my original point yesterday that some more people have brought up is that the article is based on biased and shoddy research. My point today is more evidence of that.
There is no evidence of that, CatherinaJTV and none of your comments have provided any. There are two types of research the article is based on:
First and foremost, the journalist's own research which consisted of many more interviews with real people in real life than she used in the article. And second it is supported by the research done by others into the same issue.
The journalist is researching two particular claims:
- "Lesbians are being pressured into accepting males who identify as trans as sexual partners" and
- "Lesbians who resist this pressure because they are exclusively same-sex attracted are faced with hostility and/or violence from within their own community for doing so"
As a trained journalist myself, I would do exactly what the author did:
- Look for qualitative research into the issue (she finds Angela C Wild's report and a number of websites collecting testimonials)
- Look for quantitative research into the issue (she finds none)
- Look into the history of the issue and identify the big players (normally, in a well researched area, you'd get a lot of material about the history and big groups involved after going through points 1 and 2)
- Identify the people affected and find out where they are
- Approach the people affected (that could be cold-calling or emailing particular groups connected to the issue, but these days a first step is often a call on social media)
- Interview respondents
- Factcheck and verify as much as you can of their claims (that could be corroboration through witnesses or other victims or perpetrators' own words, printed or published materials detailed the alleged attitudes/wrongdoings, comparing and contrasting interviews to find similarities and differences)
- Interview opponents who deny the problem or those whose attitudes/actions are being criticised
- Approach the big players for comment
10. Write your article
11. Give it over to your editor
12. Make any necessary changes requested by legal, factcheckers or editor
13. Submit final copy
The author of that piece spent more than 12 months on it. In that time she'll have gone through steps 4 to 8 several times, and not always in that order. If enough time passes, you do steps 1 through 3 again, just to make sure you haven't missed any new developments.
So, the survey by Angela C Wild is a very small part of the research and therefore a small part of the article. As demonstrated by PurgatoryofPotholes on page 35 of this thread, who simply excised the survey-related text which left 95% of the article intact.
Furthermore, there is a difference between a poll and a survey. They are two different methods of collecting data. Angela C Wild's report, as quoted in the article, is based on a survey. That's why this article did not violate the BBC's own guidelines on using polls, and it is also using the data from the survey correctly.
On the question of bias: It is illogical to frame an article reporting on the existence of a problem as being biased for reporting on the existence of a problem. If that was the case, we could never report on problems at all. Journalistic practice seeks to avoid bias by using a "both sides of the issue" approach. This isn't always appropriate or straightforward, but the author of this article did use that approach. She spent much time and effort seeking opposing voices. In order to avoid giving undue power to one side by allowing them to sabotage reporting through non-participation, she essentially empty-chaired the opposing voices who refused to be interviewed.
It's not an acceptable criticism of the piece that it is biased by only giving a voice to female survivors of sexual violence coming from male members of the trans community, because the subject matter of the article is only that particular type of violence and not others. It is also not valid criticism that no women who happily accept male members of the trans community as sexual partners were interviewed for the piece, because we don't interview people who are not survivors of violence when we're trying to highlight that violence happens. That would just be nonsensical.
The BBC met here in this article all of its own standards. Which leaves you with a subject you find unpalatable, I suspect for the same reason as Finn Mackay, because it brings the LGBT community into disrepute and in particular it brings some male members of the trans community into disrepute.
That's only a problem if you believe that we must sweep female survivors of male violence under the carpet for the greater good of the community they belong to, to make sure perceived and real enemies of that community cannot use their experiences to thwart the community's aims.
I know where I stand on that idea.