Radio 4 reporting on women's issues - the good, the bad and the uninformed

[borntobequiet]

A thread detailing reports and interviews as above on any of the main R4 news programmes eg Today, World at One, PM, Woman's Hour. Please add any instances of good/poor/misleading instances here. I'll start with John Humphrys' cluelessness when talking about intersex conditions (DSD) this morning on Today.

Yes JH describing a famous intersex athlete as transgender showed a shocking failure to understand what the actual issues are. You can’t properly discuss the issues with males playing women’s sport if you conflate the two.

To be fair it is complex. But if the interviewer doesn’t have the understanding of the issues they need to get on a challenger who does and can explain.

Other Today presenters have shown they’ve done their research and asked great questions.

Moral maze today mentioned Glinner as someone with transphobic views and this went unchallenged. It was in relation to the IT crowd which I haven’t watched, so am not really sure what they are referencing.

And then they made it clear that @Glinner would dispute this. About 20 minutes later!

Excellent idea to have a thread to collate all this. Would be good if we all added links to the relevant programmes when we hear them too.

I love Woman's Hour. I think they do a great job. Their frustration is palpable, though.

I agree, Hollow. Jane Garvey in particular is fab.

She is great. I can't remember which muppet it was who wouldn't talk in the studio with someone who was GC, but Jane sounded so bemused by their refusal.

Moral maze today mentioned Glinner as someone with transphobic views

Why yes. Just like Shakespeare advocated teenage sex and regicide.

At least, he wrote about it. Which is the same thing.

Thanks for starting this thread, I had a similar thought earlier today that it would be easier to have a thread covering all of the various conversations.

Ofcom announced this morning that they're reviewing the bbc news and current affairs programmes

www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0027/139905/bbc-news-review-terms-of-reference.pdf

There is certainly plenty of scope to review the BBC as a trusted and reliable provider of news.

I’ve screenshot the relevant paragraph.

The methodology concerns me though, it refers to in-depth research methods and speaking to “those who engage with the BBC regularly”. Hmm I wonder who they mean?

Perhaps Justine could offer some MN engagement?

I'm hoping that Inside Science this afternoon (16.30) will have something. It's the topical scince show that looks at the scientific related stories in the news. Hosted by Adam Rutherford with his PhD in genetics so no bamboozling him with your endogenous and non-endogenous crap.

Why the fucking FUCK is Rachel Mc talking Konnon on the TODAY prorgramme again now. And no GC voice although MarthaK is doing a good job.

Complete and utter shit going unchallenged.

Today prog editor is an absolute disgrace.

Martha doing a much better job than Humphries though.

Go Sharron!

Martha on Today programme now interviewing Rachel McKinnon - www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0002zbv and now Sharron is in the good list! Will be about 2 hrs 30 in if listening on Sounds app or internet.

"Tomorrow we'll look at the science...."

Who with? I'm not hopeful.

Tomorrow Radio4 today will be examining the science! About time. Let's hope they keep Humphreys far far away from this topic in future.

Sharon was excellent, got loads of points in. I think R McK is also helpful, in her own way.

Really had the impression that Martha was (externally) restricted in how she framed her questions to RM. Very slow and plodding. And so little challenge of the plainly absurd. Disappointing.

Martha gets it.

GeorgetheBleeder I cheered Martha when she asked Rachel about not agreeing to be interviewed with someone who took a different view to her. Also, Sharron was able to address Rachel M’s ‘looks like a trans person’ tweet. It may not be perfect but it’s a huge improvement on the Radio 5 Stephen Nolan fiasco.

Martha doesn't get it. If Martha got it she would ask intelligent questions.

The standard of interviewers is so low, they love RMK,.she's like David icke, bonkers ideas that they find entertaining. They literally don't care.