BBC fair and accurate reporting of the judgement

[TheOtherRaven]

Getting increasingly concerned with the way the BBC are covering this story on multiple fronts.

Can we have a quick collation of evidence please from anything you've seen, heard or read just to make sure it's here and listed where it can be easily found?

This is a women's story, based on the long journey of three women to get this to the supreme court. How many women who were actually involved in all this so far have been in the interviews on TV and radio? Compared to how many men?

How much air time and in depth coverage has the issues and women's side of the story been allocated compared to the air time and depth of coverage given to TQ+ issues and side of the story?

What experts actually involved in the legal processes have been interviewed or given explanations of the judgement on air compared to people with opinions? One today actually didn't even know the name of the relevant act. Are facts being challenged and explained on air or are interviewees being allowed to broadcast misinformation unchallenged?

I wrote to the Nolan Investigates Podcast today to ask if they’ll do an addendum to their Stonewall Investigation about how the BBC are struggling to cover the judgement itself. How will they cover the investigation of Stonewall which should be called for?

And of course you can choose your gender , or indeed to have no gender, but it doesn’t have anything to do with your sex.

Have I Got News For You.

Glad none of my money goes to the BBC then!

There should be an inquiry into the ideological capture of the BBC. Evan Davies being one of the worst culprits. The BBC is funded by the taxpayer. Why is it only representing the views of a tiny minority against the rights of women???

Note to OP: “judgment” not “judgement”

I was upset about that. Ian Hislop famed for court appearances and standing up for free speech. Shabby

But we can’t complain to Ofcom. They’re captured too.

There is zero point using the BBC complaints process. But a collation of evidence here may well be useful.

Can't edit the title.

Any questions clearly has a biased audience as well.

Great idea

There is literally no evidence here. Only opinions. The whole thing is subjective. And the problem with people who are not impartial on an issue - attempting to judge the impartiality of a news organization - is that you won't ever be satisfied unless it's biased in your favour.

People say the "BBC is usually great, except for (insert issue I'm passionate about here)".

No media orgnaisation is percect but on the whole, I think it does a good job.

Completely agree!

Please do join in with requests!
their address is: [email protected]

Evidence meaning in programmes and articles what the content was by the questions above. It's impartial and straight forward to say which guests/interviewees were male/female, the views represented, the facts and information being accurate, the time given to each perspective.

Channel 4 News also interviewed 2 men and zero women. Asking about how this will affect the trans community, they responded by saying how endangered they’ll be in men’s toilets. Except as confrontational men taking on natural science I’d say they’re the ones endangering the other men who accept biological truth.

Why oh why are the 3 sheroes of For Women Scotland not being interviewed everywhere - it's both important and an astonishing story of the David v Goliath type.... so HIGHLY newsworthy....

And yes, who is going to do a full documentary investigating Stonewall??? High time...

Women's Hour had a piece on Wednesday reporting within an hour of the judgement. Scottish reporter, IIRC, female. Joshua Rosenberg was on WH yesterday. Respected legal commentator, so that was OK. Michael Foran was on PM the other night. There have been far too many tearful male voices bewailing their exclusion from public life now that they've finally been firmly and unequivocally been told that they can't use the female toilets.

I'll give you evidence. On the PM programme Evan Davis treated Lord Sumption's analysis as being the best authority going and unimpeachable. As a result of that broadcast it's being spread across social media.

Lord Sumption, as this great authority, didn't even know the name of the act that he was commenting on.

Oh, to have the confidence of a mediocre man.

Already done 😉 but thanks for the idea

@nauticant

Lord Sumption, as this great authority, didn't even know the name of the act that he was commenting on.

Are you referring to the fact he called it The Equalities Act and not The Equality Act? Because I doubt that means all his legal expertise is garbage and not to be listened to... and it's definitely not 'evidence'.

I have been enraged by the BBC coverage which not only doesn’t explain the women’s rights issues but also does not define what a “trans woman” is nor do they ever clarify that you cannot change your sex, nor do they ever point out that the majority of trans identified men do not have any surgery and carry on posing -let’s be charitable - the same risk to women that other males do. It is lying by obfuscation and a slap in the face to women who have to pay the licence fee for this apalling unfair treatment. The Bug•e•y Bas•a•ds Corporation and I’m a Quaker so don’t normally swear!

I wouldn't like to be a defendant in court and find out that my brief was getting wrong the name of the statute that I was being prosecuted on.