Inaccurate BBC story - Trans identified male

[WineIsMyCarb]

Bbc Sussex has described trans identified male murderer as 'woman' throughout story, with no reference at all to his sex or trans identity.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp00de3r3qro

If you wish to complain about this inaccurate reporting of a male's violent crime, the bbc's complaints link is here:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/contact/complaints

Nor mine.

You’ve correctly identified some of the issues I have to deal with on a regular basis.

Reply to my complaint weeks ago

Thank you for getting in touch about our article reporting that Joanna Rowland-Stuart has been arrested and charged with murder.

We have published two articles about the case, both of which have accurately reported the information put into the public domain by the authorities during court proceedings, and will continue to report on the case as it develops.

All feedback from readers is appreciated and shared with senior editors so that they are aware of audience concerns, so thank you again for contacting us to make your views known.

Kind regards,

BBC Complaints Team
www.bbc.co.uk/complaints

Buy a paper. Especially your local paper. Reporters don’t generally talk about how they work and I feel uncomfortable doing it here.

I started posting here to suggest the anger being directed at the BBC was misplaced in the first instance.

I hope you understand now why people are angry. The BBC has persistently shown itself to be biased and dishonest when reporting on crimes committed by trans identified males.

I've tried to be clear and concise but I understand there's an awful lot of background knowledge most people don't have.

There's a lot of background knowledge on here that most people don't have. When you've got a bit of time to spare you could have a look at some of the other threads on here about things that 'never happen' and about how the BBC and some of the other media cover these stories (or completely ignore them in the case of the Guardian).

The issue starts with the police press office, not the BBC.

I don't mean to be rude but that much we'd already figured out before you ever posted. The police started it, the BBC repeated it, the BBC dragged their feet over correcting it. We knew that. I thought you had something to add.

Reporters don’t generally talk about how they work and I feel uncomfortable doing it here.

Well, we'll leave it that then.Vague accusations against the PR industry and buy a local newspaper. Meh.

Theres a lot of “we just don’t know” about BBC processes going on here.

You've misquoted me.

Also, I'm the one who went against the police. As you say, not being so trusting.

I've offered what I can on this point.

Just trying to increase the sum of knowledge in the world.
I'm back in court now on a revenge porn case. Look out for it.

Will look out for it. If you hang around on this board you will undoubtedly come across material which would make good stories, btw.

Quoted wrong post

We’ve had other posters do the same, so it raises an eyebrow.

@unclebarry as a journalist (even though it's not your thing because you are specifically a crime reporter), is this not of serious interest to you both personally and professionally? If not why not?

The police and media, particularly the BBC, have been misleading the public for a long time on this. It does actually matter in lots of ways, not least because these are two institutions that we are supposed be able to trust.

We know you don't work for the BBC, you don't have to keep repeating that, we get it! But you are a reporter, you are part of the media. That is not to say you are to blame, but doesn't this worry you as a professional? It would if it were me! It worries me as a civilian.

If a trusted source gives the media false information, are they still a trusted source? Why? How many times do they need to have given false information before they are no longer a trusted source?

If I were a journalist who had been given dodgy information by a trusted source I'd be seriously fact checking and corroborating any further information that came from that source. If it happened twice I'd drop the source as no longer trustworthy. The BBC have let it happen for years, lot of people here have complained about it over those years. It keeps happening.

PP have already told you that the police and media have been doing this for years. They know they are doing it, it has been repeatedly brought to their attention. It's been talked about here frequently.

It looks like the police and BBC are doing this on purpose. Wouldn't you like to know why?

Why is this not of serious interest to you? If it really is not of interest to you, surely you know some other journalists? Surely a story like this has to be of interest to one of them?

I'd be very sceptical if you said no. There's a massive scandal going unreported here!

The advanced search function will be useful to you, if you are in fact interested to learn more about the BBC coverage on cases like this.

Advanced search will also be useful to read threads about Sussex Police, they come up in discussions here a lot too.

This thread is the one PP talked about, we have been gaslit for years It will never happen - resource thread. | Mumsnet

I’m a reporter and not a journalist. I strongly resist any professionalisation of what I do. I would strongly resist any professionalisation of journalism as well. There are lots of statutory and legal reasons for what’s gone on with this story. None of them have anything to do with the diligence or - I’d argue - the intentions of any of the reporters involved.
The difference between reporters and journalists is simple. I get paid for what I know, not what I reckon.
It’s been great talking to you all. Enjoy your summer.

Ok so you are a reporter and there is a difference, very good.

To me the rest of your reply reads:

No I don't care about the issue, I don't care about professionalism, and I don't care that the public are being seriously misled to their detriment, and I don't care enough to pass this on to anyone else who may be interested.

Please do correct me if I'm wrong.

I had to look this up, because I'm not very well educated (please note this does not equate to being unintelligent, thank you!) but...

Professionalisation (noun)
The action or process of giving an occupation, activity, or group professional qualities, typically by increasing training or raising required qualifications:
"the professionalization of youth sports has turned coaching into an increasingly lucrative profession"

No idea about training as a reporter or journalist but there should be standards to reporting and journalism at least surely? There must be some qualifications required right?

So there should be some professionalism required.

Edit: to add a please, and also to mention that I looked at the info under your byline and it doesn't have you down as a crime reporter, it seems you cover a wide range of topics. It also mentions 2023 as a starting point, but I assume that means for that paper.

Further edit of Professionalism to Professionalisation. Kicking self.

So the bigger picture doesn't interest you?

You refer again to "this story" as though it's a one-off or an anomaly. It's not. It's an ongoing issue of deliberate gaslighting of the public by the police, the BBC and other media.

Here's a story for you @unclebarry

x.com/murdo_fraser/status/1814382710002999790

news.sky.com/story/dylan-brister-and-cameron-allan-facing-life-sentences-for-rape-and-murder-of-young-father-in-fife-13181066

Allegedly they are the same person. Go dig.

Professionalisation means you have to pass a bar to be admitted. Barristers, doctors and clergy are professional. It’s anti democratic to professionalise reporting or journalism. If I was a professional, I’d want a badge or gown, maybe an hat and to be able to set my own rates. Anybody should be able to write what they like and try to get it published. We have enough laws already.

I wouldn’t presume to comment on anything I wasn’t across enough to think I had anything to add. Hopefully, I haven’t.

I'm actually a bit cross with your non engagement, it feels bad faith and a bit goady tbh. It has crossed my mind that if anyone did contact the reporter who wrote the story, would it in fact turn out to be you?

You've not really responded to any of the important bits from previous posters, and have absolutely nothing to say about any of the points I raised other than to basically say that you think people should be able to say what they like. Then mansplained something I had already looked up, which incidentally FWIW didn't mention having to pass a bar for admission of any sort.

I also don't think you and I have the same understanding of what a professional in any capacity is going on your description of one. It's not about the accessories or pay rates fgs.

I don't think it's anti democratic to hold reporters and journalists to a set of standards or rules about what they write, quite the opposite. I'm still pretty sure there are standards and rules whether you agree with them or not.

Your loud "I don't care" has been very clearly heard.

Any one else getting serious Felix vibes from this one?

Not sure what byline you checked. I generally don’t take one. You can see examples of our work here; www.sussexnewsandpictures.uk I’m also www.deepcutinquest.co.uk Always keen to hear from anybody who has a story to tell.

"Always keen to hear from anybody who has a story to tell"

But apparently not this story, from all of these people.