Bit of selective editing at The Guardian

[SecondGentleman]

They've reported on the EHRC leaving Stonewall (www.theguardian.com/society/2021/may/24/human-rights-body-exits-stonewall-uks-diversity-scheme).

But they've wrongly quoted the EHRC's letter as follows:

"An EHRC spokesperson said that as a publicly funded organisation it wanted to make the “best choices” when it came to its budget and was reviewing all of its memberships. It said the programme “did not constitute the best value for money”, adding that it remained “committed to creating an inclusive workplace that will attract people from all backgrounds, where all of our colleagues will thrive and where all LGBT employees are accepted without exception”.

When in fact the letter said: "committed to creating an inclusive workplace that will attract people of all backgrounds, where all of our colleagues will thrive and where all LGBT employees as well as people with other protected characteristics are accepted without exception".

They have completely misrepresented the message of the EHRC's letter.

Surely the EHRC spokesperson has wrongly quoted the letter? Not the Guardian.

Crafty bit of work by the Guardian, perhaps inspired by Stonewall

It's a shame to they don't subscribe to IPSO. Still...worth complaining, it's hardly a small error.

The guardian edited EHRCs words

FROM THIS

where all LGBT employees as well as people with other protected characteristics are accepted without exception

TO THIS

where all LGBT employees are accepted without exception

WHY?

Why is The Guardian editing out the EHRCs Actual words 'as well as people with other protected characteristics'. when the journalists at the Guardian know full well that the EHRC has been banging on repeatedly about balancing all rights and that there isn't a hierarchy of rights? The guardian knows this. it knows.

@ThursdayWeld

Surely the EHRC spokesperson has wrongly quoted the letter? Not the Guardian.

Why ‘surely?’

We don’t know whether the reference to the spokesperson was in form of the letter, or if someone was contacted separately, in person, by voice or god knows what means of communication.

Nothing sure about it.

@ThursdayWeld

Surely the EHRC spokesperson has wrongly quoted the letter? Not the Guardian.

I suppose it could be that The Guardian approached a spokesperson who read out an almost-but-not-quite verbatim version of the letter. In which case I don't think it's a coincidence that, of the two versions, The Guardian chose to publish the one that doesn't make reference to there being a clash of rights.

Why "surely"?

Because the wording is different. The quote talks about our colleagues, the letter doesn't.

@ThursdayWeld

Why "surely"?

Because the wording is different. The quote talks about our colleagues, the letter doesn't.

Sorry, scratch that, I misread it! d'oh

Anyway, it's not clear at all who/what is being quoted by the Graun.

The BBC did the same www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57219989

A spokesman for the EHRC said: "We remain committed to creating an inclusive workplace that will attract people from all backgrounds, where all of our colleagues will thrive and where all LGBT employees are accepted without exception."

Seems like it's the EHRC person's fault, then.

as long as they remember the L

Working in comms for many years myself, I think it is FAR more likely that the Beeb and Guardian “abridged” the full quote provided - journos often will, if it’s wordy, and that’s generally allowed...

BUT in this case, where there was a VERY pointed message from the EHRC that other protected characteristics are ALSO to be protected “without exception” (carefully crafted, deliberately using the Stonewall slogan) it seems very off and misrepresentative.

Certainly the overall messaging across channels appears to be about redressing the balance. The EHRC tweet same day was very clear that it’s now for ALL 9 protected characteristics (and about time, too).

EHRC: “You must not be treated less favourably because of your sexual orientation, whether you are attracted to your own sex, the opposite sex or to both sexes.

Find out more about the 9 protected characteristics ➡️ orlo.uk/2VPKc”

Agree with pps that the emphasis by the EHRC in the sentence was protection for all protected characteristics. If journalists at the Guardian and the BBC wanted to convey the actual meaning of the EHRC and needed brevity for word count, that bit should have been kept in and the LGBT but kept out - as they are already covered in the protected characteristics bit.

But they actively chose not to and prioritised certain groups over others, even when it is the other groups that are being discriminated against - Essex Uni/Maya etc.

We all know why. Even when the EHRC state that there is parity, SW culture shows this is not allowed.

Working in comms for many years myself, I think it is FAR more likely that the Beeb and Guardian “abridged” the full quote provided - journos often will, if it’s wordy, and that’s generally allowed...

But usually you would put in three dots to indicate that text is missing. It's a bit off if they just cut it out without doing that.

So they’ve decided deliberately to leave out all other protected characteristics.

Coming from the BBC, after the weeks they’ve had, shows what a massive issue they have with the Truth.

So, rather than assuming that two outlets are quoting the same person, we are assuming that two outlets made exactly the same edit, without any elipsis?

So they’ve decided deliberately to leave out all other protected characteristics.

It is extremely misleading as in this context it makes it sound as if they are supportive of Stonewall in matters of competing rights. Responsible news organisations who didn't deal in fake news would change it when they were contacted about it and realised their mistake.

It would be possible to complain to the BBC and probably get an answer back whether they used a different source.

John McManus did respond about this on Twitter - he was given the quote without the additional phrase

@EightiesRobot

John McManus did respond about this on Twitter - he was given the quote without the additional phrase

That's interesting. I wonder if it was a deliberate choice by the EHRC to include the extra phrase in the letter to Sex Matters but not otherwise. Or if someone on their PR team has just gone a bit rogue.

John McManus did respond about this on Twitter - he was given the quote without the additional phrase

If you are a reporter rather than a copy editor then surely you would do a bit of research and for instance discover the letter to Sex Matters.

If you are a reporter rather than a copy editor then surely you would do a bit of research and for instance discover the letter to Sex Matters.

No - you would use the quote that was given to you.

They are past masters at this.

RoyalCorgi - sorry no - if you are a copy editor you would. If you are a reporter you would make the effort to compare what you are told with what has been said elsewhere.

ie. EHRC said "blah blah blah blah" but in a letter to X they said "this this this".

@EightiesRobot

John McManus did respond about this on Twitter - he was given the quote without the additional phrase

Aha! So I was right.

A reporter would report what a spokesperson for an organisation said.

It's the EHRC spokesperson you should be angry with, here.