other news sites are improving, but it's little things most people don't think of but just accept which are some of the biggest problems.