What the BBC leaves unsaid...gaslighting the nation’s youth

[WorkingItOutAsIGo]

I was interested in a story the BBC feature on Newsbrat today about a couple getting married on a train www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-58173130

It’s not a major news story at all, just a bit of light fluff. We are all happy to read about the couple getting married after a long delay, partly caused by unspecified ‘paperwork’. What was this, I wondered as I looked at the photos of the happy couple?

Then I read the original story. It was a Press Association story - they basically publish stories for Newspapers and websites to use. In this case Huffington Post published the full thing from PA Media without having edited it. www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/couple-have-dream-train-wedding-after-fighting-to-be-recognised-as-wife-and-wife_uk_61138b9ce4b09fba0e6b4d10

The BBC has edited the article to remove the explanation of the paperwork - the couple had to get gender recognition certificates so they could be Wife and Wife. Deliberate obfuscation by the BBC as they have rewritten the quotes provided by PA Media to hide this fact. They want us to accept without question that this is two women marrying. Even though it was the photos that sent me searching for the original story and what I can see so can others.

Sadly for the BBC this slightly backfired on Twitter as several male commentators cast aspersions on the attractiveness of the two - saying that lesbians are always minging.

I don’t like being lied to, even if it’s just the sin of omission.

The BBC have lost all credibility. They seem to have gone full on propaganda machine.

I love the idea of "Newsbrat"

Most appropriate.

tbf the article is mainly about the train theme. I didn't know it was possible to get married on a train (I assume not legally but lots of people do this).
I don't class the BBC article as lying, unless you count them calling themselves 'wife and wife' as lying, but the focus of the article isn't the paperwork. The sex/gender of the couple isn't the point of it, as far as I can tell?
I mean obviously I now question anyone referred to as man/woman but I'd be doing that no matter what they looked like or if they referred to 'paperwork' about planning a wedding in a pandemic...

at my mistyping! And I even proof read it as well.

Monsignor I think there is a reason for this non story having been featured and it’s not about the train. It’s partly about normalising gay relationships - it’s nice in a way that the fact this is two people of the same gender getting married isn’t commented on as the main point of the story - but I believe it’s am just as much about presenting these pictures without comment on sex or gender: the young audience for the story will get the impression that you just have to accept this is two brides and nothing else is sayable. It’s blatant propaganda.

The article itself (other than in direct quotes) doesn't specify their gender, their sex, only uses plural pronouns. I don't see that as anyone having accept anything.

I don't see an issue here. Two people got married on a train, they look happy, that's nice.

The story was about the train wedding and not the couple - they won a competition. So this was a promotion from the train line which is why it would have been picked up elsewhere. And it would have made a quirky story no matter who the couple were.

But I found myself paying closer attention to this than I normally would, knowing what we now know about how the BBC reports these days. The strangest thing to me was not even including their full names, to be honest. That seems too half arsed even for their ever-lowering standards. Why not follow up the initial info and report in full? Or refuse to run the story without full names, as journos used to have to? I may be digressing (or just be bloody old) but that was the omission that unfortunately hinted facts ain't what they used to be.

Why do you think you have the right to know the trans status of everyone you read about, even when it has no bearing on the story? This isn't being GC, it's just being intrusive and entitled. Get over yourself.

I'm don't think there's anything here to point to any deliberate obfuscation. Nor do I think it's necessary to specify the sex, gender identity or GRC status of the people involved. Thankfully, these days anyone can marry any other available adult that will have them.

BlueberryI think you have missed that the couple themselves are quite open about that and it’s an explicit part of the PA Media original text - my point is that the BBC have excised it. And at the same time I don’t think this would have been a BBC news story had the couple not been trans.

I actually preferred the BBC omitting the full names from a newsbeat story which is aimed at the young?
Full names mean you can easily see that Laura Kate Dale is one of the organisers of the August 6th protest and is very online.
So is the other half, Jane Aerith Magnet-Dale, whose Twitter bio is “Trans, pan, polya, kinky, loony, former stand-up, cat lady. I make random weird stuff. AMA. she/they.”

@AssassinatedBeauty

I'm don't think there's anything here to point to any deliberate obfuscation. Nor do I think it's necessary to specify the sex, gender identity or GRC status of the people involved. Thankfully, these days anyone can marry any other available adult that will have them.

Agreed. The other piece implies it's two transwomen. But I'm not really in the business of jumping on anything trans people do so feel a bit uneasy about this thread. I get OP's point, even though I mainly disagree. I genuinely don't know how Newsbeat's intended audience would perceive this, if they had any particular reaction at all!

I get your point, OP, and agree completely. Thought the exact same myself.

I do agree with pp that the couple's status is not relevant to this story, and good luck to 'em.

The wider point is it is becoming increasingly difficult to take a great deal of general reporting on face value these days because of either bias or omission of facts, to an extent that would previously have been considered unprofessional at best.

I wish the couple involved nothing but happiness and joy in their marriage. In that respect yes, their trans status is irrelevant and to me they have the good wishes I would send to any newly married couple.

My observation wasn’t about them though, it was about the BBC. The selection of the story and the editing do, I imagine have a lot to do with the couple’s trans status. In fact, as I reflect further, I think it is possibly transphobic of the Beeb to have removed the couple’s own words about gaining their GRCs from the story...

I do know what you mean, OP. Something feels off about it. I think it's the reference to them as "two brides" - we are supposed to pretend to believe it's a lesbian wedding, but it's not. I think that's what left me feeling like I was being gaslighted.

This is a lovely story about two people having a quirky, fun wedding on a train. They look fab and very happy. As trans women, in this scenario they are not encroaching on anyone else's rights or safe spaces, so good for them....

ordinarily I would be very happy for them and like the story, which shows how to do inclusion, how to normalise relationships outside of a man and a woman, how to show different types of relationships - everything GC feminist are striving to support.

I wish there wasn't this underlying feeling of distrust and apprehension. If the TRAs weren't so aggressively trying to steal our rights and smash down our boundaries, wouldn't we all be saying 'awww, how lovely.....'.... and in fact, with a bit of digging as per the PP above, we can find out that these two individuals are full on members of the TRA community.

it makes me very sad that our hearts are being hardened to things like this that we all would have found beautiful a few years ago. Can't they see what they are doing?

So two people get married that are really into trains and comics. Maybe I am old fashioned but it happens all the time within the lesbian community.

@BlueberryCheezecake

Why do you think you have the right to know the trans status of everyone you read about, even when it has no bearing on the story? This isn't being GC, it's just being intrusive and entitled. Get over yourself.

Isn't it transphobic of the BBC to deliberately avoid making any reference to one of the participants? Is the BBC not guilty of denying the existence of trans people? Is not-gendering the new misgendering?

it makes me very sad that our hearts are being hardened to things like this that we all would have found beautiful a few years ago.

That really is such a good point, rabbitwoman.

@newstart1337

So two people get married that are really into trains and comics. Maybe I am old fashioned but it happens all the time within the lesbian community.

The two people in the article aren’t lesbians, so not sure of the relevance.

@Warmduscher The two people in the article aren’t lesbians, so not sure of the relevance

Sorry I have lost my tongue, it might be stuck in my cheek. Maybe I was being to subtle when I referenced trains and comics.

@newstart1337

So two people get married that are really into trains and comics. Maybe I am old fashioned but it happens all the time within the lesbian community.

I suppose that it's not often that a couple marry on a moving train. Though is that even legally-binding in the UK? British-flagged ships can't have weddings onboard, that's one of the reasons why the QM2 flies a Bermuda flag. I can't see a train being an approved venue, especially not for a one-off publicity stunt. The member of staff was an ex-vicar too, rather than a current registrar. So I suppose that it was actually all for show and that they went to a registry office before or afterwards to get it all legal.

Yes I was wondering about the legality - altho the strict limits on what kind of locations could be licensed for weddings were removed a few years ago, so maybe it is legit and the competition/publicity stunt was to advertise the newly licensed train?

And I could possibly imagine an ex vicar becoming a person licensed to officiate - again, and for the train company to want people to know this?

It’s all another layer of pretend potentially though