This Spectator article?

[aliasundercover]

I assume the original - now removed - thread was about this story by James Kirkup. Did the original thread quote too much or something?

Anyway, this is well worth the read:

www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-bbc-failed-the-facts-over-a-crime-concerning-gender-identity

Here’s where I’m going to (and I try to avoid it wherever possible) play my ‘blind card’.

The BBC article is utterly misleading in its text. No mention is made of the fact that this is a trans woman. The reader is ‘informed’ about this through the photo - which obviously indicates that the perpetrator is male-bodied.

As someone who is visually impaired, I use screen readers and text-to-speech software when reading text on a small screen such as a phone or small tablet. Most often this is Apple’s VoiceOver. The Voice tag for for that photo Simply reads “Marshall was found to have a vast library of more than 80,000 images”. In other words, the voice tag does not indicate that Marshall is a trans woman and so key information from the photo is omitted.

The BBC has withheld this very important information from those unable to see the image. If that’s not discriminatory, then I’m not sure what is.

Yes that is disablist no arguement

In other words, the voice tag does not indicate that Marshall is a trans woman and so key information from the photo is omitted.The BBC has withheld this very important information from those unable to see the image. If that’s not discriminatory, then I’m not sure what is

TheRealMcKenna

You are absolutely right. The BBC should be ashamed of themselves. But unfortunately, they don't seem capable of accurate reporting. They are making it impossible for people dealing with challenging conditions to understand the news because of perverse and misleading reporting. It's shocking McKenna

@InfiniteSheldon

Yes that is disablist no arguement

It is. Clearly.

I also can't believe the cropping of that picture. And as a commenter pointed out, how can you call a protest 'peaceful' where at least 27 police officers are injured?

That's it.
I'm done with lurking.
This has made me join Mnet.
Have emailed the BBC too.

I’ve put in a complaint to the BBC on the grounds of discriminatory reporting. I doubt anything will come of it but it made me feel better.

Eyesofdisarray Welcome!

When the state broadcaster knowingly lies we are all in big trouble

Agree & it plays into the hands of the right wing media & the conspiracy nuts.

Thanks McK!
Family all eye-rolling at my stance; so looking for solidarity elsewhere
:)

If the BBC takes the view that the offender's sex is irrelevant (it isn't!) or that it's potentially 'transphobic' to report it, they should make the article gender-neutral and use words like person, they, etc and just report the person's name(s). Of course it would make the story sound ridiculous, but nowhere near as ridiculous and dishonest as claiming that this man is a woman.

Welcome, @Eyesofdisarray.

I think most lurk for a long time.

In my case, I went hunting for the statistical evidence to prove these horrid women wrong, so I could post a long, carefully evidenced rebuttal full of links and data and FACTS!

Only to find that they weren't wrong: I was.

It was so hard to get my head around the reality. How can this be happening?

@TheRealMcKenna

I’ve put in a complaint to the BBC on the grounds of discriminatory reporting. I doubt anything will come of it but it made me feel better.

I hope you get a response. It's indefensible and clearly discriminatory. The BBC's rampant political bias and failure to accurately report news is out of control.

I also can't believe the cropping of that picture. And as a commenter pointed out, how can you call a protest 'peaceful' where at least 27 police officers are injured?

Datun
Yep. The picture editing is something else. And more Orwellian Newspeak with 'peaceful.' It's bonkers.

@BovaryX

I also can't believe the cropping of that picture. And as a commenter pointed out, how can you call a protest 'peaceful' where at least 27 police officers are injured?

Datun
Yep. The picture editing is something else. And more Orwellian Newspeak with 'peaceful.' It's bonkers.

Indeed. But it's so clearly biased. So quickly refuted.

What on earth were they thinking? Do they not realise that the bigger story, the one that will garner more attention, and reduce their credibility, is the deceit???

The last line In the end, telling the truth is more important than being nice

Shades of Magdalen I think ❤️

The BBC is showing itself to be untrustworthy and biased.

It has been doing this for quite a while - In 2016 I complained to the BBC about their report on a murderer - Chris Darbyshire - who had murdered his dad. He was described throughout the piece as a woman, called Claire Darbyshire and 'the daughter of' the murder victim.

Around the time of BLM protests, the BBC headline was '27 police officers injured in a largely peaceful protest' - a classic example of Doublespeak.

The following weekend the BBC had no hesitation in describing the counter-protest - led by statue-protecting right-wingers - as a 'violent protest'. Yet only 2 police officers were injured, not 27.

People aren't stupid. They can see the blatant biased and agenda-led 'reporting' going on here. They are losing faith in the BBC. There's a campaign going on to defund the BBC. Why should we pay for the privilege of being preached at and lied to?

@Eyesofdisarray thank you for pointing out that the BBC visual reporting can either be discriminatory if you're blind or transphobic if you're trans.

Bit of a dilemma for them - time they sorted this shit wagon out

I have complained (again) to the BBC.It's easy to do;

www.bbc.co.uk/contact/complaints/make-a-complaint/#/Complaint

As someone who is visually impaired, I use screen readers and text-to-speech software when reading text on a small screen such as a phone or small tablet. Most often this is Apple’s VoiceOver. The Voice tag for for that photo Simply reads “Marshall was found to have a vast library of more than 80,000 images”.

Back in the 90s, I remember the endless discussions of what should be written in an alt text (as it's known in html) and what should go in a long desc (longer description) tag. Back then there were raging arguments about what qualified as manipulation by omission or editorialising through the framing of the description. I have to admit that this particular situation didn't occur to anyone.

Strictly speaking, the alt text could have been, 'photo of Marshall' - and that would be accurate but definitely omitting what others would see as key facts.

I have already complained to the BBC but before I read about the screen reader issue. When they push back and I escalate my complaint to Ofcom I will mention that.

Maybe it’s time Ofcom took a look at those dodgy reporting guidelines written by some MTF transpeople who want journalists to reinforce their identity instead of report the facts.

If Marshall was to be attacked in prison (for those that are hard of thinking clearly I do not wish this to happen but it would not be unusual for a convicted paedophile to be attacked in prison) what would the BBC headline be? Woman? I’d put money on “transwoman”

Yes Gibbons, I wonder. Assuming it's a men's prison, to be consistent the BBC would have to ask why this woman was incarcerated with men

Good point Gibbons. Because transwomen are the most oppressed group in the world. And they need continual advocacy, protection and defence from the BBC and Guardian.

I'm actually disappointed in this James Kirkup article - it's uncharacteristically wishy washy for him. The BBC have repeatedly offended over several years now they do not deserve to be given the benefit of the doubt in any shape or form

I use to think like a lot of posters that articles that called these paedophiles women but then put a big picture were being clever in their critical thinking but actually i dont think that's the case anymore.

I think it's pure gaslighting my some news outlet into accepting this is a women.