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?

Oh God. Our EDI officer used to do this all the time. Drove me mad. And he was only concerned about one group’s ‘equality’, too. 🙄🙄🙄

I haven’t heard most of the examples given, but have put in two complaints to do with biased reporting, one actually before the verdict and one after.
It’s tedious, but I do complain every time I’m annoyed by them.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/contact/complaints/make-a-complaint/#/Complaint%20Summary

Who gives them funding?

This is exactly what I mean. People don't know anything and then quote 'evidence'. The BBC is funded by the UK TV licence. Unless you can name who gives them alternative funding it's just spreading false information.

The only other funding I am aware of is government top up grants for the World Service, which the government use to fund entirely, and no longer do.

This is then point I'm making. Lord Sumption says 'equalities act' instead of 'equality act' and you all scream blue murder, but people post generalized rubbish on here about political persuasions, false funding, and other unsusbstanted 'facts' - the other one being that someone 'read somewhere that 4% of bbc staff are trans' - and call it evidence.

Don't people realise we're living in a dangerous world of echo chambers and the spread of misinformation and this is basically what the majority of mumsnet threads are?!

Although I enjoy reading Private Eye (Hislop is the editor), it’s noticeable how little the whole ‘debate,’ long before the SC judgement, has been mentioned inside it.

There’s been the odd cartoon, usually GC-ish in the punchline, but very little of substance. It’s disappointing, considering how ready they are to roast other nonsensical statements made by politicians and others.

There’s been the odd cartoon, usually GC-ish in the punchline, but very little of substance. It’s disappointing, considering how ready they are to roast other nonsensical statements made by politicians and others.

Hislop has seen what has happened to brave people like JKR and Kathleen Stock so he’s decided it’s safer to attack those who won’t fight back. He can say whatever he likes about Prince Harry or Boris or Keir Starmer knowing he won’t have death threats sprayed on his house or a massive hate campaign launched against him on social media.
In other words, he can dish it out but he can’t take it.
Also he might have been sacked by the BBC given their views.

To the poster that said HIGNFY wasn’t funny anymore, I found it to be quite a funny episode, although there has indeed been a looooong period of being not funny.

The host was Katherine Parkinson, definitely (maybe?) friend of Chris O’Dowd - who recently publicly stood up for Glinner - and possibly a friend of Glinner herself? I don’t know who she was but there was also a female panellist who seemed fairly sensible and funny enough.

The SC ruling should have been covered. I’m hoping, but not really believing, that as a PP said that it was a timing issue and it’ll be covered next week.

Not zero point, we just need to be persistent and keep raising it until it gets the the highest level (not my forte).

I am thinking writing to Feedback for the radio coverage - they can hold producers etc to account.

To add to others - virtually all the coverage has asked about the effect on transgender people but I have not heard any analysis of cases like Sandie Peggie.

Women’s hour have not spoken to ForWomenScot and said Joanna Cherry was one of their directors.

Evan Davis was salivating over Lord Sumption (sp?), it was absolutely pathetic. And Sumption did reference the NHS nurses’ case twice, stating that the Act meant women were entitled to feel safe, hence single sex facilities should be provided. He actually said women should not have to undress infront a transwoman (he may have said male, I can’t remember). Davis obviously completely ignored these comments!

Davis is an utter disgrace.

Thanks for that - definitely don’t rely on my memory!

Aha - interesting.

I guess it’s everyday sexism again - someone like him trotted out in preference to a more dynamic, up to date professional who actually understands the issues (and dare I say it… isn’t a male!)

BBC News interviewed Trans Campaigner Heather Herbert saying he couldn't participate in public life if he is unable to use the women's toilet. Same Heather Herbert has shown himself on social media self dilating in a disabled toilet. Don't the BBC do any research into who they are interviewing or do they think his fetish is perfectly acceptable?

It feels as though they’ve learned nothing from the numerous scandals involving male celebrities that they’ve allowed to fester in their ranks.

Peter Daley berated himself for a typo on TwiX which led to a discussion that official judgements have ‘e’ although the spelling without is typical for other use (in British English).

x.com/peter_daly/status/1913003066292306271?

I agree, he ignored the stuff that Sumption did say in favour of any need for women only spaces.

I am struck by the contrast in reporting on the UK Court decision on the legal definition of a woman and on the US Supreme Court Decision relating to the deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia.

UK Court - yes but, no but, but, but but but, let’s appeal, this is not correct.
US Decision - this is a Supreme Court decision and must be implemented immediately, in full and without question.

And yes, @Freysimo interviewing a fetishist on this issue is a clear example of boundaries being eroded in public life (thinking back to the adult nappy case recently where posters - I suspect not really acting in good faith - wanted us to provide evidence of this!)

Yes, the point with Sumption is that he shouldn't have been taken as the last word in legal authority over something he wasn't especially well informed about. And he most certainly shouldn't have been taken as that but only in respect of the "convenient" comments he made.

I think the progressive grouping at the BBC, being initially caught very badly off-guard by the judgment,

It feels like a 2016 Trump election moment got them.

They could do with reading on Matt Goodwin’s essay about the epistemic class and reflecting on it.
Quotation follows.

For much of the last half century, the new elite, whose families often descend from the professional and managerial classes, benefitted far more than others…

Shaped by their privileged family backgrounds, their educational qualifications, and their much greater ‘cultural capital’…the new elite hoovered up most of the gains from Britain’s embrace of hyper-globalisation and a political economy which was rebuilt around them, which both demanded and rewarded their skills.

They’ve benefitted culturally, too. After flooding into the creative, cultural, knowledge and public sector institutions, becoming a new “epistemic class” which creates, filters and determines what is or what is not acceptable or desirable within the national conversation, the new elite watched the prevailing culture be completely reshaped around their far more socially liberal values, tastes, political priorities, and interests.

Increasingly, when they’ve looked out at the institutions and what they create -the television programmes, films, adverts, books, museums, galleries, columns, and the national conversation more broadly- they’ve seen their worldview staring back at them while millions of others struggle to recognise their worldview at all.

www.mattgoodwin.org/p/rise-of-the-new-elite

I eagerly look forward to the detailed methodology and data analysis that supports the ‘majority’ claim in your final lines.

Hislop gets paid a five figure sum for each appearance on HIGNFY. Enough said.

Wrong way round. Use ‘judgment’ in the legal context and ‘judgement’ otherwise.

Apologies for the transposition.

I hope this turns up on these videos.

bsky.app/profile/krissychula.bsky.social/post/3lm6fq5ydbk2n

I did this several times while I was still a licence fee payer. The answers I received completely failed to engage with the very specific complaints I had raised and on one occasion plainly responded to a different complaint entirely. It felt like I was being trolled by the complaints department!

There has to have been some nonsense by Shon Faye or similar that could have been sent in to Pseud’s Corner. I wonder if it just wasn’t chosen for publication…

Well they got quite a lot of funding from USAID….