nauticant Mon 17-Feb-20 11:29:40 wrote:
"I'm preparing a complaint to go to the BBC about Evan Davis' interview of Harry Miller. I've listened again to the interview and had a look at the High Court judgement and here are my notes in case anyone else is minded to complain.
The essence of my complaint is going to be that Evan Davis went into the interview already with the idea in his head that Miller was “anti-trans”, ie prejudiced against trans people, and the evidence of this is that Davis called Miller “anti-trans” four times, even though Miller explained his position and significantly that Davis' use of the term went against what was in the High Court judgement, see the quotes below. As such, Davis was either speaking from his own prejudice having not checked whether that was in conflict with the judgement or had decided to misrepresent what was in the judgement.
The High Court judgement:
Miller's tweets displayed no "hatred or prejudice to the transgender community"
Miller's "tweets were not targeted at Mrs B [the person who had originally made a complaint to the Police], nor even the transgender community" and he had "expressed the sort of views that are also held by many academics as part of a complex multi-faceted debate".
Before the interview started Evan Davis said Miller had made "anti-trans" tweets. Miller challenged this, Davis said "I think anyone reading your tweets would say you are anti-trans and let's just call a spade a spade". This contradicts the judgement. Miller explained he was not against trans people but was "mocking the idea that it's possible for an immutable characteristic like sex to change just because somebody says so". Davis said "The listener would benefit that from knowing it's reasonable to call them [the tweets] "anti-trans"". This is particularly problematic. Davis is saying that the listener would benefit from his view of the tweets which is in contradiction to the view of the High Court. As such, Davis is misleading the listener.
Other comments by Davis:
"You come across as a bit obsessed about something which you could quite happily ignore ... you're not really debating here."
"you can't pretend ... you are not being anti-trans, of course you are."
Davis used the term "anti-trans" four times in the interview which since this wasn't in the judgement had come from Davis' prejudgement of Miller. This view, contradicted by what was in the judgement, was what Davis had wanted to get across to the audience.
In the interview, Davis referred to Miller's involvement in the debate as "weird". If the interview had been about something else, away from the difficult trans issue, would it be reasonable for an interviewer to refer to someone involved in a debate about proposed legal changes as "obsessed" and "weird"?
Obviously the interview was not compatible with the BBC Charter, particularly the first Public Purpose of the BBC:
"To provide impartial news and information to help people understand and engage with the world around them: the BBC should provide duly accurate and impartial news, current affairs and factual programming to build people’s understanding of all parts of the United Kingdom and of the wider world. Its content should be provided to the highest editorial standards. It should offer a range and depth of analysis and content not widely available from other United Kingdom news providers, using the highest calibre presenters and journalists, and championing freedom of expression, so that all audiences can engage fully with major local, regional, national, United Kingdom and global issues and participate in the democratic process, at all levels, as active and informed citizens."
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3822991-Harry-will-be-on-R4-PM-shortly?watched=1&msgid=94005446#94005446