BBC Staff could be suspended if they attend pride events

[ItsAllGoingToBeFine]

inews.co.uk/news/media/bbc-staff-suspended-attend-lgbt-pride-events-ban-new-impartiality-rules-742247

Given the author, I very much doubt the accuracy of this story

David Jordan, the corporation’s director of editorial policy and standards, told a meeting of senior executives on Wednesday that the new rules include a ban on attending “political protests”, such as Black Lives Matter events and LGBT prides.

According to sources, senior staff challenged Mr Jordan to extend the ban to pride events over concerns the BBC could be seen to take a side in the debate around transgender rights

TBH I don't particularly care about how impartial journalists are in their personal lives, but it's be nice to see some impartiality when reporting...

Came here to say likewise.
I would need a source that wasn't a Ben "identified as black" Butterworth "exclusive" before I believed this.
We've seen firsthand the things he comes out with, and the ways in which interpretation of guidance has become desperately twisted by some on these boards.

For the avoidance of doubt, I think anyone should be able to attend Pride free from consequences to their employment, and that includes people who are same-sex attracted.

Share token (I hope) for the Times article on the subject.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/bbc-chief-tim-davie-orders-staff-to-stop-virtue-signalling-on-social-media-3mbn0fkx8

It's not all staff, only news and current affairs journalists and very high-profile presenters (the so-called "Gary Linneker" clause).

And it's not trans and LGBT issues specifically, it's anything politically controversial.

And it's not trans and LGBT issues specifically, it's anything politically controversial

Still, employees should be able to do these things (assuming legal) on a personal basis. I really disagree with the BBC telling employees what they can do in their own time. Ditto, they should be allowed to post as they wish on personal social media reports.

Where the BBC really falls down, and they don't seem to realise this, is how utterly biased much of their reporting on "controversial political issues" is. This is where they need to sort out their guidelines.

I can't read the article in The Times, but the bit I could sounds pretty much like the SM policy for many workplaces. If they want to debate on Twitter, they can do so outside their blue tick account.

Does it include Ben Hunte the LBGT correspondent?

I've been thinking about this.

I have, in my time, worked in the civil service. Up to a certain grade, you're allowed to go on, say, political marches in your spare time (so long as you don't wear a t-shirt saying "DfT employees for [political party]"), write letters to the newspapers, lobby MPs, even stand for election as a local councillor (though not as an MP - you'd have to resign regardless of grade).

Above a certain grade (7 in old money I think) you can't do any of this, even in your own time, because your job is to implement government policy to the best of your ability (whether you agree with it or not) while "speaking truth unto power."

Personally I think the BBC, being publicly funded and set up according to its charter to be politically neutral, should apply similar standards to the civil service code to the journalists reporting on the news, newscasters, current affairs presenters and editors.

This policy shouldn't (and I don't think does) apply to back-room staff like camera people, sound engineers, researchers - anyone who's not on camera as the "face of the impartial BBC." But I do think it's fair enough to have rules for those on camera - it genuinely is part of their job description to be seen to be politically neutral. And that means no tweets, even in a personal capacity, or snapshots of them at [insert protest march of your choice].

Yes absolutely itsallgoingtobefinethe BBC needs to put its own house in order before telling their employees what they can’t do out of work. However, perhaps it’s the beginning of the slow recognition that so far they have been totally biased against women. Let’s see.

I don't think it is the 'woke social media activities' of a few staff that has 'tainted the national broadcaster's reputation'.

It is the reams of factually incorrect, totally biased reports/articles/interviews that are put out regularly with little counterbalance. Accusing women's rights groups of transphobia, insisting on propagating gender ideology (only last week) and turning off comments to objectors, misrepresenting the law (Ben Hunte several times) that have 'tainted the reputation' and they need to get it sorted - pronto.

I have no objection at all to staff going on marches etc as long as it doesn't affect their professional approach to work.

@gardenbird48

I don't think it is the 'woke social media activities' of a few staff that has 'tainted the national broadcaster's reputation'.

It is the reams of factually incorrect, totally biased reports/articles/interviews that are put out regularly with little counterbalance. Accusing women's rights groups of transphobia, insisting on propagating gender ideology (only last week) and turning off comments to objectors, misrepresenting the law (Ben Hunte several times) that have 'tainted the reputation' and they need to get it sorted - pronto.

I have no objection at all to staff going on marches etc as long as it doesn't affect their professional approach to work.

Well put!

I've no problem with people attending Pride - no matter who you work for and as long as you understand that some Prides are now very anti lesbian. BUT I hope that this will begin to spell the death of political lobby groups like Stonewall being given free access to workplaces. As Stonewall actively campaign to remove women's rights, they are by definition political and should have no place influencing practice in any workplaces.

I’d be happier if the BBC stopped promoting stonewall, mermaids etc through its programming.

See also police cars. The

Is this them trying to point the finger at the wrong thing but looking like they’re doing something. As mentioned, the issue is their reporting. Everyone has views but BBC reporters/journalists have a duty to give a balanced viewpoint and ought to be able to do so whatever their own views.

Don’t see why they can’t go to Pride.

@gardenbird48

I don't think it is the 'woke social media activities' of a few staff that has 'tainted the national broadcaster's reputation'.

It is the reams of factually incorrect, totally biased reports/articles/interviews that are put out regularly with little counterbalance. Accusing women's rights groups of transphobia, insisting on propagating gender ideology (only last week) and turning off comments to objectors, misrepresenting the law (Ben Hunte several times) that have 'tainted the reputation' and they need to get it sorted - pronto.

I have no objection at all to staff going on marches etc as long as it doesn't affect their professional approach to work.

Absolutely agree with this post. Bang on..

@CaraDuneRedux

I've been thinking about this.

I have, in my time, worked in the civil service. Up to a certain grade, you're allowed to go on, say, political marches in your spare time (so long as you don't wear a t-shirt saying "DfT employees for [political party]"), write letters to the newspapers, lobby MPs, even stand for election as a local councillor (though not as an MP - you'd have to resign regardless of grade).

Above a certain grade (7 in old money I think) you can't do any of this, even in your own time, because your job is to implement government policy to the best of your ability (whether you agree with it or not) while "speaking truth unto power."

Personally I think the BBC, being publicly funded and set up according to its charter to be politically neutral, should apply similar standards to the civil service code to the journalists reporting on the news, newscasters, current affairs presenters and editors.

This policy shouldn't (and I don't think does) apply to back-room staff like camera people, sound engineers, researchers - anyone who's not on camera as the "face of the impartial BBC." But I do think it's fair enough to have rules for those on camera - it genuinely is part of their job description to be seen to be politically neutral. And that means no tweets, even in a personal capacity, or snapshots of them at [insert protest march of your choice].

These are kind of my feelings. I've worked in similar sectors, or my husband has, the military, the civil service. There is an expectation of being a little aloof from public political and activist causes.

It's broken down a little over the last while, and I don't think this is a good thing, it very much seems to correspond to the rise of the ability to be properly apolitical in some roles. As a concept it's become quite alien to people, that anything would be more appropriately private, that some roles require restraint. We can see it in health services for example where they push their lanyards, or schools, etc.

I do see why people would think, ok, people should go to these things as private citizens, it seems the real problem is being properly separate and balanced in their jobs. But I do feel like it's not chance that a lack of understanding that some roles call for restraint even in ones life as a citizen is happening at a time when people can't seem to understand that they have to maintain political neutrality in some jobs.

Pride is not a political protest, it's a celebration.

@jessstan1

Pride is not a political protest, it's a celebration.

I believe the BBC has clarified, LGB is not seen as political, but T is.

@jessstan1

Pride is not a political protest, it's a celebration.

That's not universally accepted. One friend who regularly attends always posts that Pride is a protest. Of course it started as one but many people feel it very much still is.

I am really pleased about this. I don’t want to know a telly presenters politics. I don’t care mostly but sometimes it puts me off them when I have liked them previously. I wonder how it will work with c presenters like Chris Packham day campaigning against grouse shooting (for example). Personally I think that is a good thing as I also disagree with grouse shooting but that is also political/ controversial. I also think it should be extended to anyone in a public service role e.g NHS managers campaigning for/ against Brexit. They should stick to medicine.
I actually think BBC presenters should be grateful for these new rules as they must get pressured by their followers to comment or asked why they haven’t commented and this way they can blame the BBC!
Bit like a teenager being peer pressured to go to a party when they want to stay at home blaming their parents
An adult has taken charge!

That's interesting.

I wonder how this sits with their human rights.

For me, how and why they attend a Pride march is much more important than if they attend to express being LGB. If they're on a dog chain wearing a butt plug and nuzzling children for example, or they're supportive of others who do this, or if they're using it as a front so they can attack women with impunity, I'd say the BBC must sack them.

I think pride is ok as a celebration rather than a protest as such( even if that was its roots)

In defence(?) of Benjamin Butterworth, the title is:

BBC staff told they could be suspended if they attend LGBT pride events

and then the article says:

BBC staff who are required to be politically neutral have been told not to attend LGBT pride protests under new impartiality rules announced on Thursday, i has learned.

If you read further on, you actually end up seeing what the real story is.

The title is (deliberately?) misleading and it sets up an expectation in the reader that then needs to be put aside so that the content of the article can be understood. Of course, most people will take the title to be the story and so will overlook the actual story.

If you do get to the end of the article you'll see that the final section LGBT stars in firing line implies that the new rules will apply to LGBT events in general, not just protests, which reinforces the misleading title that opens the article. My overall rating would be "mendacious".

This is just a bad article meant to push back against any impartiality. Expect lots of it. All meant to make impartiality or reasonable expectations look like ultra right take over.

I only care that the BBC takes impartiality seriously. My money funds it, so I can expect to have the bias removed. The BBC acknowledged last year that it really had got it wrong, so the Guardian is trying it on.

My worry about this is that it will take us further away from genuine balance and impartiality. 'The BBC' as a body will decide what is the truth, and push it without challenge. All their interviews, the guests they choose, the starting point for programmes will reflect The Truth, as defined by the BBC. It runs the risk of becoming #nodebate in a progressive disguise.

I'd wager few people would care what people put on their personal Twitter if it didn't follow the wildly inaccurate reporting which clearly shows their bias.