Woman's Hour now: BBC walking away from Stonewall

[nauticant]

Emma Barnett is asking the questions.

Always been a Jenni fan. But well done Emma!

EB: "Shall I give you examples from the Nolan podcast?"

That has made my day.

Emma works on NewsNight and has done for several years. I expect she saw the brilliant investigations into the Tavi, which would have alerted her to what’s going on (as it would with any person who cares about safeguarding)

My favourite question was:

'do you think there should be a programme with the title 'woman's hour' on the BBC?'

The answer was YES.

Well done Emma!

I'm hoping Emma Barnett is canny enough to see that her interventions are leading to people who normally don't comment on social media to cheer her on while those who are terminally online simply add her to their list of women to be abused on social media.

@WinterTrees

'Could we describe a trans woman as a biological male?'

BOOM.

That was what got Jenni Murray into trouble, of course.

A good interview. I love the sounds of the overreach chickens coming home to roost.
What a mess when someone high up in the BBC believes that the fact that only biological women get pregnant is a highly contested fact.
Can't wait for this idiocy to disappear from the airwaves.

I will listen on catch up. Who knew EB was a proper journalist after being an apparent Stonewall mouthpiece for so long?

That was what got Jenni Murray into trouble, of course.

Jenni Murray couldn't even say that transwomen and women had different life experiences, if I recall correctly.

So, in answer to a previous poster's question, yes the tide is well and truly turning.

@littlbrowndog

Did that guy actually say that only women can give birth is highly contested

I think he said that “pregnant people” is an acceptable alternative phrase, because we all use acceptable alternative phrases everyday to clarify meaning. You know, say for example if someone asks if you would like a drink and you reply “ Yes please, I will have a cup of tea with the minimal addition of semi skimmed dairy produce.”

That was excellent. Emma Barnett has shot up in my estimation.

I've just listened to it, I was able to click on "listen live" and scroll back to the start of the programme, just mentioning that because sometimes I read about an interview underway on r4 here and have previously waited until it was uploaded after the fact.

I think he wasn't bad, I think there's no way he was going to give his opinion on something like "pregnant person" but his insistence it would need to be discussed by an editorial team to provide the necessary sensitivity is a statement in itself. It didn't answer her question, which was "what do I do live on air when this comes up, and why isn't there a policy that clarifies it for me if you've been talking about this for months and you say you haven't been influenced editorially by Stonewall?"

Hmm, still not up on Sounds yet.

@Lovelyricepudding

So they spent all that money and it didn't influence them at all? Huge waste of money and resources if that were true.

BBC are expert at wasting out money.

But the point about the pregnant people question was how their style guide has been influenced by Stonewall.

Why would they find pregnant people acceptable in the first place, if Stonewall hadn't been promoting it? That was her point.

Nolan said that the BBC had just arbitrarily included the T on the end of LGB, because of Stonewall. Something to which Emma herself alluded.

The language has been embedded, by Stonewall, via the BBC, to such an extent, that the TV executive didn't even realise where those terms and words have come from.

I noticed it's not up on Sounds yet either. But the programme after it on the schedule is.
Hmmm

It didn't answer her question, which was "what do I do live on air when this comes up, and why isn't there a policy that clarifies it for me if you've been talking about this for months and you say you haven't been influenced editorially by Stonewall?"

That's what I was getting at earlier FlyingOink. I think there's been a growing concern by journalists at the BBC that while the Corporation would talk about their journalistic freedom, they know there were certain areas where, if they said the "wrong" thing as perceived by outside entities like Stonewall, they could suffer arbitrary punishment. Now that journalists are finally feeling free to ask about this, with the asking being very public, the BBC finds it has nothing to say except obfuscation.

I've found it on Sounds via "more episodes".

EB is now unleashed and WH was interesting today. Finally the Beeb is debating this. However I just checked the Style guide (how journalist are to write their stories) and its still asserting that 'homosexual' is same gender attracted rather than same sex attracted. Conflating sex and gender like this not correct. Homosexuals are attracted to the same biological sex as in 'homo' meaning same and sex meaning biological sex. This is important as it has safeguarding implications especially for lesbians. We should write in and draw their attention to it

It is up: www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0011c4v

It's on Sounds now. But look how the interview isn't mentioned on the snapshot

@bellinisurge

I noticed it's not up on Sounds yet either. But the programme after it on the schedule is. Hmmm

From Our Own Correspondent is pre-recorded. Woman's Hour is live. I think it tends to take a bit longer for live programmes to go up.

It is there now. I shall listen over lunch.

It's not mentioned in the title, it's not mentioned in the summary, and it's not mentioned in the list of interviewed guests. Maybe the WH team took a lead from the women of the SOE and did that "difficult" segment as a covert operation.

I'm listening to it now on the Sounds link. It's at the beginning.

Maybe it was a last minute addition to the programme? being kind to the BBC and assuming they are not deliberately hiding things

Author John Boyne has an interesting tweet on the matter...