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?

Aa was surprisingly excellent.
The 2 tw were given plenty of time to condemn themselves out of their own mouths.

The fundamental point that almost never gets discussed in the media is that the cohort of "trans people" today is massively different to the cohort in 2004, both in terms of the number of people and in their nature, with the men now having far more who have, shall we say, "non-dysphoric motivations", and being noticeably more aggressive in getting what they want.

The quality of the output of the BBC has fallen dramatically on so many issues. I went on their news website for the first in a long time this week to see how they were framing the judgment. The majority of the front page was opinion pieces, links to short reads with little actual investigation and short videos. It's as though they've decided that in an age of TikTok they can't produce anything that requires more than 2 minutes focus.

No wonder they don't bother engaging with the truth of the judgment, or challenging interviewees on blatant misinformation, they don't seem to actually value the Inform and Educate part of their remit any more.

I've just listened to the repeat of the News Quiz on Radio 4. Astonished at how it completely minimalised and mocked the Supreme Court judgement. It was so much worse than I had expected from comments here yesterday, the BBC should hang their heads in shame.

Since when have the BBC been fair and accurate on anything.

For me it's not about how accurate they might be at the moment, it's that we're at a hugely significant time in terms of the influence of the media and the world is crying out for a trusted brand, one that genuinely is impartial. The BBC is uniquely placed to step into that role and do really good work. And so what do they choose to do? They decide that those who don't share the BBC's ideological alignments must be bad people and if it takes spreading mis/disinformation to counter them, then the BBC is willing to do that.

Exactly the type of guy you don’t want in women’s toilets.

Particularly if the agenda could be to misinform and dishonestly drive a particular narrative through the general public to achieve an aim of their own. That would be a fairly major issue for a tax funded public broadcaster.

I noticed a number of years ago that the BBC News output had changed from the equivalent of a broadsheet to a tabloid - perhaps reflecting their page design (red top).

Savile was reported to the BBC by myself ( having treated one of his child victims) & many , many other professionals through at least the whole of the 1990s . They knew what he was .
I do not trust the BBC to safeguard nor report properly regarding child abuse . Their recent behaviour pushing endless normalisation of ‘trans children ‘ & scorn for women’s rights has done nothing to alleviate my strong misgivings about this organisation.

Or that previously female officers were expected to search intact AGPs!

Re earlier comments about Ian Hislop and HIGNFY, here is a good article about him and other deniers.

www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-dont-satirists-like-ian-hislop-think-the-gender-wars-are-a-laughing-matter/

From the article:
**
‘It isn’t easy to do this particular subject, as Keir Starmer has found out,’ stammered an unusually flustered-looking Hislop. His teammate, guest Jo Brand, agreed:
‘I think this is a thing that a lot of people wouldn’t want to say anything (about), because it’s a very, sort of, venomous situation, and I think a lot of people are genuinely a bit frightened…no one really wants to get a death threat…’

No one really wants to get battery acid thrown in their face though Jo Brand suggested it was a good idea…..

Posted on a new thread in error, I'll get that removed.
A friend pointed me in the direction of a chat with JVS at Three Counties radio about the SC ruling on 17th April.
Be warned, this has taken me 4 sessions to try to hear out as the bias was shocking, the presenter saying he'd listen to everyone but you must 'be kind'.
The entire discussing being framed as hostile backwards thinking GC people and frail, delicate trans women so very marginalised.
Discussion starts from 1.32
Starts with an overview from Robin White
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0029y0s?partner=uk.co.bbc&origin=share-mobile