BBC WTF

[ArabellaScott]

The fact the BBC have not reported on the Commons debate, or generally on Cass bar a couple of very weak, short pieces is absolutely outrageous.

The silence is stretching.

They have two members of staff whose sole remit is to report 'LGBT' issues. Where are they? This seems absolutely deliberate omission.

Scarlet Blake.
WPATH.
Cass.

We used to get propaganda, now we get silence.

What do we do, here?

BBC complaints seem to go nowhere, and the hoops to get to an Ipsos report seem virtually impossible.

How do we hold our public broadcaster to account?

https://twitter.com/whtwldbabsdo/status/1780323215618814416

I’m always interested in these threads as I only listen to radio 4 and I just don’t recognize what is said here. . For quite a number of years now radio 4 has had pretty good coverage. It’s one of the few media outlets that I’ve seen which has ‘both sides’ on to debate and discuss this issue. And by god do we need that. When there is a calmly spoken debate the GI proponents are badly exposed. It comes up fairly frequently I would say.

Some of the programmes covering this on radio 4 have been stellar. The Anti-Social on males in women’s prisons was brilliant. The BBC researcher ( they always have a researcher to report back on the topic) reported back really damaging information on the prison service. Completely exposed them.

Anywsy, my experience is that the BBC has really upped their game on this issue and I am glad they are there to do so. I do think we have a better press than say the USA. If we didn’t have the BBC we’d be a damn sight nearer the highly polarized media they have and that would lead to even greater entrenchment of positions, like in the USA.

I would say that an angle they have not covered is the violence ( both threat and intimidation and physical) against women from TRAs. But then no media really covered that. It seems to me a clear VAWG story, but then the fact it’s not covered is maybe due to wider societal misogyny in ideas about female victims. Society seems to only recognize female victims as victims if they are voiceless and feeble and never fight back. We aren’t that, so iIts not reported as a VAWG story. Though it should be. It really should.

You’ve been listening to a different Radio 4 than I have, in that case.

And I’ve always said that I’d pay the licence fee for R4 alone.

If you’ve been pushing gender ideology it can be hard to accept you’ve played a part in the harm to children

Adults can be very bad at hearing this and will protect their own world view first.

😂😂

It was headline news.

For about a day, with some dubious and biased reporting. Then silence, despite extensive discussion elsewhere in the media.
That’s the problem.

I'm specifically talking about the Commons debate. Which has not been reported. At all.

I've always been against the BBC out of political prinicple: I think the notion of a state broadcaster is patrician and ill-suited to our pluralist democracy. I can understand why Iran, North Korea, and Russia need a state broadcaster, but we certainly don't.

One of my many bugbears with the Beeb is that its undeservedly hallowed status means that people believe it to be a trustworthy source of accurate unbiased news. The closest thing to objective truth in news. It is anything but and one of the prime examples is the way it has covered the trans movement.

Are you kidding? Children have been sterilised, disabled and tipped into chronic illness because of a cultish online fad...on the NHS no less, whose waiting list time for heart surgery is now 11 months.

This is a HUGE story.

On the day the report dropped, their front page article link was a welcome sight - until I clicked on it and saw that links to other pieces, including one perpetuating the suicide myth, were included within the text. The suicide one was there twice. They covered it but they're still being hugely irresponsible in that regard.

Yes, it is.
My point is the BBC had covered it in depth a couple of days before. Nothing different came out of the debate that would encourage more coverage, plus there were other world events that day that were new.

There are debates every day in the HoC that get little attention. The House itself was pretty empty I thought. I just don't think this debate was as relevant to the general public as it might seem to people who have been following the story. So I don't think there is a cover up here.

Glinner would be more likely to get an apology if he stopped tagging all his previous colleagues on Twitter and implying they are child abusers.

Plus calling people groomers. His twitter is a scary place, I wouldn't touch him with a barge pole if I was the beeb. Too high risk. They can barely cope with Vorderman and Lineker's fairly mild political activity.

There are debates every day in the HoC that get little attention.

Debates like this, on which both main parties aligned on a significant and extensive NHS commissioned review? Debates like this one, concerning extensive medical malpractice concerning the unnecessary medication and mutilation of children that people had been flagging up for years, where whistleblowers were hounded out of the service, silenced and accused of transphobia?

Pull the other disingenuous leg.

Nah, medical scandals of this magnitude always give days, months, YEARS of news. Look at thalidomide, MMR vax/Wakefield, PIP implants.

If this was being treated like a normal broadcast cycle I'd expect the big splash on days 1 & 2, human/personal angles on days 2 & 3, legal and medical commentary on days 3 & 4, then big analysis segments on the Sunday magazine programmes and a week or so later, a Panorama or similar.

OP was right that the Beeb is conspicuous in trying to avoid this, but they'll have plenty of opportunity to nut up when the stat enquiry starts and the course cases gear up.

So, I guess we'll see which one of us is right in years to come!

HoC debates about Wakefield were not covered in the BBC.

The only debates I've seen coverage of were ones where there is a vote and there's likely to be a rebellion.

The BBC are mindreaders now, and reported news before it happened?

That's fantastic. Have you got a link to the news coverage of the discussion in The Commons and how did they know what each politician would say?

Adults are complicit in gender ideology they would prefer not to see it highlighted

Rude.
The media does not routinely cover debates. It's not disingenuous to point that out.

On the other hand far right political movements thrive when there is distrust in "facts" and people are relying on emotion. Therefore an incentive to undermine the media, ascribe hostile intent and encourage people to switch off. I can see that pattern happening about the BBC so just pointing out there is an alternative explanation to "the BBC are coveting it up".

Different opinion =/= disingenuous 🙄

What on earth are you talking about?

The Cass review came out, various politicians gave statements/wrote articles/Tweeted etc. There was lots of coverage.

Then there was a debate where the politicians basically said all the same viewpoints reported in the press. On the same day as Iran launched 300 drones at Israel, causing global instability and a pressing need for a UK response.

In my opinion, the HoC debate was not particularly newsworthy in that context. But if you want to think that it's some kind of elitist conspiracy theory cover up, you go ahead.

You said that the BBC covered it before it happened.

I asked for the link to this coverage if you think it happened.

It's quite simple, just post the link. Thanks in advance.

I'm not talking purely about the HoC debate (and there were 3 debates about MMR refusal in late 90s/early to mid 00s which were covered; I know because I was involved), but about the usual days long spread of wide coverage and angles which a medical scandal of this magnitude would normally occasion.

You already know this I think.

Once the enquiries and criminal investigations start, the Beeb will have plenty of opportunities to lend this emerging scandal more airtime.

They won't because they are part of the scandal.

That's the point of them turning a blind eye to this.

You can see it everywhere

People peddling very hard not to admit the harm

Explainer article 10th April:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-53154286.amp

Cass on 10th April - R4 and website
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-68770641

Hannah Barnes on Women's Hour, 10th April
twitter.com/BBCWomansHour/status/1777986940278636677

Streeting/Atkins 11th April
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68786030.amp

Trans perspective with expert quotes 12th April:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cv20l497xvjo.amp

This is just the BBC but obviously they will be aware of all the wider media coverage and public interest in this vs other stories

Anyway I'm out. Got no desire to get into a fight about this.

I think you are on the wrong thread.

This is about the COMMONS DEBATE.

You said it had been covered before it happened.

So can you post links to the coverage of a debate before it happened.

Cheers.