BBC

[darcyesque]

Just a quick question really. Has everyone given up on them reporting this issue accurately? Does affect your trust in the BBC generally? It bothers me that they can't or won't get this right.

I wonder a lot about the BBC on account of accusations of sexual assault against more than one presenter.

I agree. No idea what EB's politics is, but I haven't yet seen Maya or any other woman standing up for women's rights who has been afraid to answer tough questions. In fact they welcome them.

The issue has been more the unbalanced airtime, lack of coverage, and how long it's taken for the BBC to permit any woman speaking in defense of women's rights even a few seconds of airtime, while providing a very great deal of gentle and sympathetic space for unopposed speaking on an agenda that as a side effect does a great deal of harm to women's rights. There has been active suppression of information.

However when I've written to them, they have written back to say that they identify as being impartial.

EdithStourton I agree with you. I stopped paying my license fee years ago over their poor grasp of rural affairs and farmer bashing.
The BBC's constant promotion of drag on their news websites reinforces that my decision to not fund them.

It has definitely affected my view of the BBC and my consumption of BBC output as well. I no longer use the BBC news website, whereas I used to use it daily. I find the sky news website to be more factual and based primarily on actual news stories instead of magazine style articles designed to elicit sympathy for whomever the beeb has judged to be the right sort of people. I am seriously considering cancelling my TV licence - we don't actually watch live TV with any sort of regularity, big sports events don't bother us, and I resent giving them money for nothing. I used to feel that I was funding an important public service - an impartial public broadcaster - but I no longer feel that way. Somewhat ironically, the only thing that's making me hesitant to cancel is that the BBC have the rights to adapt JK Rowling's Strike books; these have all been great TV drama so far and I want to watch the next ones!

This is interesting. I made a complaint to the CBC in Canada a while ago about a piece on transwomen in sport. It was incredibly one sided, anyone who heard it would have had the impression that no one with any expertise had any serious concerns, and it implied that Lurel Hubbard was an example of a transwoman who did not win and it wasn't reported on, which gave people the wrong impression that there is an advantage for transwomen.

The response I had was in some ways quite similar to what PH is describing - just complete weasel-denial that there was any issue.

What I realized from the response is that it's a different kind of subterfuge than old fashioned use of fake facts. Instead it's a narrative crafted more by what is not said, and not only over the course of one show or broadcast. So it's really difficult to say, this piece is inappropriatly biased.

Like others, I submit complaints to the BBC and receive fob-off replies.

Their unnecessary use of the 'lgbtqi+' acronym irritates me immensely. I understand that they do this because their rules have been written by TRAs, and noone seems to have the power to change the rules. But they use this Stonewall phraseology when they mean gay people. It is not the same thing.

I listened to the recent edition of HARDtalk on the World Service where Stephen Sackur interviewed Danica Roem, "America's first transgender state lawmaker". It was a very soft interview and ended with them discussing the possibility of a transgender president without even acknowledging that there has not yet been a woman president!

He complained about the BBC allowing Will Self to have the opportunity to say that marijuana should be legalised without arranging for the opposite argument to be aired at some point, given that this is a significant issue for the UK.

Will Self could lie in a ditch zonked off his tits muttering incoherently about squirrels and Radio 4 would broadcast it in a prime slot. Their commitment to giving him airtime to bore on about things he doesn’t understand is unlimited. That man must have some serious dirt on someone.

What I notice most about BBC news on gender issues is that their wokery is skin deep. They’ll run all kinds of puff pieces about trans individuals and be all TWAW in those, but then completely forget that stance and write normal sane medical articles on other issues in which they talk about men and women. Then there are some in between. It suggests it’s just about whoever writes the piece and there’s no overall understanding or policy in either direction - they just have some ideologue staff who try to force the GI agenda but fail. And others who fight back either overtly or subtly. And others who haven’t even woken up to the whole issue at all.

That would be OK for some topics but the BBC is supposed to reflect science and reality accurately, and that is relevant for this topic.

Good grief! I frequently finding myself trying to defend the Beeb, but that interview sounds pretty indefensible.

when I've written to them, they have written back to say that they identify as being impartial.

Nicely put!

"when I've written to them, they have written back to say that they identify as being impartial. "

Guffaws . Useless twonks

What the BBC Complaints Dept is doing is appointing itself the sole arbiter of what ‘matters’ and is ‘important’ to the public, in order to be able to manipulate its own editorial code.

A viewer says, you broke your own code, you didn’t provide balance on this important issue.

The BBC replies, we disagree. The opposing view doesn’t matter, a debate around it isn’t of importance to the public, we’ve unilaterally decided. Now give us your money and fuck off.