Evan Davis

[senua]

Evan Davis has just finished the PM programme. We had articles on the effect of Instagram on the restaurant trade, on Chat gpt and on wearing shorts in the winter.
Guess how long the article on Isla Bryson / Adam Graham ran for ...

To think we pay for the bloody BBC to push propaganda at us. The BBC is so captured

It's shocking isn't it.

He does have control. It’s not like a newsroom it’s more like women’s hour, they (he) get to curate the content.

On the other hand Nick Robinson and Justin Webb are exemplar on this issue.

Konstantin Kissing was on Question Time last night. He's just said on Triggernometry that he asked the producers why they were not discussing this rapist case, and he was told it's because there were no LGBT people on the panel. Clearly the opinions of the women on the panel don't count for the BBC.

*Kissin!

@2023username
I said influence not control.
As I said earlier, I used to work for the BBC, and PM was one of the programmes I worked on. Woman's about too oddly enough. So I know how a news programme is put together.

Woman's Hour.

Sex Matters have launched Bad Media Watch - they want to start collating examples of poor reporting. Particularly when sexual violence is reported I assume.

"Bad Media Watch lets Sex Matters keep track of bad reporting on sex and gender and helps readers and viewers through the process of making a complaint. "

There is an easy form to fill in and below that expandable boxes with detailed advice about making initial complaints and the escalting them if you get fobbed off and covers a range of media including the BBC and print media. You do have to complain yourself as well as reporting it to Sex Matters but it will give them an extremely useful database and let media know that receipts are bing kept as well as encouring more of us to report.

sex-matters.org/bad-media-watch/

That's very useful, thank you Christina. I shall be making use of that, rather a lot I suspect!

Sex Matters have launched Bad Media Watch - they want to start collating examples of poor reporting. Particularly when sexual violence is reported I assume.

This is genius Christina, thank you. I hope "poor reporting" includes non-reporting. A lot of that going on

WhereYouLeftIt · Yesterday 23:14

Yes he is a gay man. And some gay men, having no sexual 'use' for women, see us as as nothing. (Not all gay men, obviously - but some.)

It would seem Davis may be one such

Agreed.

And he may have sympathy with, or even empathise with the idea that, another gay man like himself might well want to be a woman, in which case he’d think men have rights to any womanish state they decide on.

Slightly off topic, but Evan Davis makes Dragon”s Den so frustrating to watch with his constant bloody mansplaining. Deborah Meaden will say something like ‘It’s not environmentally sound enough for me, so for that reason I’m out’ and then up pipes ED “the products lack of environmental credentials has put Deborah Meaden off investing’. I bloody know! I literally just watched her say that!

ED has always struck me as a bit of a weakling on many issues. He never asks the hard questions, he panders to people. He is rather wet and is not a patch on the BBC journalists of old. No idea how he got these gigs.

I grew up in a household where R4 was on in the kitchen and car all the time. The Archers and Womans Hour wEre never missed! All our Jews came from the BBC etc

As a younger woman I did the exact same, saw the BBC as the born and a trusted source but a few years ago, I noticed WH just never talked about the things I was aware of, things that my female friends and I were discussing, big news stories affecting women. The women they didn't interview were conspicuously absent. The oriole they did interview seemed odd choices at times...my eyes began to open, the scales fell. The JM thing. Then JG leaving.

Then I realised the news wasn't covering the issues at all. The Allison Bailey trial for example got no discussion. Imagine if they'd done indpeth reporting of the judicial review around women in prisons ...

I can't remember the last time I listened to the BBC on the radio. I now listen to Times Radio - I hadn't come across it before Jane and Fi led me there by ending their fortunately podcast. I know wake up with it every morning where that would have been R4 Today's job before. Mariella had had great feminist guests and discussions.

I feel so let down that "our great institution" literally has nothing to offer me. My confusion on tuning into Newsbnight, and QT and seeing the tumbleweed was the last straw. That said, surely watching a national figure such as Huw Edwards on News at Ten saying "she" and "when she was a man" made me cringe so hard that it surely peaked a lot of others too?

The same sacred caste who enabled Saville are still roaming our institutions and we pay them to abuse us, they don't do their job and they never see prison bars.

This thread reminded me of my many complaints to BBC Radio, and not all about Evan!, and l went to have a look at my saved letters. This excerpt from a complaint l sent in (about a biography of Ewen Forbes by Prof Playdon interviewed by Amol Rajan, but that's by the by) is from December 2021:

...an example Prof Playdon gave was of historical unfair treatment received by some transwomen convicted of trivial crimes like non-payment of parking fines being sent to "wrong sex prisons" where transwomen were raped. It is particularly galling that in this piece, so full of maddening inaccuracies, I am encouraged to pity the historic abuse of transwomen in prison when the BBC has yet to discuss the fact that female prisoners being housed with male-bodied prisoners now. This is exactly the kind of thing that self-id is facilitating right now in women's prisons: unscrupulous male prisoners some of whom have been convicted of sexual assault and other violent crimes against women are claiming to be transwomen in order to serve their sentences in women's prisons. Why has this not been discussed, and instead we hear about past abuses of transwomen? To be clear I am not upset that the historical mistreatment of prisoners who were gender non-conforming is being brought out in the open; yes it should be discussed and understood. But I am very upset that we are being asked to sympathise with wrongs done to transwomen prisoners in the past, while at the same time the BBC is entirely silent on the very present wrongs that are being inflicted on women prisoners right now.

This was back in 2021. I was enraged that the BBC was amplifying outrage that transwomen might have been mistreated in prison some time in the past. While not reporting AT ALL the current mistreatment of women, right now! Look won't you? Report on it, won't you? Answer came there none.

Oh, they probably responded with something like "So sorry that you are probably old." I used to get that a lot, but wordier. I also would get "this interview was conducted in a fair and duly impartial manner" when my letter of complaint proved that it had not been. Thought l would post for obvious reasons.

MorvenOfMalvern My experiences are very similar, although we do still put BBC radio on in the house, just very much less often. Have also moved to Times Radio.

I started to feel uncomfortable about the BBC news slant from about 2014?, but when the GRA consultation was simply not reported, and Woman's Hour of all places would really not discuss it at all, much less the ways in which self ID might impact on women (iirc after many complaints the GRA consultation was mentioned two days before the end of the consultation) I was livid.

Then Kiera Bell, Harry the Owl, Forstater, Allison Bailey, prison judicial review, Mermaids v Charity Commission/LGB Alliance, and others, were not covered in the news or with commentary, or were covered but with bias and misinformation-- well, l started to wonder what else they were lying to us about. And you would think that would be an uncomfortable place for a broadcaster to put themselves in. But no, it seems the BBC is good with that. It does not matter that they cover up the truth or obfuscate, in fact it is required that they do so because "they have the cultural reins of power in their hands", and a moral duty to control discussion. I am sure they see themselves as activists first, broadcasters second.

As for a Channel 4 News item last year covering the leaving out of T from the Ban Conversion Therapy bill! It was pure alarmist propaganda featuring an elderly transwoman (male) who was abused by some sort of therapy in the early ‘60s that even the reporter murmured doesn’t happen now, followed by people declaring transpeople were going to be tortured.

The reasons for leaving out T especially the protection of counselling for children and young people, or the irony of a ban leading to the transing the gay through no counselling, were virtually not mentioned.

The only mention was some word like ‘complicated’. No proper explanation the public would understand was given.

Old Tinsel Tits* has been a misogynist forever. He's one of those gay men who barely regards women as people. Unlike The Big Gay From Tay, my beloved Eddie Mair. Eddie's my dream husband, if not for the fact he's married and gay and we've never met. He's marvellous in every regard.

ED was a good economics correspondent. On PM, not so much.

*ED has piercings he got out at parties before now, hence his nickname

they cover up the truth or obfuscate, in fact it is required that they do so because "they have the cultural reins of power in their hands", and a moral duty to control discussion. I am sure they see themselves as activists first, broadcasters second.
That's why my post included a link to the editorial standards (1.1.1: to provide impartial news) that they are supposed to follow. Hoist them by their own petard!

Hit them where it hurts and don’t pay the licence fee. They try to make it difficult but it’s very simple to do this.

Oh senua I quoted that very thing in many of my complaints and yet their response was always "this interview was conducted in a fair and duly impartial manner". They don't care, so now neither do I (in that l don't pay the licence fee.)

Oh, it's just clicked! I reckon he bat signal has gone out to all the usual TRA rentagobs not to go on the BBC to try to defend the indefensible. The BBC won't cover it unless there's "balance" with an LGBT presence on the panel (even though they have never cared about talking about women's rights without a woman present). So the item doesn't get covered on the flagship shows, and the TRAs hope it all goes away and people forget.

I caught a tiny section of PM tonight. Apparently there has been some poll which has not given the Tories good numbers so Evan was discussing how things might pan out for the party. He had a local party chairman (male) and a previous-candidate (female).
ED asked the woman if the Tories have almost given up on the next election. She said not, because of the absolute chaos in the Labour party. ED asked what she meant. She said, "the discussion over self-ID. That matters to a large portion of society". And Ed said, dismissively ..... "and is that it?"

He really, really doesn't care and isn't interested.

ED asked the woman if the Tories have almost given up on the next election. She said not, because of the absolute chaos in the Labour party. ED asked what she meant. She said, "the discussion over self-ID. That matters to a large portion of society". And Ed said, dismissively ..... "and is that it?"
He really, really doesn't care and isn't interested.

She said, "...because women have rights"

He said "...that matters why?"

Paraphrasing, natch