FiLia/Womens Place/Fairplay for Women joins statement re Womens Hour 20/10/20

[TheClitterati]

"Today, 20th Oct, BBC Woman's Hour hosted an excellent discussion on the politicization of Mumsnet with feminist scholar Sarah Pederson (at approx 25mins). The discussion looked at the growth of the popular Mumsnet feminist discussion boards and their role in promoting a nascent women's movement advocating women's rights, in particular informing discussion on GRA reform.

Womans Place UK, Fair Play for Women and FiLiA were highlighted as groups popular with and representative of women's rights issues. At this point Jane Garvey, the BBC presenter felt it necessary to interject "we have to be clear, which are groups that some people have describe, in some circumstances, as transphobic".

FiLiA, FPFW and WPUK are not transphobic. It is not acceptable for a BBC journalist to repeat libellous comment about us as if it is fair comment or a balancing of the discussion. There is simply no basis in fact for this comment to be made. It is the repetition of misogynist slander to which too many women are subjected.

These comments are seriously prejudicial to the reputations of women involved with these organisations, some of whom have previously been invited on the programme. We urge BBC Woman's Hour to correct this inaccurate reporting and we would like to thank Sarah Pederson for her excellent and informative analysis of the feminist phenomenon that is Mumsnet."

FiLiA, WPUK and Fair Play For Women

filia.org.uk/resources/2020/10/20/statement-on-comments-made-by-bbc-womans-hour?fbclid=IwAR3MH9ri1CTdkOdW0CTMwyKmeloEnTeddd3k503vnyenIb1NeTy65O6MYgo

And this

I have it on very good authority that Jenni and Jane Don't Get On

@NeurotrashWarrior

Ooh look what Jenni Murray retweeted

Yes Jenni!

I've also complained via the general complaints page and asked for a reply. Will also email the programme directly.

I've complained. Bloody outrageous. It's women pointing out that women are in fact human beings in our own right, not solely there to enhance make lives, and we live in a world so misogynist that's deemed hate speech by some - and Jane Garvey eagerly scuttles in to fight for the MRAs? On Woman's Hour?! She thinks a woman's place is licking boots!? Sod off Garvey, you sycophantic waste of space.

I have it on very good authority that Jenni and Jane Don't Get On

Decca Aitkenhead did an interview with them for the Guardian four years ago and was astonished to find that they worked on their programmes separately and almost never met:

www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/oct/08/70-years-of-womans-hour-radio-4-jenni-murray-jane-garvey-interview

Go, Jenni!

This is just unbelievable. Just who do they think their audience are?

[quote RoyalCorgi]I have it on very good authority that Jenni and Jane Don't Get On

Decca Aitkenhead did an interview with them for the Guardian four years ago and was astonished to find that they worked on their programmes separately and almost never met:

www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/oct/08/70-years-of-womans-hour-radio-4-jenni-murray-jane-garvey-interview[/quote]
Ah yes I'd forgotten that! That is very much their choice that it worked like that.

I'd love to know what Sarah thought of those comments.

I have also raised my concerns with the BBC and asked for a response.

This is not 'balance' (which will probably be the BBC's defence) and I would also be happy to ask Ofcom to adjudicate on this as mentioned by pp.

The Secretary of State for Media, Culture and Sport might also have a view he'd like to share. I don't know very much about Oliver Dowden tbh but I suspect he won't be the biggest fan of the Woke BBC.

What a relief to know that Jenni Murray is as fab as I thought (before Woman's Hour let us all down so badly) after all.

Complained also - isn’t Jenni Murray fab

Anyone had any replies yet?

@Angryresister, not a reply, no, just an acknowledgement. I expect they're bundling all the complaints up so they only need to issue the one patronising, generic non-answer.

'The BBC is committed to balance and fairness ... controversial topic ... strong feelings on both sides ... diversity and inclusion agenda ... blah blah ... fuck of woman you insane old hag ... we've had the training ... look, there's a scan of pink foetal brain I drew in wax crayons ... pay your licence fee or thousands of tv executives will go moderately hungry this winter ...'

Can't believe I wasn't following Jenni Murray - mind you're I often find I've magically "unfollowed" lots of fab women on twitter.

Anyhow JM retweeted this too.

Which implies she absolutely was pushed.

That’s really depressing if so.

I hope Jenni Murray does Posie’s web show soon. Imagine how much that would piss off the Beeb.

Oh wow that's a great retweet by Jenni Murray.

Just had a response to my complaint, usual bollocks. Anyone else?

"Thank you for contacting us about the Woman’s Hour item on 20 October which discussed the politicisation of Mumsnet, and specifically a statement made by presenter Jane Garvey which you felt was defamatory.

To clarify, Jane said, “…we have to be clear, which are groups that some people have described, in some circumstances, as transphobic.” Her choice of words was careful and deliberate. She was not giving a personal view, nor a view on behalf Woman’s Hour or the BBC, but she reflected an opinion and viewpoint otherwise not represented in the item. As an impartial presenter it was right for Jane to interject at that point.

From our research and previous experience of covering this topic we know such views are held, often by individuals who have had personal experience. Such criticisms are already in the public domain and so it was reasonable for Jane to refer to these differing points of view.

Woman’s Hour has frequently covered the conversations and debates around sex and gender over recent months and years, including the consultation on reform of the Gender Recognition Act and the concerns expressed about safe spaces for women and girls. It is always a very controversial and sensitive subject and one where differing points of view are strongly held, and expressed.

It would be remiss not to mention them in this context. This is line with the BBC guidelines, and our commitment to “considering the broadest perspective and ensuring that the existence of a range of views is appropriately reflected.”

We do not accept this comment was in breach of the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines. We do not accept that any organisation or individual have been defamed by this item.

Thank you for getting in touch."

twitter.com/HJoyceGender/status/1320747384633200641

Seems to be the standard brush off.

Did I hear right that JM is on Times Radio (Andrew Neil) later?

It is always a very controversial and sensitive subject and one where differing points of view are strongly held, and expressed.

Right.

So we'll see the added differing and strongly held views on Stonewall and Mermaids please, and about the BBC, at every mention.

Sauce for the goose and so on.

I had the same reply as TheFleegleHasLanded. It arrived much more quickly that the Complaints page suggested it would.

MichelleofzeResistance is right re sauce for the goose. Here's hoping for a chance to point that out to them soon!

I got the same reply. I've complained again:

I am entirely dissatisfied with your response to the above complaint. I refute that the presenter 'reflected an opinion and viewpoint otherwise not represented in the item. As an impartial presenter it was right' - the article was about WOMEN'S RIGHTS, not trans rights, that's why the viewpoint wasn't represented. It wasn't about that, are women just not allowed to talk about women without stating the viewpoint of men?

When you have an article on cars, do you interject to give the viewpoint of cyclists? When the article is on eating disorders, do you feel the need to say that some people are obese? Do you interrupt Sir David Attenborough talking about the ice caps melting to say that some people are climate change deniers? Or the archbishop of Canterbury, to make sure you mention that some people view the C of E as corrupt and evil? Or does this form of 'balance' only apply to womens organisations talking about women's rights? I think we all know the answer, and it's not one which reflects well on the BBC.

The organisations you defamed deserve a public apology and retraction, and should a satisfactory reply not be forthcoming I will be asking ofcom for their view on this matter.