Is it now the norm for the BBC to lie?

[Twindow]

Why did the BBC interview a transwoman boxer who had boasted about cracking a woman's skull in the ring, on the basis that the woman was a "terf". And why did they (very very probably) lie about not knowing about it? Is this the norm now, because "trans rights" come before public duty and integrity?
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/07/16/bbc-apologises-interviewing-transgender-athlete-who-boasted/

Ah I just thought it was odd to describe someone who hosted a daily live show on Radio 4 for 30+ years and then chose to leave to become a Daily Mail columnist three years after she wrote the offending article (a very slow reaction if resigning in protest) as having been silenced.

You don’t see how a presenter of a show about women, their interests and their rights not being allowed to speak on a topic extremely pertinent to women’s rights for fear of professional repercussions is being silenced? Do you think “silenced” in this context literally means unable to open one’s mouth on any topic? Or do you recognise that it can be context-specific, akin to “censored”?

So after 30 years in the job, and being one of the BBC's best-known presenters and something of a national treasure, she should have packed her bags and left the Beeb the moment someone said they didn't like something she'd written? No: she stayed and fought for women, and was humiliated and demoted and anything to do with gender was put in the hands of the pusillanimous Jane Garvey who could be trusted to to do what the Stonewall-trained management required. So eventually Jenni left. And now she sometimes writes for a newspaper that's been at the forefront of the fight against gender ideology.

Veronica Ivy, Lia Williams, Laurel Hubbard and Emily Bridges are all far, far better known as trans sportspeople than Fallon Fox and still 80% of the listening population and possibly the presenters wouldn't have heard of them. I have no idea what MMA is. I've been fighting gender ideology and men in women's spaces for a decade and I would have to google before being sure about who FF was.

It's about a century since I worked in a newsroom, but we were often phoning around and trying to find interviewees to speak on breaking topics up to just a few minutes before a live interview. Justin Webb may have had absolutely no idea of who it was he was due to talk to until a couple of minutes before the interview started.

In your opinion.. which I do not share. Fox fallon is in the top 5 examples of why transwomen should not compete in female sports.

Just noticed that this comment insisting that the presenter should definitely have known who Fallon Fox is, got xir name wrong. 😁

Okay, Bovrilly, which of the 22,000 staff, most of whom are 'backroom' — ie not identifiable from regular appearances on the TV or radio — do you want to start with? We know, for example, that there were people in the production team working on Woman's Hour exerting pressure on that programme not to investigate or express criticism of gender ideology. Jenni Murray has revealed that.

I presume you're aware that only recently some BBC staff reported that the new D+I training company employed by the BBC after they quit Stonewall as a result of the Stephen Nolan podcast was openly urging staff to use their influence and power to promote and support TQ+ identities?

People who work in the news often actually have some familiarity with what is in the news because, you know, it's their job to follow the news. Laurel Hubbard and Lia Williams in particular have been all over it.

Okay, Bovrilly, which of the 22,000 staff, most of whom are 'backroom' ie not identifiable from regular appearances on the TV or radio do you want to start with? We know, for example, that there were people in the production team working on Woman's Hour exerting pressure on that programme not to investigate or express criticism of gender ideology. Jenni Murray has revealed that.

I don't mind where you start, Woman's Hour is as good a place as any. So we have some of the WH production team wanting to avoid criticism of gender ideology - where else do all these anti-women backroom staff work?

I presume you're aware that only recently some BBC staff reported that the new D+I training company employed by the BBC after they quit Stonewall as a result of the Stephen Nolan podcast was openly urging staff to use their influence and power to promote and support TQ+ identities?

Presumably the staff who reported the new training were on the right side of the argument then? My point is that there are people at the BBC with all kinds of opinions (including none, or "not really bothered" or "haven't really thought about it") about all kinds of issues. It is not full of anti-women backroom staff, it's a ridiculous thing to say unless you can actually back it up with something more substantial than some of the WH production team didn't want the programme to criticise gender ideology.

I accept that the presenter didn't know Fallon Fox's history, and that the information supplied to him was missing a few important details (skull smashing, enjoying beating a woman up, those kind of things). I seem to recall that this "fight" happened during the period of "no debate" and wasn't particularly well covered in the media except as one "woman" beating another in a "fair" fight. I know about it because of here.

@Bovrilly Are you suggesting that the BBC staff "on the right side of the argument" must therefore have lied about the content of the training they received? If not, then they were trained in deliberately making use of their position in the UK to achieve ideological and political aims. This is very much against the BBC rules and role.

Are you suggesting that the BBC staff "on the right side of the argument" must therefore have lied about the content of the training they received?

No, not at all. I'm saying that BBC staff being unhappy with that training doesn't really fit with an organisation that's full of people who are pro trans and anti-women. There are people at the BBC on both sides of the debate and I'm sure many more who don't really care one way or the other. There are also many women at the BBC. The views of individual staff are not the same as the BBC's editorial policy, so even if the place were full of anti-women backroom staff (many of whom would be anti-women women), they have little influence on whether the BBC treats this as an impartiality issue, or where it gets its training from. TLDR: saying that the BBC is full of anti-women backroom staff is wrong and also pretty irrelevant to how it covers this issue.

TLDR: saying that the BBC is full of anti-women backroom staff is wrong

you’ve provided zero evidence that it’s wrong. You’re asserting that it’s wrong. Others have asserted otherwise. And yes, I tend to trust the anonymous person hinting at inside knowledge… at least, a lot more than I trust the person confidently asserting a negative.

and also pretty irrelevant to how it covers this issue.

the entire point under discussion here is the clear bias in how the issue is covered by the BBC, which has been exacerbated in this instance by either incompetence or bias on the part of backroom staff. You’ve got an example right here of how biased staff affect coverage! I’m sure if you stretch your imagination you’ll be able to think of other possible ways this could happen, “editorial policy” notwithstanding.

Indeed. You prove that there isn't bias in the BBC, Bovrilly. It doesn't have to be everyone in the BBC, it just has to be a few key people. We know that after the Stephen Nolan podcast and Tim Davie's statement insisting on the primacy of impartiality and the need to cover the all sides of an issue several trans people threatened to leave the BBC in high dudgeon. We know that Ben Hunte was censured for bias and let go. So we know there's been bias for some time and that no one did anything about it.

The fact that BBC staff are being instructed - by trainers commissioned by and paid for by the BBC - to use their privileged position in the supposedly objective public broadcasting body to influence important people in favour of the TRA agenda tells us, for starters, the the training section of the HR Department is in the control of TRAs, and of TRAs who are prepared to put their activist agenda before their duty to the public and to their employer. This is a hugely controversial area, and there is no way that the content of the training would not have been overseen by the HR department.

Here we go then, maybe a bit outing but hopefully this is more convincing than an anonymous hint - I worked at the BBC for 20+ years as staff and still do now as a freelancer. I must have worked with hundreds of BBC staff over the years from many divisions and departments, including radio, tv, studios, public service, drama, arts, music, news, current affairs, factual, entertainment, marketing, hr, legal, finance, NHU, children's, religion, commissioning, all the nations and editorial policy. I know one anti trans person (or at least one person who doesn't mind openly making fun of trans people), I have never known anyone be anti-women (apart from one misogynistic boss but that wasn't a trans rights thing), I have never known anyone be more than mildly interested in this debate. Every now and then a question about this or another controversial issue comes up and people are unsure what to do, so it's referred to ed pol and they advise. So unless sport (which I have never had much to do with) is where all these pro trans people are, or I've somehow managed to avoid them through sheer luck, I can confidently assert that it's bollocks to say that the BBC is full of pro trans anti-women backroom staff. In my experience it's full of people trying to do their jobs with ever decreasing resources who would like everyone to feel supported but have no time to spend campaigning one way or the other.

They've certainly been taking the Stonewall line. Eg changing their definition of "homosexuality" to be sexual attraction to people of the same "gender" - very deliberately, as they include different definitions for "gender" and "sex." There have also been reports of people storming out, and of GC people being silenced in meetings.

Oh yes, didn’t Owen Jones report that BBC staff were openly crying on a conference call about the “cotton ceiling” article? (Jones seemed to think that the tears should have influenced editorial decisions.)

Again, the official BBC line is not defined by the views of individual staff. If you feel the BBC's coverage is biased in favour of trans people, as many do, or that it's transphobic, as many do, it does not follow that the backroom staff are all women haters or transphobes. As I said, most people are not really bothered either way.

As a matter of interest, who stormed out of what meeting when and in which dept?

It's a very difficult issue for the BBC I think - it's trying to protect the women and the trans people on its staff, and also trying to report the debate fairly and impartially. They really do try to do that, it's not true at all that journalists set out to push their own agenda. They would not last five minutes. Of course people make mistakes all the time (still cringing from the 1997 election coverage when a reporter whom I have never seen since used "we" instead of "Labour") and mistakes should always be called out and complained about vigorously. But there is no organised campaign to eliminate women or anything like that.

I'd be interested to hear when you left the BBC Bovrilly and whether that was after 2016 when this became a contentious issue after which the number of people actively engaged increased considerably.

To understand what's gone on it's helpful to have watched the BBC's handling of the trans issue over the past 5 years or so. For the early part of that, the bias in the BBC's handling of it was striking. That meant that many ideologically-driven and factually incorrect statements were practically unchallengeable.

There has been a shift in recent times. One key point was when the BBC seemed to realise that having Ben Hunte, a committed activist, as the LGBT correspondent was unsustainable. That seemed to happen after a run of partisan articles by him and the BBC having to investigate an uphold complaints. Another was Nolan Investigates looking into the influence of Stonewall. Both of those were in the past year and followed the arrival of Tim Davie and his stated support for impartiality.

I left in 2020 and have worked with them on and off ever since.

I meant to include this tweet by Stephen Nolan:

twitter.com/stephennolan/status/1448377495036772353

That's good to see but for seasoned observers this looks like part of a welcome refocus on impartiality in the BBC, whatever the subject, whoever the interested parties.

Have you evidence of this? would love to see it, along with there was a corporate decision to protect Saville? or was that cover up by the Tory party ?

Yes there's definitely been a shift over the last few years - this is why it's so important to complain, complain, complain if there's something you take issue with. I am not TD's biggest fan but I can see why he made the decision over impartiality.

I assume you're coming from the position that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence Bovrilly. My view is that over the past several years I've seen a BBC that's been institutionally captured over the trans issue, although for institutional capture in general, it's often difficult to provide clear evidence of the mechanisms and the individuals involved.

Maybe there will be a court case at some point? In some of the recent court cases involving other organisations, it's amazing the things that can be seen if all of the relevant emails have to be handed over.

I agree with the advice to complain. I've done this myself but unfortunately experienced a process involving continual goalpost moving and other unfair characteristics.

I think that blanket statements like claiming the BBC is full of anti-women backroom staff do need to be backed up imo if they are to be taken seriously. I have provided evidence that it's not true but so far there is very little to suggest it is, apart from some of the WH production team did not want the programme to criticise gender ideology, and an unidentified someone stormed out of an unidentified meeting at an unspecified time.

What do you mean by institutionally captured? There must be some evidence that makes you believe this to be the case? Not forgetting that the personal views of staff are not the same as the BBC's editorial position. Do you agree with the decision to make this an impartiality issue?

By "institutionally captured" I mean that until about a year ago, just about all of the coverage of the trans issue was on the side of the supporters of gender identity ideology, there was very little opportunity for those opposing it to have their say, and when there was and they did, they'd typically be scolded on air for not being kind to the most oppressed and marginalised people in the world. A low point was the wholly uncritical documentaries cheerleading the transitioning of children.

And when someone with a high profile at the BBC did make a stand, they were encouraged to leave the organisation. Then there's the unquestioned influence of Stonewall in the BBC which no gender critical organisation could even hope to have a fraction of.