BBC Pride activists demand right to vet transgender news stories on Radio 4’s Today programme

[Hazycoffeek]

Apologies for the Daily Mail link but I’m glad that they are bringing sunshine to this.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9728735/BBC-Pride-activists-demand-right-vet-transgender-news-stories-Radio-4s-Today-programme.html

Members of the BBC's Pride Board, which comprises LGBT staff, want to attend commissioning meetings and play a role in 'editorial processes' on the show, according to documents seen by The Mail on Sunday.

[quote iwantalicencetocrenellate]@SmokedDuck how are they harassing libraries? I worry about the drag queen story times as Leeds have already had this and someone at the library I work at thought it was a brilliant idea. Also, we were emailed demanding for JK Rowling's books to be removed from shelves. [/quote]
Harassing Halifax (Canada) library for stocking Irreversible Damage, demanding Vancouver and Toronto Libraries cancel events with Megan Murphy etc.

EmbarrassingAdmissions indeed. Groups like this one groups have been trying to influence editorial policy in the BBC for years, often very successfully. But how emboldened must they be to actually demand an editorial role? Things are clearly way out of hand.

Maybe what's happening is that for some years the staff network has had huge influence and hasn't needed to ask to be consulted, it's been automatic, but now it isn't? This might be a sign of a change.

Well, we can all hope.

I'd pay my whole licence fee all over again to see that training broadcast as a W1A episode.

I could see Hugh Bonneville getting very confused over pronouns.

If only the story underneath the headline actually matched the clickbait headline.

'We would like to pre-empt these issues by being involved in commissioning meetings. Editorial processes are in place – how do we get involved with these?'

"Demand right to vet transgender news stories" is a bit of a stretch even for the Daily Mail.

Getting involved in commissioning is even worse! Nothing even remotely GC would get made!

Usual Daily Mail click bait!
Who edits their news ?

The minutes of the meeting read very differently!

And I'm not defending the BBC staff, just pointing out that this has been twisted

Christ, commissioning is massive. It's the prediction and influencing of what people want and need, the mapping of future output, the procurement of creators and talent, the setting of policy and budget ... it has huge effects.

DT: Meanwhile, in Mary Berry, new Head of Diversion - a rebranding of Diversity & Inclusion - Ian Fletcher is discussing the aftermath of a training session by Global Butterflies.

Tracey: Well I don’t know about you Ian but I found that very informative.
Anna: Yes.
Ian: 150 genders though? Can that be right? I think Sympatico will have to be updated.
Neil: Christ.
Simon: Well Ian you’ll know how you want to deal with this of course, and the thing is I would have said Tony was all for this but, Tim, well-
Anna: The fact is Tim doesn’t reply to your emails.
Simon: Yes, no, very good.
Tom: My pronouns are xe/xir
Ian: Well thanks for sharing that Jerry.
Jerry: No, I’m Jerry. My pronouns are they/them.
Neil: Christ.

@Imasoulman

Usual Daily Mail click bait! Who edits their news ?

The minutes of the meeting read very differently!

And I'm not defending the BBC staff, just pointing out that this has been twisted

Perhaps you’d like to clarify what DID happen, SoulMan? Them at would be ever so useful.

That would…

@TheHandmadeTails 👏

@TheHandmadeTails

DT: Meanwhile, in Mary Berry, new Head of Diversion - a rebranding of Diversity & Inclusion - Ian Fletcher is discussing the aftermath of a training session by Global Butterflies.

Tracey: Well I don’t know about you Ian but I found that very informative.
Anna: Yes.
Ian: 150 genders though? Can that be right? I think Sympatico will have to be updated.
Neil: Christ.
Simon: Well Ian you’ll know how you want to deal with this of course, and the thing is I would have said Tony was all for this but, Tim, well-
Anna: The fact is Tim doesn’t reply to your emails.
Simon: Yes, no, very good.
Tom: My pronouns are xe/xir
Ian: Well thanks for sharing that Jerry.
Jerry: No, I’m Jerry. My pronouns are they/them.
Neil: Christ.

Admit it, @TheHandmadeTails, you're a W1A scriptwriter, aren't you!

Perhaps you’d like to clarify what DID happen…[It] would be ever so useful.

Much as I'd like to have leaked documents shared with us I doubt there's a reasonable way of doing this (sadly).

But perhaps if the people who have them would care to share a validated copy with various other organisations it would be feasible to have an open discussion of what was raised in the meeting and the connotations. After all, part of Allison Bailey's case covers some scarcely veiled remarks to her chambers.

"The minutes add: 'We would like to pre-empt these issues by being involved in commissioning meetings. Editorial processes are in place – how do we get involved with these?' "

Sounds more like a request than a demand.

@EmbarrassingAdmissions

Perhaps you’d like to clarify what DID happen…[It] would be ever so useful.

Much as I'd like to have leaked documents shared with us I doubt there's a reasonable way of doing this (sadly).

But perhaps if the people who have them would care to share a validated copy with various other organisations it would be feasible to have an open discussion of what was raised in the meeting and the connotations. After all, part of Allison Bailey's case covers some scarcely veiled remarks to her chambers.

The relevant minutes from the meeting are quoted in the article, the Mail have just interpreted them for dramatic effect

@MrsWooster

"The minutes add: 'We would like to pre-empt these issues by being involved in commissioning meetings. Editorial processes are in place – how do we get involved with these?' "

Sounds more like a request than a demand.

Most reasonable commentators and decent scholars would always prefer to have access to the original documents which would involve not only minutes but any contemporaneous notes or recollections by the people who are present. It will always be an essential part of context setting and understanding.

I should think some requests are in progress for full disclosure and any relevant correspondence or communications between staff groups and their outside advisers.

[quote Imasoulman]@MrsWooster

"The minutes add: 'We would like to pre-empt these issues by being involved in commissioning meetings. Editorial processes are in place – how do we get involved with these?' "

Sounds more like a request than a demand.[/quote]
We know about requests. Stonewall requested Allison Bailey was dealt with or else...

@iwantalicencetocrenellate and @toffeebutterpopcorn

These are not BBC Pride, but various city Pride organisations in Canada. Both Vancouver and Toronto Pride went after libraries for allowing groups with Meghan Murphy as a speaker to book rooms. The libraries rightly responded that anyone who is not doing illegal things can book a room to have a talk at the library, and freedom of information was a core value, so the Pride orgs cut off their relationships with the libraries (previously libraries had been heavily involved in the Pride festivities.)

Just this past month the Halifax (Nova Scotia) Pride group demanded that the library get rid of a book they considered to be anti-trans pseudo-science - again the library replied that the book fell within their collections acquisitions policy, but they did say they would basically tell users that the book was biased and suggest other books to read along side. That was not enough and the Pride group again cut off relationships with the library.

There is something very strange with the Pride brand and what is weird is that they are actually all separate organisations. But the same behaviour.

Indeed. In t hie same way that “the Headteacher requests the pleasure of your company…” is a request, not a demand.

The thing is - it's an inappropriate request.

Granted though, that this kind of thing has been increasingly seen ok when it involves stakeholder lobby groups. And even worse, like the vegetarian or vegan group that "donated" to the Guardian to commission monthly articles on agriculture. Guess what they tended to be about?

It's part of a bigger problem but it seems to be particularly bold and clueless with LBGTQ+ stuff.

You have to consider what is happening in the BBC, where impartiality used to be the watchword, that a group could even think it was acceptable to try and influence commissioning and editorial decisions to reflect their bias.

I used to work for a big media organisation, and it was very clear that there were huge protective walls around the journalists whose job it was to write about the company itself. They had to be free of any interference so they could write as impartially about their employer as about any other company. News has to be objective and impartial. I am horrified that anyone at the BBC doesn’t seem to understand that. This is massive, massive overreach.

Am I seriously expected to find it reassuring that they were 'only' asking to be involved in commissioning meetings?