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.

There isn't a sports section in the News...

There is
BBC> News>Education
BBC> News> Health
BBC> News>Politics
...
BBC> News> Education&Arts

There is
BBC> Sport

but no BBC> News > Sport

(Except in the mobile app! I'm sure I've seen articles about Oscar in there too though.)

I don't know much about the Ched Evans case (have googled it, am not in UK) but I would argue that it SHOULD be in the Sports section (especially with him appearing to want to come back and play professionally again, ffs), although I think a distinction between Ched Evans and a lot of the recent sexual abuse cases, Jimmy Savile and so on, is that they used their fame/their place in the entertainment and arts industry to be able to abuse those victims (like visiting the hospital and so on) and of course, compared to sports, it appears to be more endemic. Unless I've completely misread it, Evans didn't actually use his work to specifically groom/abuse victims in the way many of the recent cases seem to have done, so less implications for the Sports (well, football) industry? I still think it should have appeared in sport news though.

Because you're trying to prove that the BBC are being inconsistent and I'm just stating that Sport isn't included as a News subheading, so you won't find anything in BBC> News> Sport because that combination doesn't exist.

They have included articles about Cyril Smith in Politics, I'm pretty certain that I've seen Oscar Pistorius in the mobile Sports app. They are just ones I can remember.

This molehill is just about whether a serious article about an entertainer (and Artist) should be included in the Entertainment & Arts section of a serious News website. You guys are making a mountain of it by starting/signing this petition.

Petition the BBC (and any other culprits) to change their language by all means, but stop trivialising sex abuse/ rape and its victims by arguing over different definitions of Entertainment!

It is a bit silly to defend what is essentially a decision about filing at the expense of the feelings of victims, the feelings of those who feel the status quo is disrespectful and trivialising of the crimes and at the expense of those who would find such stories triggering and would not expect them to be there.

But, hey, let's defend the right to file stories without thought or robust rational because... well I'm not sure why really. What's the reason for preserving the status quo? It's not censorship or cover up that's for sure.

Incidentally, these are not "entertainers" in the context of these stories, they are the "accused" and the "convicted criminal". Context is everything. As I mentioned up thread the primary focus of the news story is key. In the case of Ched Evans the story of his rape conviction is primarily about his criminal conviction. His occupation is secondary. The story about him wanting to return to football despite being a convicted rapist is primarily about him and wanting to return to professional sport. In that context the rape conviction is secondary.

Surely these crimes are on the front homepage anyway, all over the news and so on? I also think that NOT involving the entertainment industry in the cases would be a bad idea- the actual crimes are not to do with it, but how many there are and why it was allowed to go on for so long is very much to do with the entertainment industry imo and therefore should be part of the news section about the entertainment business, in the same way, in my opinion, sexual abuse within the Catholic Church is also a religious issue and should be part of a section about religion, or sexual abuse by doctors of vulnerable patients should be on health news as the health sector has played a primary role in the abuse being allowed to continue (obviously not just there, but I think one of the biggest problems with these cases is how the entertainment industry is involved in them- it isn't the criminals 'merely' using their status but otherwise it not being connected with their jobs, it uses the structure, the shows, the proximity to children to make it happen, and the entertainment industry was involved in the cover up too).

Buffy
Arbitrary - ' based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system

Fried food in schools article appears in Top news, UK, Education and Health. Those categories all seem logical and sensible to me - fried food = health, schools = education, UK schools = UK, I'm not sure if top news is assigned or dynamically determined from page visits but anyway it's new news = top news. If the category assignments were arbitrary, then I would expect to see it in perhaps Business or Entertainment&Arts.

Rolf Harris/ Jimmy Savile etc. appearing in E&A is not arbitrary because
a) he is an entertainer/ artist.
b) these people got away with it for so long because there were huge coverups going on in the Entertainment industry.
Again, logical and sensible reasons.

What would be the problem of doing this? What would we.lose by not being able to read this under the category "entertainment?"

I can see some of the logic of the counter argument but I think I actually care.less about logic than supporting victims of this.case. And I'd also prefer to see.the story being classified as a crime against women and children, rather than gossip about entertainers. And I can't see the harm of making the change though I can see the.potential harm of not making the change.

I'm pretty sure I remember seeing the ched Evans in the football pages on the bbc when he was jailed.

The football section does have other details of stories linked from the news sections. Just yesterday a story on the football page was about business men who had been jailed for match fixing.

This story was in the main news section, then UK news section and football section.

I agree eminor, this is about the whole entertainment industry, and ignoring the part it played in allowing the abuse to continue would be wrong imo.

"And I'd also prefer to see.the story being classified as a crime against women and children, rather than gossip about entertainers."

"to call a sexual abuse trial entertainment"

But the BBC News Entertainment and Arts section is categorically not gossip about entertainers and placing news in there does not imply you are meant to be 'entertained' by it. This section contains news about things that are happening in the arts and entertainment 'world' or 'industries' -whichever you want to call them. A footballer who was involved in a horrible accident when driving drunk a few years ago was reported on in both Sport and the main News section, for example.

Suggesting that the section called Entertainment and Arts contains 'entertainment' per se is like suggesting that the section called Education contains 'education' per se. But nobody opens the Education section expecting a French lesson or a unit on biological classification. And those who are not expecting triggers will be shocked to find stories of teachers abusing their position in that section as well as in the main news.

In fact, it seems to me that it's particularly important that these reports do appear in the Entertainment and Arts section because they are about a problem that appears to have been endemic in the entertainment business. It was precisely because these individuals were famous that some of them appear to have been able harm so many people.

I consider myself a feminist but while I absolutely agree about the framing of crimes from a historically male viewpoint, I think this particular point is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the categorisation used by the BBC.

Look, I've heard and understood the categorisation argument. I just don't think I care as much as I.do about the victims of this crime, who were not artists or entertainers. So I'd rather it be classed from their perspective and I'd also rather avoid the trigger potential given the concerns noted above. I recognise the logic at work in the 'correct categorisation' argument. It just doesn't matter as much as the victims of such crimes do. And nothing would be lost by doing this. Such an easy gesture to indicate they mind for the victims that the coverage isn't more intrusive, ubiquitous and triggering than it has to be.

'I consider myself a feminist but while I absolutely agree about the framing of crimes from a historically male viewpoint, I think this particular point is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the categorisation used by the BBC.'

But isn't that the whole point?

We're not 'misunderstanding'. We understand what they're getting at. We just reckon they should change it. It's not, I don't think, that anyone imagines the BBC deliberately set up a malicious system for the sake of it - it's just, they could do things differently and they're choosing not to. Where's the harm in changing their categorisation system?

(I think this might be one of those debates that makes me feel frustrated, that so often people are talking cross-purposes. One side is saying 'would it be possible to make a (small, reasonable) structural change?' and the other side is assuming structure is something fixed, and is saying 'you don't get it, what you're asking for is structural change'.)

I'm not entirely thinking straight, so sorry if it's a bit muddled, but are you saying it is triggering for victims, or minimising victims' experiences? The petition says the latter, which I disagree with, but I can see how it would be triggering for victims (obviously) but also, we don't actually know their wishes. They might want more exposure for the crimes and therefore it being in the E&A News, they might feel the abuse has been minimised, they might feel anything in the world and it's ultimately them who should decide- and I appreciate how hard that would be and how there won't ever be something which everyone agrees on.

I haven't seen articles where the main focus is on the entertainment industry's role in the abuse, but I've seen some where it is mentioned- sometimes very/too briefly, sometimes for a good chunk. I'll google them and get some examples, if you want. I think there needs to be more looking at the crimes from that angle, I don't think the BBC have done it right, but I don't think placing it in the E&A section is one of the things they've done wrong.

I probably am talking at cross purposes, but I think it would be damaging to move it from E&A and therefore minimise the role the entertainment business played in the abuse. I understand (I think) what you're saying and I agree with some of it, but I think it's more than logic, moving it away is taking away the part the entertainment business had- and with so little focus on that already, I don't think that's right.

I agree that the articles aren't showing the most important aspects. I think we have different ways to go about making sure they do- but they do need to be changed, either way. I don't like seeing clips of some of the shows they've done when talking about their crimes, as I think that they are putting the person's fame over the abuse, so I do get where you're coming from- it's wrong and all too often people are focussing on the nice, doddery old man image and not the crimes and abuse. It's definitely a tricky one!

Access to the Entertainment News is normally via the main news page - thus people will have seen any "triggers" before they even get there. They'll just have to not click on anything that may upset them - that's the point of headlines....

That's assuming they haven't come across them on any of the Radio, TV or other social media out there anyway....

I think that news pertaining to entertainers and artists is exactly what I'd expect to find in the Entertainment and Art News section. If I wanted the latest Soap Plots I'd be looking somewhere else entirely.

It's just another useless petition about another non-issue - but it lets the ignorant masses feel useful & stops them interfering in important issues so it's not a total waste...

I think the idea that I do this rather than engage in 'real' issues is spurious at best; speaking personally it's extremely aggravating. Do you sincerely image that I sign this petition, which as far as I can tell has mainly been signed by politically active feminists, then cancel my Greenpeace subscription, stop my other campaigning on fair trade in local shops and businesses, not bother voting, stop participating in organisations which seek specific change in the laws, and drop my politically active arts practice in order to take up a role in Grease?Or would you like to rethink your assumptions about who signs this sort of thing and what role it has on the rest of their activism? Loads of people get started on activism through tiny stuff like this, so don't even start on the, I-didn't-mean-you bollocks.

It's such a fucking tiny and easy thing to do but it turns out that most people would rather argue about how they imagine people involved wouldn't mind being triggered or would hav been anyway, and lecture people raising completely reasonable and victim focused questions on how to conduct their activism. It's really hard not to just write that opposition off as campaigning for.patriarchy.

Really impressed by Buffy, LRD, Bill etc. are keeping their cool and explaining carefully and nicely. It's making my blood.boil, tbf.

Even in the case that this would mean a categorical.anomaly, even in the case it won't save anyone from being triggered, can we not just please say this case.is about sexual abuse and the experience of victims and not about celebrity. Why is that teeny inch so.difficult to give?

I disagree OhYou this isn't a non-issue, this is something which is important for the victims and also society's attitudes towards sexual abuse and rape! There needs to be changes with how this is covered, I don't think moving it is the right thing personally, but I don't think the BBC are reporting it in the 'right way' and I don't think I'd have thought about it without the petition.

Buffy said

Just did a search on Ched Evans rape on bbc sport. Nada,

I was surprised by this so I thought I'd check for myself - and it's completely untrue.

If you go to the BBC web site, click on sports and then search for 'Ched Evans rape' you get 5 stories since the date of his conviction - and every single one of them mentions the rape conviction.

Don't believe me? Here you can check for yourself -

www.bbc.co.uk/search/sport/?q=ched+evans+rape

If you just search for 'rape' then you get a (depressingly) long list of stories - which seem to be a mixture of sportsmens crimes and reports of crass comments by sportsmen.

www.bbc.co.uk/search/sport/?q=rape

I'm not a regular reader but it looks to me that the BBC sport section is doing a pretty good job of reporting on sportsmen who are rapists and rape apologists.