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/

Ok, and since then, do you feel the coverage has become more balanced and that Stonewall's influence has diminished since the BBC stopped working with them?

Why did the BBC break links with Stonewall because of reputational issues, and then commission training from Global Butterflies, an equally extreme TRA group, without even checking their training materials first? I don't buy it.

I'd also be interested to know how much the BBC has spent on TRA training and "advice". After all, the BBC is under the most enormous financial pressure and is pinching every penny. At least I thought it was.

I think things have improved considerably Bovrilly. It seems now to be permitted for people opposing gender identity ideology to have a platform. But there are still problems. Evan Davis is incredibly partisan over the issue and his apparent more recent moderation is, I believe, down to the complaints he's attracted in the past. There's still a tendency to forget that balance means also hearing from "the other side", even if they have "bigoted views". When "the other side" are given a platform, there's still a tendency to scold them for "not being kind". You don't see the same knid of challenge levelled at trans activists.

The BBC, a hugely influential media organisation which broadcasts around the world, has literally changed the definition of words in its "News Style Guide". Including stating that "homosexuality" means attraction to the opposite gender and not attraction to the opposite sex.
I think the BBC has been "captured", yes. To the extent that it is or was on a mission to change the meaning of words to the benefit of the TRA ideology.

And yet year after year after year they leaned heavily the other way for climate change deniers and UKIP ranters.

By the way, I think that the changes in the BBC's handling of the trans issue haven't been as a result of Stonewall losing influence, but there's been something else going on, a realisation that impartiality in this area is going to make reputations and that acting partially is going to lose them, and people in the BBC have begun to assert themselves. In other words, the move away from Stonewall is a symptom rather than a cause.

That's good that you think things are improving. I think it's partly to do with the nature of the debate changing and the BBC being, as ever, very slow to catch up. (Hence everyone must always complain, complain, apply pressure etc etc). I don't think it's about individual reputations, more to do with removing cause for complaint and trying to maintain the BBC's right to exist. The BBC is very cautious by nature so it took other organisations parting ways with Stonewall to make that happen I think.

The climate change / Brexit debates have certainly forced them to think much more carefully about what impartiality means which is also good. And I think that making this an issue of impartiality is also a good move, because it gives everyone clarity and proper measures by which the coverage can be judged and against which it must be defended.

The BBC also played a massive part in promoting gender ideology to children via its children's channel, online content for children, and dramas about transgender children. Was there one called Butterflies or Mermaids about a 'stunning and brave' young 'trans child'?' They also made the programme about the 'pregnant man.'
And yes to the silencing of women's hour presenters, WH platforming 'women' such as Helen Belcher, and Evan Davis and his disingenuous wide-eyed crap.
Another corporation that should be sued.

Radio 4 Arts seems to have been infiltrated by someone with a TRA agenda. I've lost count of the number of letters I've written to Front Row complaining whenever they have a programme about gay or lesbian artists or writers and they interview a young academic who talks about the subject being Queer. The BBC says 'We have no control about what our experts say' and I argue that they could choose academics who don't promote a queer agenda. You only have to google the name of those concerned and you can see from their online profiles what they represent. I've also asked why presenters such as Tom Sutcliffe don't, when someone 'queers', say, Patricia Highsmith, ask what's wrong with the word lesbian. Apparently that's not what they're there to do. Sutcliffe, of course, described JKR as transphobic during one of his Front Row interviews. I've always been a fan but something seems to have come over him.

Obviously not everyone in Radio 4 Arts programming is a trans ally, but someone, somewhere, is quietly promoting it, quietly working to blur boundaries, persuade the world that lesbians and gay men are just a little part of the Queer family.

The Butterfly drama was on ITV. But 'I am Leo' was shown on CBBC back in 2014, just before the enormous increase in GIDS referrals.

https://www.transgendertrend.com/uk-cbbc-childrens-tv-i-am-leo/