Complaints about media coverage

[OhThereItIs]

Name changed for this.

I've been really frustrated since the weekend about the mass media framing of the protesters at Pride. Particularly the headline use of the pejorative term "anti-trans" protesters instead of a more accurate term such as “lesbian” protesters, “gay” protesters or “anti-transactivism” protesters.

“Anti-trans” is shorthand for “anti-transgender”, not “anti-transactivism” and would be widely understood by readers as the former, which is not an accurate representation of the protest.

This adjective inaccurately frames homosexuality as hostile to trans people, which has a negative impact on both lesbians and trans people, and serves to undermine what appeared to be a genuine, heart-felt protest on lesbian erasure and the hostility they are receiving for being exclusively homosexual.

If anything, this coverage exacerbates the hostility towards anyone that says they are exclusively same-sex attracted. And I would argue is irresponsible reporting towards the protesters, lesbians in general, and also trans people as tensions escalate.

Is anyone else complaining (or willing to complain) to newspapers and the BBC about their biased and descriminatory coverage?

This isn't to do with the pride protestors but I emailed the managing editor of the DM and asked them to stop presenting puberty blockers in such a flippant manner and to actually mention their negative side effects especially when people cited them as no big deal. I read an article by Juno Dawson this morning which said:

"In 2015, Juno announced she was transitioning to live as a woman, and the biggest myth the author wants to dispel is the idea that there are children across the UK changing gender in childhood.
'The notion that one can “transition” a minor - it doesn’t happen in the UK. Under 18s are supported by Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services and the NHS until they reach adulthood.'
A young person may be prescribed hormone blockers to temporarily put puberty on hold, making an eventual transition easier if they so decide in the future. "

I was still cross at the end of the day and thinking also of the article on the mermaids prom a few days ago which mentioned blockers in an off hand no big deal way so often. Like so many things we are being told, its a lie told over and over again that people have started to believe.

It probably won't make a blind bit of difference but I was inspired by everyone else who put in complaints on this thread

Good on you, miri!

Any description of anti-trans should be in quotation marks. It must be attributed. It doesn't stop it being defamatory: in fact, it is defamatory. I hope the protestors lodge complaints on this basis. However if not in quoration marks it is being reported as a fact, not an accusation by one side.

I think you are confusing transphobia and anti-trans. There's a different threshold. For something to be anti-trans, all it needs to be is detrimental to trans interests.

I think you are confusing anti-trans and pro-lesbian. I think your confusion about this is very, very telling.

‘Anti’ means opposed to/against so snappity it’s actually less to prove than being detrimental to trans interests...

They still have to put it in quotes and attribute it if it is the opinion of a third party and the fact that they haven’t means the paper is, having held it out as a statement of fact, responsible for proving that the protest was anti trans.

I do find it rather illuminating that re trans issues you seem to think the papers should just be a mouthpiece. Maybe you would understand why that’s bad if you considered what would happen if the paper printed a news article that stated one of the protest’s aims as though it were a fact...

Thing is, none of us are wanting that. We all thing it is important for newspapers to print news that has been fact checked, is fair and with views in a polarised debate properly attributed to the relevant third party.

We would all be worried it would place trans people at risk of violence and increase transphobia if the paper had taken that approach...

Interesting that despite a bomb threat, rape threats, a museum exhibiting threats of violence to women and a set of weapons, an actual prosecution for assault etc etc you want papers to be the mouthpiece of transactivism and print their side as though it is fact...

There's tumbleweed in my email account. I don't know if this is good or bad.

I'll let you know what responses I get... eventually.

There's a different threshold. For something to be anti-trans, all it needs to be is detrimental to trans interests

Snappity this is nonsense.

Words matter, journalism matters, free speech matters.