The BBC announces it is leaving Stonewall

[AlwaysTawnyOwl]

www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/statements/stonewall-diversity-champions-programme?at_custom1=%5Bpost+type%5D&at_custom4=8686C1E8-4222-11EC-AA97-45113A982C1E&at_custom3=%40bbcpress&at_medium=custom7&at_custom2=twitter&at_campaign=64

I'm guessing those who have been told that emotional blackmail works?

The tactic seems to be losing the power it once had.

Just catching up as a FB friend has been going apoplectic over this. The same story has been lifted by the Mail.

A relief to read this though (and a struggle not to laugh at FB friend). This stall should have been set out a long time ago - should have always been there.

Love that LOJ gets the goss from staff who were crying, and the Times gets the insider who described it as "trying to explain journalism to idiots"!

Tim Davie historically being a proven ally cutting is no dice - neither is his seniority. What's next from this group - probably asking for reparations for the hurty feels?

Journalists today don't seem to have the same kind of resilience as they did in my grandfather's generation, that's for sure.

It's always a shocker, Lobster, and the lack of intellectual curiosity and critical thinking is just offensive. What the hell are they there for?

Journalists today don't seem to have the same kind of resilience as they did in my grandfather's generation, that's for sure

Journalism has changed a lot. In the past, it was really an apprenticeship with people working on local papers/radio/regional TV and hoping they would get a chance with the nationals. I suspect they were exposed to many more types of people and ways of thinking.

@nettie434

Journalists today don't seem to have the same kind of resilience as they did in my grandfather's generation, that's for sure

Journalism has changed a lot. In the past, it was really an apprenticeship with people working on local papers/radio/regional TV and hoping they would get a chance with the nationals. I suspect they were exposed to many more types of people and ways of thinking.

I think this is it. My grandfather was actually a journalist, after a fairly long naval career. He was a well read man but not university educated, and he started in very local papers covering hard news - later he had an opinion column, did book reviews, etc.

Very typical at that time.

Now the majority have university degrees in journalism. It's weird, my university offered such a degree, and they tried to go to a real effort to give them a good, broadening liberal arts basis as well. But a bigger bunch of narrow minded rule-followers I have never met, and when I see and talk to them now they are worse than they were. They few who were less so are mostly not actually producing content any more. I've wondered if they stopped because they couldn't stand it, or they were moved out by others.

I'd guess the majority, even, of people who do journalism degrees don't end up reporting as a career Lobster. But as everything has moved digital there's been this shift to informality, or for the outlet to appear 'human' - even the BBC peppers it's social media content with emojis.

Was discussing this recently - even ten years ago a paper wouldn't write about a 'sad death', for example. It's inserting something of an opinion into a report that has no place there. Now every local paper online tells you 'sad one, this. RIP 💔'. And presumably this is how a generation has grown up thinking this is how you write news, perhaps?

Anyway, I digress.

Thanks BraveBananaBadge & LobsterNapkin. I enjoyed those insights into changing journalism styles.

@Thegreenray

I complained to the BBC a really long time ago now about their choosing (in their News Style Guide) to define "homosexuality" to mean same gender attraction (and they define gender the TRA way). I've received repeated delays to them responding to me, with a couple of invitations for me to complain about this to Ofcom. They clearly want to pass the buck. I'm now wondering whether they'll actually acknowledge that their definition of homosexuality is wrong? That would be something. I feel really strongly about this attempt to change the English language (the dictionary definition will be the next target) to expunge acceptance of the existence of same sex attraction. It's despicable.

BBC Style guide There's another article in the Times on this today. Greg Davies said it was the next 'front' or something? which 100% makes sense as part of the 'impartiality' programme.

Staff say BBC copied Stonewall’s use of language
www.thetimes.co.uk/article/staff-bbc-copied-stonewall-use-of-language-lgbt-jh0plrscn

Share token

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/b6dbb888-458a-11ec-9969-911e63457092?shareToken=800e2b50d92b2f2ec7b09b7c22e0ad18

[quote FindTheTruth]The effects of leaving Stonewall

BBC article about pregnancy includes the word 'women' ZERO times - 14 OCT 2021
www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-58912528

BBC leaves Stonewall 10 NOV 2021

BBC article about pregnancy includes the word 'women' 16 times - 12 NOV 2021
www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-59248345[/quote]
About time

@GreyhoundG1rl

What sort of emotionally impaired, entitled wazzock sends messages to their bosses that they're crying?

Pmsl

Nadia Whittome is the Labour MP for Nottingham East and wrote this for the Independent, criticising the BBC for leaving Stonewall. How many untruths can you fit into one article, Nadia?! Oh Labour, I despair.