BBC Whistleblower report mentions censorship of 'trans debate'

[CrackingOn50]

Briefly mentioned in reporting around the Panorama Trump speech 'doctoring'.

Can't find anything else about it yet but it's excellent to see coverage of what we've known for ages.

Could the recent change in BBC reporting style of stories involving TiM be to do with this?

Apologies if there's already a thread but I couldn't find one.

BBC Verified Live - "The programme's main aim is to provide fact-checking of news (including corresponding images and footages) and analysing its factual accuracy based on verified data and facts live on air, while still bringing verified facts and updates especially to breaking news. It works closely with BBC Verify, BBC News's team of investigative journalists who regularly verify news reports and data."

That is what they want everyone to think, but the geni is out of the lamp and is not going back in.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verified_Live

BBC Verified Live - "The programme's main aim is to provide fact-checking of news (including corresponding images and footages) and analysing its factual accuracy based on verified data and facts live on air, while still bringing verified facts and updates especially to breaking news. It works closely with BBC Verify, BBC News's team of investigative journalists who regularly verify news reports and data."

That is what they want everyone to think, but the genie is out of the lamp and is not going back in.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verified_Live

Sorry about the double post, don't know what happened there.

The evidence about BBC reporting in Gaza is just as bad.

'Now we have the evidence. The BBC knowingly helped spread Hamas lies and hate'

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/11/03/bbc-prescott-report-hamas-lies-arabic-culture-anti-semitism/

I’m glad to see this - and about bloody time, the BBC’s lefty woke bias has been so blatant for years now, and they’ve hand-waved away legitimate complaints for far too long.

The only thing that’s troubling me about this is that the Minister with remit for making sure the BBC corrects course is, of course, Lisa Nandy….

This ties in neatly to the thread about Musk's attempt to circumvent Wikipedia's bias. The BBC is an example of what Wikipedia considers a "reliable source". The Daily Telegraph isn't, so I couldn't use the DT article as a source for a Wikipedia article about this scandal. Given this, do you think that Wikipedia's article about this scandal, or indeed any other controversial matter, will be balanced?

It is all in one big loop of misinformation

Agree with PPS that there do seem to be a remarkable number of quiz contestants this week who are instantly recognisable as men despite their attempting to disguise this…it’s now less about answering the questions , more about guessing how many and which!

This story was covered on The World at One on Radio 4. It's one the best news programmes on the channel and superior in some respects to the Today programme.

The degree to which they minimised this story was astonishing. It looks like the BBC is going with the line that what they did was standard, someone might have got slightly carried away this time, but it's best not to make a fuss.

Like many of us, I first saw the BBC’s appalling bias on their reporting of trans issues. Most shocking was a reference along the lines of “transphobic cis gay men who won’t sleep with trans men”.

once you’ve got reason to
doubt them on ine issue it taints everything. Since then theres been the scandal over the Gaza doc and now deliberately editing together parts of different speeches to misrepresent Trump.

defund them now.

The best way to get a sense of how deceitful the BBC have been is to look at an analysis of what the BBC broadcast compared to what actually happened and what was recorded at the time:

It is truly shocking.

I can't remember in any detail what I saw at the time of the Capitol riots and from what sources, but the sources certainly included US ones which must have misreported in similar fashion. The behaviour of some of the rioters was very worrying indeed, and I was certainly led to believe that Trump had incited their behaviour very clearly, so if that incitement was less clearcut then it must have been a serious attempt to exaggerate and mislead. The trouble is that now I have no idea which reports to trust, given that I will not be listening to the whole of a two year old Trump speech to judge for myself.

I'm disappointed at how amateurish the doctoring is. You can clearly hear the difference in the background noise where the two segments are pasted together. There are YouTubers making videos on their phones who would do a more convincing job.

Also, let's not forget the existence of BBC Verify, and that silly young woman they've hired as their "disinformation" correspondent, when it seems their definition of "disinformation" is "well, it's actually true, you just can't say that because it would be inconvenient for the regime".

Remember when (in 2017) the progressive media alighted on the "fact" that Trump had "said" that the violent white supremicists in Charlotteville were "very fine people"? This was corrected at the time, has been corrected many times since, but the progressive media, particularly in the US, will even nearly a decade later not report honestly on this and persist in presenting the "fact" that Trump supports violent white supremicists.

Trump: "Excuse me. If you take a look at some of the groups, and you see - and you’d know it if you were honest reporters, which in many cases you’re not - but many of those people were there to protest the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee.

[the focus on the discussion was the group of people who were there to protest the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee]
...

Reporter: "The neo-Nazis started this. They showed up in Charlottesville to protest --"

Trump: "Excuse me, excuse me. They didn’t put themselves -- and you had some very bad people in that group [here Trump is talking about the group of people who were there to protest the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee], but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. You had people in that group. Excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name."

Reporter: "George Washington and Robert E. Lee are not the same."

Trump: "George Washington was a slave owner. Was George Washington a slave owner? So will George Washington now lose his status? Are we going to take down -- excuse me, are we going to take down statues to George Washington? How about Thomas Jefferson? What do you think of Thomas Jefferson? You like him?"

https://www.politifact.com/article/2019/apr/26/context-trumps-very-fine-people-both-sides-remarks/

What did Trump say and what did the BBC imply he said?

This is genuinely shocking, but yet I have no reason to even be surprised.

I think this is a transcript.

www.npr.org/2021/02/10/966396848/read-trumps-jan-6-speech-a-key-part-of-impeachment-trial

I've noticed on a number of BBC Game/Quiz shows that trans people seem to appear in far more proportion than you'd expect, given the number of them that there are.

I've noticed this, but I think it might have something to do that trans identification is often over-represented in a certain type of man, namely the nerdy, computer tech-obsessed, dungeons and dragons-playing, slightly on the autistic spectrum type of person. The kind of person most likely to be doing quizzes, in other words.

Your second paragraph - really? I’ll give it a miss then.

Name changed; I stumbled across this earlier and feel there could certainly be an episode on Rachel Rooney and Jenny Lindsay

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/series/m002m0bm?partner=uk.co.bbc&origin=share-mobile

from reading about the Kate Clancey cancellation

https://x.com/bbcnews/status/1985627268694089761?s=46&t=A2fpFNgDRyXF2d6ye97wEA

The stupid thing is that Trump says plenty of outrageous things as it is, there’s no need for creative editing.

That's exactly the thing that gets me. I think he's awful as a person and he's done harmful things as president (although he's also actually done some good things). So there's loads of damaging material but there's this urge to provide the public with misrepresentations rather than keeping it straight with facts and true accounts. It's just so counter-productive.

Are they (the Telegraph I assume) going to publish the full report?

Will be very interesting.

I started a thread on this yesterday, hardly any traction, which is surprising given how many mumsnetters have such strong opinions on Trump.

Was coming here to say this. Apparently there were three of the lads last night, one on each quiz show - Mastermind, Only Connect and Uni Challenge. I only watch OC and that was bad enough, but to have three separate programmes presenting this as normal is crazy.