JK Rowling Debate Broke BBC Rules After Author Was Accused Of Being “Nasty” Transphobe

[IwantToRetire]

In a ruling on Thursday, the BBC’s Executive Complaints Unit (ECU) said the radio show “did not meet the BBC’s editorial standards of impartiality.” The ECU considered the matter resolved, however, as the BBC and Davis had already publicly acknowledged the Rowling debate’s shortcomings

JK Rowling Debate Broke BBC Rules After Author Was Accused Of Being “Nasty” Transphobe (yahoo.com)

ie no talk about directing staff to not abuse their position to promote the trans agenda at the expense of women's rights

Unlike women, the BBC have only just started tiptoeing in to these discussions so it's not surprising that they think unsubstantiated slurs against women are what constitutes debate. Especially for presenters who have previous for this.

It's painful watching them lurch back into free speech territory - and evidently against the wishes of so many of their trans activist employees

It shows how unprofessional these presenters are, that they listen to the likes of Stonewall and Mermaids whilst thinking anyone who raises objects are “transphobic”. These reporters and the BBC ought to be ashamed of their stupidity.

I am shocked at the extremely low standard of journalism on the BBC nowadays. I mean you'd think it would be basic to read the three pages that JK Rowling wrote, wouldn't you?

But the interview with Elon Musk was an all-time low. Absolutely zero research and a totally inability to even think on his feet.

the Elon musk interview was dire. I was just thinking: do you not have a proper journalist who has done so bloody prep to interview a significant global figure (who is notoriously hard work)?

Honestly, the ‘there’s more hateful content’ with no ability to substantiate that but was painful. Surely doing the work to ensure you are evidencing your points is basic journalism.

It is an ongoing and tediously normalised pattern. Say wtf you like as biased, political propaganda during the actual show.

Apologise later, and maybe 5% of the viewers will realise that you lied/intentionally spun them to think and believe what you wanted them to for your own agenda. So you got the 95% successfully influenced, but said sorry later, and no harm done. No consequences.

Stop the bloody licence fee and let those who want to live in this faith pay for it.

Or stop paying the licence fee and vote with your feet.

the Elon musk interview was dire

Of a much longer interview, this short part has gone viral. Well worth a listen:

https://twitter.com/BenABrittain/status/1646055351555375104

That interview shows up the extreme level of inadequate thinking / research that self identifies as journalism these days. But I did enjoy how Musk exposed the the journalist as being a weapons grade plank . 😂

Who was the journalist? He was an imbecile.

It's James Clayton of the BBC. The reason I'm disconcerted by his conduct is that he wasn't engaged in news reporting or even in fact gathering, but was engaged in narrative formation. People had told Clayton that Twitter had turned into a hate platform, he seemingly hadn't confirmed this for himself, in fact he said he'd avoided looking at the offending part of Twitter that might have given him an informed view, but rather he assumed that his job was to form a narrative to feed to the audience that supported what he'd been told by right-thinking people like himself. That's a long way away from journalism.

To compound the offence, the news of this interview broke in the week and over the course of a news day I heard segments from the interview many times. But nowhere was this part of the interview broadcast by the BBC I was listening to.

That Elon Musk "interview" clip. Bloody effing hell. Just abominable.

James Clayton on Twitter thinks it went OK. The BBC is defending the interview saying that the backlash is coming "mostly - but certainly not exclusively - from right-wing and far-right accounts."

So, there you go. Criticise the BBC's crappy news interviews and reporting and you must be on the far right. 🙄

When I was in my late teens and started listening to Radio 4, Feedback was presented by Chris Dunkley of the Financial Times and was extremely critical of the BBC. After a few years he was replaced by Roger Bolton and Feedback lost some of its edge. Now he's gone too and judging by what I heard this afternoon the new presenter seems to think her job is to tell the BBC how utterly wonderful all their output is. There wasn't a single critical listener email today. Not a good sign.

And yet only on Tuesday - despite knowing this was in the pipeline - Evan Davies was being once again unimpartial about JKR on PM. He's really not fit for purpose.

That’s the bit I was really despairing of.

Unevidenced, vague accusations are not the stuff of serious journalism

Yes. I heard him interview the Witch-hunt of JK Rowling creator. I only listen to see what crap he comes out with. His usual biased bollocks. JK Rowling was framed by him as anti-trans, and no mention of her supporting women's and children's rights. Completely biased and disingenuous.

I listened to the whole Elon Musk interview. He politely owned the boy identifying as a journalist, who had no prep, no evidence for his assertions, and was embarrassing. And whenever Elon raised the crucial issue of freedom of speech, the 'journalist' moved swiftly on, couldn't seem to comprehend that as an issue.

just ridiculous.

That standard of ‘journalism’ is indefensible. And to dismiss criticism as ‘right wing’ is about as far from impartial as you can get.

Diversity hires.

I don't watch TV often and watched some over Easter and remembered why I don't watch it. It is all puffed up people with their virtue signalling right think.

The 1950/60s BBC presenters in black and white were less uptight.

Surely if there is a lot of backlash from right wing accounts that suggests they have not been politically neutral as they are required to be?

In fairness to there Elon Musk interviewer he apparently was talking to Musk about something else and changed his arm saying "Let's do an interview sometime" and got the answer "This afternoon". So he didn't have much time to prepare and was not really the right interviewer - just one who happened to be in the right place at the right time.

That could explain a poor interview. It doesn't explain "I'm going to accuse you of something that someone told me about but I didn't think to check myself, and then not own my mistake when caught out".

It also doesn't explain "if you think I got that wrong that's because your political views are wrong".

So, there you go. Criticise the BBC's crappy news interviews and reporting and you must be on the far right.

I am SO FUCKING TIRED of the whole criticism = far right bullshit. How arrogant do you have to be to fail to recognise legitimate criticism?

It's not the opinions that were expressed that bothered me, just the insult to our intelligence by the totally amateur nature of the interview by an employee of the BBC.

The only explanation I can think of is that there is a lot of nepotism and probably some form of casting couch at work in the BBC.

Honestly, the ‘there’s more hateful content’ with no ability to substantiate that but was painful. Surely doing the work to ensure you are evidencing your points is basic journalism.

I almost felt sorry for James Clayton - he really put up a poor performance.

If you're not prepared, you have to tread lightly and not go on the attack without references and staristics. When he realised that Musk was steering him to the ropes, he should have accepted the criticism, apologised and moved away. But instead he came out with ridiculous excuses and dug himself in worse.