Anyone listening to Woman's Hour? (Weds 14/6)

[WinterTrees]

My radio is on, but the signal keeps dipping in and out (often does this in hot weather for some reason) and I wasn't concentrating properly. It seems to be a discussion about the rise of the anti-abortion movement, and the role of the far right in this.

The young interviewee (Sian someone, I think, but I didn't catch her full name) has just brought in the general rise of 'wokeism' and the 'culture war' around LGBTQ+ issues as being part of the problem. She cited the push back against Drag Queen Story Hour as an example of this far right influence, and then circled seamlessly back to abortion, with no challenge at all from Nuala McGovern.

I didn't hear it properly and will listen again when it becomes available. I'm hoping that I've misunderstood, and the BBC's flagship women's programme was not promoting the narrative that women who object to pornified men breaching safeguarding best practice and blurring children's perception of appropriate boundaries are dangerous far-right zealots. Did anyone else hear it?

Thanks @WinterTrees
I don't listen to WH much anymore but will check this out

I used to be an avid Radio 4 listener many years ago. Whenever I switch on now, I ask Alexa to switch it off again after about 5 minutes as someone will have uttered the usual 'woke' expressions.

Same with 6 music. Never more than 3 mins away from some artist who is central in the LGBTQIA++ Hands Knees and Bompsadaisy community.

You didn't mishear/misunderstand @WinterTrees. It was an interview of the author of this book:

https://www.versobooks.com/en-gb/products/2825-bodies-under-siege

whose thesis seems to be that those campaigning to limit abortion in the US are believers in The Great Replacement Theory and thus are of the Far Right. She didn't seem curious at all that although these people exist, there are plenty of other people coming at this from different perspectives, who are not of the Far Right. The book looks to be more propaganda than journalism. Emma Barnett would have challenged such partiality and partial story-telling I think.

When is Emma Barnett coming back, does anyone know?
I really don't like any of the current presenters.

I was listening to something else on radio 4 recently and it was something scientific about climate change and the reporter was talking to a climate change 'denier'. The reporter asserted that the woman had been influenced by the far right without evidence and she also said the woman was 'just wrong' about global cooling with no other detail - but global cooling is in fact a scientifically recognised phenomenon so a bit more detail was necessary.

Essentially she just did a hatchet job on people whose views she disagreed with without any evidence or nuance.

It was horrendous, and is something that's been repeated many times when I've been unfortunate to tune in recently. Critical thought seems to have gone out of the window and the odd reporter who is more balanced seems to get a hard time for not following group think. I've given up on the BBC and very glad I no longer pay my license.

I’ve been listening to this too. It’s called Marianna in Conspiracy Land, I believe. I am really interested in conspiracy theories and why people believe them but this programme is a complete hatchet job ( complete with scary music) and has a complete lack of curiosity. Marianna had obviously decided what she thought of these people and how she was going to talk about them before she spoke to any of her interviewees.
It’s really disappointing. I am generally a fan of the BBC which is better than the media situation in the USA. But if this bias is a sign of how the bBc is going to change under younger reporters then what’s the point of it?

I'm disappointed with Marianna Spring. Appointing a Disinformation and Social Media Correspondent at the BBC is a much needed development but although she will work to cast light on conspiracy theories and theorists, vital work, she spends a fair amount of effort pushing narratives to uphold a set of views that are considered by those in the BBC to be acceptable and necessary for decent people to hold.

I view her work as broadly being to discredit certain forms of propaganda in order to support other forms of propaganda.

I'll give an example. Months back she was involved in a report on the death of Emmett Till (1955) and in recounting the story, when it came to the part about the possible interaction there might have been between Emmett Till and Carolyn Bryant, Spring shut that down because to report anything could support racists' narratives and so it was better for the audience to be kept in the dark.

So discussing American politics as though it were UK politics? I’m so sick of the UK being lumped together with the US as though we hold the same opinions and cultural heritage. The only thing we have in common is a shared language.

@BoreOfWhabylon , I got the impression from when Emma B. did her last WH before going on maternity leave that she wasn't coming back.

I hardly ever hear WH these days and swich many programmes off.

Nuala is a terrible presenter, no empathy, seems to lose track half way through a sentence, waffles away. I thought maybe she was nervous to start with, but it's not improved. The obesity guest Tom tried to clarify what she meant by her garbled questions and eventually he gave up trying.

Yes Nuala comes across as with her mind somewhere else. So discussions feel very shallow. And Anita Rani always feels like she is so busy thinking of her next question- 6th form debate style- that she ignored what the interviewee is saying. Classic example was when Maureen Lipman said she was 77 and a minute later Anita asked if she would mind sharing her age. It just feels low quality. I quite like Jessica and Krupna (sp?)- I have googled her name but nothing comes up.
I do hope Emma Barnett comes back, I was surprised how much I enjoyed her on the show. I think it’s because she takes it seriously. Nuala and Anita don’t.

Thanks for the additional info, particularly into Sian Norris. I've listened again and I think it's a sad sign of the times at WH that they gave her and her flimsy arguments a platform. She comes across like a student who has picked her dissertation subject and decided what she wants the conclusion to be before she's done any research. Emma Barnett would have made short work of her.

Smallbirdgreengrass · Today 14:13

It’s called Marianna in Conspiracy Land, O believe.

I heard some of this and wondered in the back of my mind if the BBC was in a sense just getting the equivalent of students to make some programmes.

39% of BBC's complaints are about bias. In the last 5 years, they have received 1.7 million complaints and upheld just 25 of them.

They are deeply institutionally biased and their absolute failure to adhere to their remit to be objective should lead to severe sanctions.

whose thesis seems to be that those campaigning to limit abortion in the US are believers in The Great Replacement Theory

I know* *expecting logic in conspiracy theories is asking a lot, but (quite apart from its relevance to the UK) that makes no sense. If you're a conspiracy nut worried about immigrants[1] taking over, then surely you should want more abortions, not fewer. US abortion rates are much higher for black and hispanic women than white ones, so limiting abortions means they are going to have more babies and replace you faster.

[1] Not proper white WASPy immigrants, of course, but the Wrong Immigrants.

I was half-listening to WH and at the "white supremacists" I literally rolled my eyes, it's just so lacking in basic logic. As you say, if that were the case they'd be making abortion more available, but make white women jump through more hoops whilst rubber-stamping abortions requested by black women.

The current WH hosts just piss me off now. No rigour.

There was a discussion between pro and anti abortion women yesterday on WH and one was allowed to bring in one of the usual tropes that was extremely upsetting to hear. It was not shut down straight away. It was clear where the debate was going but Nuala was out of her depth. As others say she seems to have her mind elsewhere and not actually listen or engage properly.

However WH very occasionally put out some incredible interviews eg with women from Syria, Afghanistan . I would like to hear them report on the big debate on sex / gender in Parliament on Monday.

Nuala McG is only sure of her ground when she is interviewing a person she can praise - eg someone who has won something. She cannot challenge effectively at all. Anita Rani constantly interrupts interesting guests.

I thought Emma Barnett was an excellent journalistic presenter without any of the superficial One Show tendencies of the ones we’ve got now.

I'll be disappointed if EB doesn't come back. I don't bother listeningthese days.
The One Show comparison is right.

This!

Of the complaints to the BBC, are they actually about equal?
I think they are very left, media elite twaw ideological types with a superiority complex.
but my leftist friend thinks they are gov supporting to the right.
so are they biased to the left or is that my own fairly centre right bias?

Reading this thread I've realised that I've not actually listened to anything on R4 for months, probably not since last year some time. I used to have R4 on as a background when doing housework, cooking, DIY etc, but I was finding it increasingly annoying. I felt I was being beaten about the head by the same set of opinions over and over again. I gradually switched over to various podcasts.

I liked Emma Barnett, though. If she's not there, there's even less reason to tune back in.

It makes me quite sad, because having an impartial national broadcaster was a brilliant thing. I just don't find it impartial any longer (and I'm fairly middle of the road).