BBC Bias - Collecting Examples here

[Wanderabout]

The lack of representation of the impact on women's rights on Newsnight last night while the clear problems were dismissed was ridiculous.

This thread is collecting examples of BBC failing to provide balance in representing women's concerns.

BBC says sex work is work

Why is the BBC Promoting Sex Work? www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3875512-why-is-the-bbc-promoting-sex-work

To find this thread I searched for "BBC" in "Feminism Chat". To be fair, not all the threads are about "BBC Bias" but a LOT of them are - and there are currently 200 !

www.mumsnet.com/SearchArch?mustmatch=BBC&dontmatch=&nickname=&src_displ_option=s_t_d_t&fromDate=&toDate=&topicmode=chs&chosentops=5365

(Clicking through Search Result links is mangled at the moment and almost everything gives an "Ooops!" page so I had to go one step further and enter "Feminism chat" plus the thread title in an internet search to get here! - DuckDuckGo rather than dastardly Google.)

Anyway, the reason I am here is that I happened across this YouTube video by chance.

"John Humphrys on the BBC's 'liberal bias' | Liddle's Got Issues"
(YouTube Channel: The Times and The Sunday Times)
Video description:
John Humphrys, former presenter of BBC Radio 4's Today programme, speaks with Rod Liddle to discuss the alleged liberal bias of his former employer.

The last part, from this point on, just confirms all the previous observations here:

Transcript - just that last part, which they are obviously sweating, realising what they have drifted into discussing, so to relieve their anxiety they divert into a bit of "bantz between the boyz". Trigger warning: totes toxic cis-het masculine transmisogynistic trivialising of transvestite realities!

Rod Liddle
the other point I wanted to bring up regard in the previous point we were talking about, which is the the the soft liberal bias of the BBC. It's a rather naive bias, I think it is

John Humphrys
oh, yes, yes

RL
As I say, you've said it, I've said it, Robin Aitken said it, John Sergeant said it, Jeremy Paxman said it, Michael Buerk has said it. One thing we all have in common: we're old white men.

JH
I don't think it's, I don't know this, how can you tell? We can't possibly tell can we? I don't think it is an old, white, male, perspective. I was talking to a young woman the other day whose best friend had a son who has decided that he's a daughter, and has changed his name. Now, she felt incapable of, I mean really incapable of, being able to rail against, or at least to caution him, because she was afraid that she would be seen as - a prejudiced bigot.

RL
Yeah.

JH
She's not. She's a very decent and, I would have said - in the good-old, bad-old days - a very decent, liberal educated - well she's afraid. It's this policy capture!

RL
It's interesting that, I think the transgender issue is, that is, kind of the tipping point in this.

JH
Is it because most people - simply don't get it?

RL
Well, it's not really that, I think they do get it, and they see it as a fad, and also one which is, inherently it's an oxymoron, it's a, it's a paradox, it's ludicrous. We've got ourselves into a position whereby we are prepared to say that a transgendered person's transgenderism was hardwired and, just as a gay person was hardwired to be gay, but we deny that a woman is hardwired to be a female! I mean, it is an absurdity!

JH
Of course it is.
And a hundred different genders?

RL
And a hundred different genders - except there are two genders.

(Babble babble, talking over each other).

JH
And we both accept, we - this is the old BBC, I mean - we would both accept that there are people who are gender dysphoric.

RL
Yes indeed, but a tiny, tiny minority.

JH
A tiny minority.

RL
And we would also accept that people who want to dress as women can do so.

JH
Of course.

RL
You could!

You'd look lovely!

JH
Do you think?

RL
I think so.

JH
I wouldn't, um, guarantee that.

RL
John, thanks a lot mate! (The auto-transcript rendered "mate" as "Mary" BTW!)

JH
It's been a great pleasure, and you were a bloody good editor. He's actually much nicer than he seems.

RL
Thanks a lot!

• - - - -

As Humphrys mentioned "Policy capture":

Search results for "capture" in Feminism Chat Thread Titles:

www.mumsnet.com/SearchArch?mustmatch=capture&dontmatch=&nickname=&src_displ_option=s_t_d_t&fromDate=&toDate=&topicmode=chs&chosentops=5365

Also, just wondering how many of these "old white men" with nothing to lose by speaking the truth have had the bottle to stand up for JK Rowling or any of the other women who have put their necks on the line:

"As I ( Rod Liddle ) say, you've ( John Humphrys ) said it, I've said it, Robin Aitken said it, John Sergeant said it, Jeremy Paxman said it, Michael Buerk has said it. One thing we all have in common: we're old white men."

"It" being "the soft liberal bias of the BBC" aka "policy capture".

They have a new director general today. Tim Davie. BBC news has covered this.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-54014210

Davie says things like ‘If you want to be an opinionated columnist or a partisan campaigner on social media then that is a valid choice, but you should not be working at the BBC."

Which implies political impartiality is a key thing for him.. OK.

Then: ‘He said he regretted that the BBC had "not gone further to create a more diverse and inclusive" organisation’.

Again, OK , sounds good- clearly still a lot of work to do here. Women being paid unequally, and lack of ethnic diversity, which goes back since before the days of Greg Dyke, a BBC DG in the 2000s who made headlines saying the BBC was ‘hideously white’. And so on. All good points.

Then:

He [Tim Davie] pledged to make sure it [the BBC] "reflects more accurately the society we serve" in terms of gender, race, disability, socioeconomic status and sexuality.’

Fuck you, women.
How did he get to his level being that sexist and tone deaf?!

There’s an open letter from Alison Pearson to Tim Davie in the Telegraph today criticising the left wing bias of the BBC. No idea if link will work.

www.telegraph.co.uk/women/life/bbc-despises-people-pay-feeling-mutual/

I can’t read it. Does it mention the sexist bias ?

I haven't read the full thread but on Woman's Hour a while ago they had MTF trans person and GC woman but the MTF trans person would not debate with the GC woman. It may be that the transcommunity feel vulnerable because facts are facts and the arguments do tend to fall down quite quickly

I have a feeling that all is not the BBC's fault on the trans debate. Happy to be proved wrong.

@ChattyLion

I can’t read it. Does it mention the sexist bias ?

Fraid not ChattyLion. It’s more a criticism of their general wokeness. She talks about the banning of the Hope and Glory lyrics, and the smugness of Nish Kumar for example. She makes the point that their commitment to ‘diversity’ doesn’t seem to include allowing diverse political views. I think this quote kind of sums the article up:

I’m’ so tired of programmes on Radio 4 in which Yusef laments the fact that being one-legged and 19 stone cruelly disqualifies him from being a ballet dancer, which is evidence of “discrimination”, apparently.

I have to admit, that line made me wince a bit In a ‘you can’t say that’ sort of way, but Im getting to quite like people who say things you’re not supposed to.

Will Gompertz the BBC arts journalist has written the most ludicrously tone deaf piece about a film which I haven’t seen (don’t think it’s out yet) but which has racial exploitation and the subversion of sex-based exploitation in the music industry as a major theme:

Ma Rainey's Black Bottom: Will Gompertz reviews film starring Viola Davis
www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-54994182

The main female character, Ma Rainey, is quoted as saying: "They don't care nothing about me. All they want is my voice. Well, I done learned that, and they gonna treat me like I want to be treated no matter how much it hurt them…As soon as they get my voice down on them recording machines, then it's just like if I'd be some whore and they roll all over and put their pants on."

Gompertz’ write up brings in just as a bit of descriptive colour for entertainment, references to ‘easy ladies’ and Marilyn Manson ‘asking for a bald-headed, toothless hooker’ in his show rider

Gompertz himself says ‘Ma Rainey's Black Bottom explores talent, ambition, religion, family, race and the historic exploitation of black recording artists by white producers.’
No mention of sex, gender, misogyny which seems integral to the whole thing. It’s a bizarre review to read.

Is there a phrase (apart from ‘Bylined senior BBC journalist’) for people who don’t want to ‘see’ issues of sexual exploitation, sexism, and are casually misogynistic like this?

Not sure if this is the right thread for this. Good article on the 34 female Finnish PM but the headline focuses on trans self id which is discussed in a short paragraph near the end. So many other things the headline could have focused on but instead of having the achievements of the woman the article is about in the headline it focuses on trans.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-55020994

Lamanaubergine - I think it is a five star example of BBC bias.

Goes back to RL point posted up thread I can't believe I am re-quoting/agreeing with him

whereby we are prepared to say that a transgendered person's transgenderism was hardwired and, just as a gay person was hardwired to be gay, but we deny that a woman is hardwired to be a female!

Also - all these women politicians proactively throwing the rights, language, needs and reality of women and girls under the bus - Sanna Marin, Jacinta Arden, Nicola Sturgeon, Lisa Nandy and Labour et al - are a utter disgrace. These women are implicit, but also provide the necessary feminine cover for the erasure of women and girls.

The founding mothers of feminism and the women's rights movement would be utterly aghast. We need politicians - of any sex to support women and girls. This is not it.

BBC 100 women - yay! Oh, one is a trans woman: www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-55042935

Iamanaubergine I was just coming here to post that. A whole long article about Ms. Marin's achievements as a prime minister, the COVID19 situation in Finland (Britain apparently has 10 times more deaths per capita) etc etc and the headline is about a small thing mentioned in the end. Apparently the most important thing about Ms. Marin is what she thinks about a niche trans issue.

Re the Finland story, I notice they've now changed the title on the front page to: "The country governed by women in their 30s", although the article itself still has the same title.

I thought that was strange too. I clicked on the headline on the homepage because it sounded interesting, but then the actual article headline is about self ID.

lamanaubergine, is the writer, Megha Mohan by any chance, a correspondent for trans topics? Could be why. The article itself states that the PM has an ambitious Equality programme, so why isn't the headline and the content all about that?

I groan with dread at these BBC lists now and don't want to see any more of them ever since...well, ask Jenni Murray to explain how they get on them and who trumps whom and why.
Jackie Kay is never off the BBC, or Radio 4 anyway so no surprise there. Why does Julie Bindel never get put on lists like these? As far as I'm aware, she doesn't. She works tirelessly and has done so for many years on important work highlighting and opposing the exploitation of women and girls. And there are countless others too. What's the point of elevating a hundred, including trans? While excluding thousands equally or more qualified for listing but not known to or fitting the BBC's preferences?

Just had a google and yes Megha Mohan is a gender and identity correspondent but that isn’t what the main theme of the article is about. The article now seems to have been expanded to include other women in government but the trans section is a tiny bit of the whole piece. Plus the quote they use doesn’t really say that she supports self id:

Everyone should have the right to determine their own identities. And the programme supports this," Sanna Marin says.
Does she consider trans women, women?
"It's not my job to identify people," she says firmly. "It's everyone's job to identify themselves. It's not my place to say.

@Iamanaubergine

Just had a google and yes Megha Mohan is a gender and identity correspondent but that isn’t what the main theme of the article is about. The article now seems to have been expanded to include other women in government but the trans section is a tiny bit of the whole piece. Plus the quote they use doesn’t really say that she supports self id:

Everyone should have the right to determine their own identities. And the programme supports this," Sanna Marin says.
Does she consider trans women, women?
"It's not my job to identify people," she says firmly. "It's everyone's job to identify themselves. It's not my place to say.

Ah, my hunch was right. See how the agenda works.

I know that's not the article: I already said in my previous comment the theme of the article is the government's ambitious Equality agenda:

" The article itself states that the PM has an ambitious Equality programme, so why isn't the headline and the content all about that? "

Why does Julie Bindel never get put on lists like these?

Wrong sort of feminist for the BBC, i.e. one who consistently centres women in her activism.

Just for the record, I notice they've changed the title of the article now

BBC article today using ‘woman’ to mean transwoman and ‘cisgender woman’ to mean ‘woman’

www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/article/20d41ea8-42df-4bcd-92e6-692e204d3894
‘Why one woman filmed her transition: ‘I want to show young trans kids it gets better’’

Topic of MN thread: www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4100819-BBC-at-it-again

Worryingly poorly-phrased title on a disturbing news story from the BBC today. Its second to top item in the BBC news agenda ‘Latest stories’ tab, after today’s top Covid story.

Headline does not focus on the grooming or potential for sexual abuse or exploitation of kids or on the very serious risks to kids of a website linking up strangers for video chats without age restrictions.

Instead the headline is Children expose themselves on video chat site
By Joe Tidy
Cyber reporter
www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-56085499

This framing by the BBC is shameful, it’s victim-blaming and perpetrator-absolving- a bit like the concept of ‘child prostitution’. The article then begins:

‘ Warning: this story contains disturbing adult themes .
A BBC investigation into the increasingly popular live video chat website Omegle has found what appear to be prepubescent boys explicitly touching themselves in front of strangers.
Omegle links up random people for virtual video and text chats, and claims to be moderated - but has a reputation for unpredictable and shocking content.
Global child protection groups are increasingly concerned about predators using the site to gather self-generated child sexual abuse material.’

The BBC has strict guidance and policy around reporting child sexual exploitation. Given the content of the reporting the BBC must know that this is incredibly poor headline-writing?

This featured on the BBC home page today, taken from Radio 5 live.

Four stories about coming out Sounds promising... one each from the L, the G, the B and the T perhaps?

Don't be daft. Two gay men, one transwoman, one person called Jacob who used to identify as gay but has now settled on non-binary.

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/43S4fylSmwjwpr0L8Kr30d7/coming-out-four-personal-stories

How strange that they couldn't find one lesbian to tell her story. How very bizarre that female transitioners account for 75% of the cases at the Tavistock but the BBC didn't think to speak to a transman. Do the BBC issue special glasses to employees that render women completely invisible?

How strange that they couldn't find one lesbian to tell her story. How very bizarre that female transitioners account for 75% of the cases at the Tavistock but the BBC didn't think to speak to a transman. Do the BBC issue special glasses to employees that render women completely invisible?

Nancy Kelley was on twitter last night mocking the idea that we are 'erasing lesbians' by pointing to a graphic that demonstrated that people that are same sex attracted are down by 2% from the last generation (!!) - yes I had to read it twice as well.

She claims that the fact that 'LGBQ' is up proves her point but she fails to notice that although B and 'maybe B' is up, L/G (same sex) are down.

For biased reporting examples, include everything written by Ben Hunte, he makes false reports about the law and has quote GenderGP to back his case.

Woman's Hour interview with Sarah Pedersen re. her book 'The Politicisation of Mumsnet', 'balance' to Sarah's excellent interview was provided by Jane Garvey rather awkwardly pointing out that Stonewall regards FPFW and similar women's groups as 'hate groups'. No evidence, no backup, just 'hate groups' and left it there.

twitter.com/Nancy_M_K/status/1362051494225313794