Radio 4 profile of Kemi Badenoch - taken down?

[Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g]

I didn't hear it but saw some tweets from Fair Play for Women, Transgender Trend, Keep Prisons Single Sex and others suggesting it was inaccurate and not impartial. Now I see that the programme is not available on Sounds. I'm sure normally these programmes would be on Sounds. Has the BBC actually listened to complaints?

twitter.com/fairplaywomen/status/1588982297927520256?s=20&t=rTSfVVepCkRwkFaQ6pJZjw

That does seem odd: www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001dwjn

More likely that somebody had a word with the lawyers if they've libelled her.

I mean just the title to that now deleted programme, front loading prejudice against her by calling her "controversial". I'd like to know how the BBC substantiate that claim, but I think we can all guess why a woman saying no to their TRA friends would get this label.

The BBC has lost the plot completely, and has the gall to push programme after programme about right wing conspiracies and disinformation (with their shiny young Disinformation Correspondent), whilst being a public funded mouthpiece for a bunch of left wing cause celebres. The old adage that both sides complain about them so they must be getting something right is now obsolete, I think. I actually think the BBC is a law unto itself and serves only itself and its internal agenda, and that of a load of cub reporters who don't actually understand that neutral journalism and fair reporting is not the same as propaganda and waging your own morality wars through the news cycle.

I heard this broadcast over the weekend. Nothing contentious mentioned - lot of input from her brother and Michael Gove who were both very positive - in fact can't think of anything negative mentioned at all.

The BBC has lost the plot completely, and has the gall to push programme after programme about right wing conspiracies and disinformation (with their shiny young Disinformation Correspondent)

The latest episode of Americast has a segment where they talk about Elon Musk tweeting conspiracy theories, they all go on about how bad it is that he should do that, and then they say but we're not going to tell you what these conspiracy theories are because they're so bad and we don't think we should share them. In other words, they're saying they don't want the audience to make up their own minds, they have to take on trust what Auntie tells them to think. Marianna Spring, who I was optimistic about, was happily going all with this. I was astonished.

Marianna Spring

Don't get me started on her. Even if the substance of her programmes is something nobody sane should disbelieve - e.g. that the Manchester Bombings did happen - the way she goes about "debunking" the conspiracy theorists never actually looks at their evidence and why they have arrived at their conclusions. She just harangues them about hurting feelings. I actually end up feeling sorry for these conspiracy fellows, who obsessively research this stuff, but don't actually seem to be the terrible, evil people who go around harassing victims the BBC would have us believe. Why does the BBC feel that the publicly available evidence doesn't speak for itself? Why does it infantilise the public, why is it afraid to hear the alternative views and address/debunk them? I actually would really love to believe that public services and media are acting in our best interests, but they make it bloody difficult. All they do with these programmes is just provide more fuel to the already sceptical, and probably helps them to recruit new disbelievers. I suspect their agenda is just to scare the shit out of people already left leaning to keep them in check, and to hook in floating voters by making them feel that their scepticism might be EVIL.

Anything that dares to differ from the BBC's assumptions and stances is automatically labelled 'controversial' but anything the BBC holds never ever is. The very thought would never occur to them.

The initial 'controversial' label is followed by 'right' or variant such as 'far or extreme right' as night follows day. As it does here: "Her forthright views on British colonialism and trans issues have won her admirers on the political right, but also been heavily criticised by LGBTQ campaigners."
Yes, because anybody who happens to agree with her about one or two things cannot possibly be anything other than in the 'right' political box. And they must be opposed by some undifferentiated blob of ready-made alphabetical construction. There we have it, set up to the BBC's requirements: two neat little opposed boxes.

And Marianna Spring. It's always struck me as a bit of an awkward title - Disinformation Correspondent. Not exactly a favourable thing to hang around your neck. She does sound keen and eager but it's not a programme I'd seek out or miss if it wasn't there.

Still there, as far as I can tell? Haven't listened yet so can't judge it: www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001dwjn

I've listened now. I can't see it as being really any different from the other episodes in the series in terms of balance. It even concluded with the suggestion that she could be a future leader of the Conservative Party.

Interesting. Definitely wasn't there earlier. I wonder if it's been edited.

Was it broadcast for second time today ? The beeb often doesn’t provide the listen again feature until all schedules of the episode have been broadcast.

I listened to it, thought it was fine. Someone, I think it was Ben Hunte, frothed over her ‘controversial views’. Apparently she has been heard to say ‘transwomen are men’.

No, I think the schedule for this one is transmit the first time early on Saturday and repeat at 5.40pm on Sunday, which is when I sometimes hear it, although I wouldn't have done this week. I went to look for it yesterday after reading the critical tweets, and it was unavailable. This happens with Sounds sometimes (I occasionally have frustrating delays getting to hear The Archers). Maybe it was just a glitch.

I've listened to it, but didn't hear the original broadcast. The Ben Hunte comments are still in there with no context. Using him as the "balancing" view on KB is pretty strange - I'd rather have heard from another MP with an opposing view on KB's record on equalities, certainly someone more credible than BH.

The FPFW twitter complained on 5 November that, "Worst of all the programme repeated false claims that [KB] had men and women signs put on the gender neutral loos at her leadership launch venue. Totally untrue. Very poor fact finding BBC"

In the profile episode now up, the BBC say, "It was reported that men and ladies signs were cellotaped onto the the doors of gender neutral toilets at her [leadership] launch venue. But evidence later emerged that this had been done after the event."

According to Maya Forstater, when this first blew up in July, the signs were up before Kemi's event:

twitter.com/MForstater/status/1546954192610377728

If the BBC had said the above in the original programme, I'm not sure why FPFW would have taken umbrage with it. Even if the programme is inaccurate as to the timing of those signs, there's no blame on KB. Although that being the case, why include it at all? Is a bit of a desperate none event to include in the programme as proof of her "controversy".

So I do wonder whether FPFW got it wrong, whether they just object to the toilet story being brought up at all, or whether the BBC have done a subsequent edit?

Well! Yes, they did do some editing. Wonders will never cease. (Daily Mail link, no idea if this is reported anywhere else.)

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11407785/amp/BBC-pulls-Radio-4-profile-Kemi-Badenoch-claims-botched-hit-job.html

Hmmm - the Beeb should have been transparent about the edits in order to maintain trust. One for Feedback? www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/1WbP92b6YbpP9j4mwwbtc9Q/contact-us

Oh look, they even brought in the controversial Ben Hunte to do a number on Kemi Badenoch. The bloke they sacked? To go that far shows they really are out to get her. It's utterly shameful for the publicly funded broadcaster to attack her for speaking for women's rights.

Women are watching you, BBC and we know you have a woman problem.

The stupid arse BBC couldn't even get its correction right. And since the toilet thing had nothing to do with Kemi anyway, why keep it in at all in the edit as a point of note? This was nothing but an attempt at a hit piece. The whole tone of the piece on the part of the journalist was one of patronising amusement at KB's achievements; and the inclusion of a disgraced former BBC employee, who is more propagandist than journalist, shows a clear intention on the part of the BBC to besmirch her reputation. Fortunately, she's just an impressive individual, and the segments where she is speaking about her life, and the contributions of her brother and Michael Gove, shine through all the shade being thrown by the "reporters".

Online newspapers usually carry a note if they have edited a piece subsequent to original publication and an explanation of the edit. The BBC should be obliged to do the same.

Just came across a blog which has uncovered the bewildering history of the BBC Kemi Badenoch profile saga and come up with what looks like the definitive account of the dirty business.

isthebbcbiased.blogspot.com/2022/11/profiling.html

Interesting to note that this was partly enabled by the use of a resource called TVEyes which provides transcripts of programmes.

But it is the meticulous work of the blogger which is most impressive. If only the professional broadcaster could do as good a job of research as the amateur blogger.

Interesting, thanks Abitofalark!