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.

Trump was not convicted of the things you mention.
This is a thread about accuracy.
He has not been convicted of rape, that accusation was made and he was cleared.

'David Grossman, the editorial guidelines and standards committee’s senior editorial adviser, was asked to examine the BBC’s coverage of trans issues.
In October last year, he reported back to the committee and “found many shortcomings” in the BBC’s reporting.

• On story selection, his report warned of an “unintended editorial bias”
• “Significant voices” were too often missing from the BBC's coverage, including those who had transitioned and regretted their decision or those who had concerns about the process
• The report couldn't find a single example in the review period that reflected the experience of de-transitioners
• It noted there were more stories about the waiting times for people to receive care than examining the quality of that care itself
• It also noted a surprisingly high number of stories about drag queens considering it is such a niche group of people
• Stories that raised concerns about the quality or safety of care given to gender questioning children and adults received "little or no coverage"
• In March 2024, there was widespread media coverage of leaked documents from the World Professional Association for Transgender Health which raised concerns about he quality of care given to gender-distressed children. It was picked up by the Mail, Economist, Observer, Washington Post, the Times and others but not the BBC
• There was also scant coverage of biological women campaigning to exclude biological men from sensitive spaces
• The BBC failed to cover the story of Darlington nurses who took their employer to court for allowing their changing room to be used by biological males. This story was covered extensively by other news outlets including Sky News and GB News
• Similarly, there was no coverage of claims biological male police and prison officers were being allowed to conduct strip searches on women and girls
• The report warned that the phrase "assigned at birth" in relation to biological sex was appearing frequently in coverage, despite being advised against in guidelines
• The report noted concerns with how the debate about the Cass Review was framed on Newsnight - the views of a doctor critical of the Tavistock Clinic were "balanced" with those of a trans woman, who said she had received excellent care. The report pointed out that if Newsnight was covering concerns about a maternity unit it would not seek to provide balance by interviewing a mother who was happy with her care'

In March 2024, there was widespread media coverage of leaked documents from the World Professional Association for Transgender Health which raised concerns about he quality of care given to gender-distressed children. It was picked up by the Mail, Economist, Observer, Washington Post, the Times and others but not the BBC

THAT is fucking egregious.

They should rectify the problem by hosting a piece from Reduxx on WPATH. Fuck it, I could give them a story. Start with NHS Scotland hosting a link to the Eunuch Archive and thus CSA material, BBC!

'Instead of giving viewers, listeners and readers a balanced view of the trans debate, the BBC gave them “a constant drip-feed of one-sided stories, usually news features, celebrating the trans experience without adequate balance or objectivity”, the leaked memo says.'

NO SHIT.

Another tenner in the 'terfs were right' jar, then.

If you can fit one in, it’s overflowing by now.

Video: https://x.com/Telegraph/status/1986146553246195922?t=lcz8-4OcCAQtf-H1ORfMZQ&s=19

Also in the Times now:
https://www.thetimes.com/article/501a454c-7f7d-455f-857a-184ab5722b8c?shareToken=64b99523b38ec7c323a488b06ea565c4

Literally just been mentioned on radio 4 today, just now.

reading the papers but at least it’s been read out. 6:44

And then went on to describe research into the difference between male and female drivers 😆

But he was impeached in the US - surely they didn’t do that off the back of watching Panorama?

It didn't, but the impeachment and the Panorama scandal both came from the same source, that Trump must be prevented from being president.

That's fine as a political goal but not something a state broadcaster funded by the public should be fabricating news to achieve.

Whenever anyone complains to the BBC in future we should quote from this dossier about their obvious bias and poor organisational structure.

We care because the taxpayer-funded State broadcaster should tell the truth.

If the Beeb will lie about what Trump said outside the Capitol on 6th Jan, what else will they lie about?

It doesn't matter what the consequences of that slyly-cut footage were to Trump. The UK's State-owned, taxpayer-funded national broadcaster misrepresented the conduct of an outgoing US President, and in doing so:

• Undermined public trust in itself as a balanced and fair reporter of current events.
• Libelled the democratically-elected head of state of another nation.

In doing the above, the BBC attacked the very concepts of truth and democracy, and it did so at the taxpayers' expense.

I agree. My point was more in answer to someone who said Trump was unfairly demonised because of this footage. Presumably that's not the case in the US?

The people we don't like should be fairly demonised, based on what they actually did. We undermine our case against them when we lie about them.

'Fairly demonised' is an oxymoron.

The UK's State-owned, taxpayer-funded national broadcaster misrepresented the conduct of an outgoing US President

It's far worse than this. Trump left in 2020. The doctored footage was broadcast by Panorama shortly before the 2024 US general election in order to damage Trump's electoral chances. I think it was broadcast just over a week before.

Sure, but I think the consequences of this need to go well beyond a BBC complaints process.

It needs a political enquiry, imo.

Absolutely and I believe one day we will get one. Not yet though.

I'm really not disagreeing with you. I was just trying to make the point (clearly, badly) that I doubt the US senate used Panorama footage to impeach him. Surely they viewed the original footage?

You're correct, in that demonisation is unfair criticism that exaggerates and maybe even fabricates someone's shortcomings. By extension "unfair demonisation" is a redundancy of terms.

I would have been accurate if I had said "The people we don't like should be fairly criticised, based on what they actually did." But then I couldn't have used the rhetorical device, which I forget the name of, where you reuse someone's words with only one change to emphasis the contrast in your views.

Yes, but... see Nauticant's posting from today 11:39:
"The doctored footage was broadcast by Panorama shortly before the 2024 US general election in order to damage Trump's electoral chances."

The impact of this on Trump is not his impeachment. The impact of this on the US (and by extension, the world) is not Trump's impeachment.

This is, prima facie, an attempt by the UK's State broadcaster to influence the presidential election of a foreign power by spreading disinformation about one of the candidates.

This is a serious matter. When Russia was suspected of trying to influence US and UK democratic processes, we ended up with the Cambridge Analytica scandal and Mark Zuckerberg being questioned by the US Senate. And that was for stuff done online, in an environment where you'd treat sources like Facebook Pages as suspect. This is more serious than Cambridge Analytica in some ways because the disinformation was spread by the BBC, owned by the State and using taxpayer's money.

This is more serious than Cambridge Analytica in some ways because the disinformation was spread by the BBC, owned by the State and using taxpayer's money.

I'll try to explain why I say this is so serious, and why there's a high public interest in this, by way of analogy.

Note: "Public interest" means the right of the public to be informed because a matter affects them. It's not the same as "prurient interest", which is wanting the juicy details of something for entertainment.

1. A Ruritanian private citizen in the UK beats up a British citizen using a privately-owned baseball bat. The public in Ruritania and the UK don't have an interest in this beyond what they would have in any assault case, unless the Ruritanian Embassy tries to overreach in terms of protecting the perp from British justice.
2. A Ruritanian airman based at RAF Pondenscrub beats up a British citizen using a privately-owned baseball bat whilst on off-base leave in the UK. There is an increased level of British public interest in this because, when foreign powers station their airmen here, we expect that foreign power not to increase the risk to our citizens in doing so. We would rightly scrutinise attempts by the Republic of Ruritanian Air Force (RoRAF) to fly the perp home or use a court martial when the perp should face a British court. There is also an increased level of Ruritanian public interest in the case because it affects the international reputation of Ruritanian armed forces personnel.
3. A Ruritanian airman based at RAF Pondenscrub beats up, whilst on duty and using an RoRAF-issued baton, a British civilian contractor who was working on the base that day. The British would have a very high level of public interest because we expect that we can go to work safely at a British air base that hosts a foreign power's personnel. The Ruritanian public also have a very high interest because the airman used Ruritanian tax-funded equipment to attack a civilian citizen of an allied power and did so whilst being paid by the Ruritanian govt to work. How this is handled by the RoRAF has the potential to damage the Ruritania-UK relationship, affecting the citizens of both nations.
4. As (3), but a leaked internal report shows that the Ruritanian airman was authorised to to carry out the beating by his superior officer, that several people knew about it and sanctioned it, and that the RoRAF failed to act on the internal report. The British public would have an enormous public interest in that case, because of the culpability of the officer and the complicity of the higher-ups. We would expect our PM to be on the red telephone to the Ruritanian President that day, demanding assurance that it wouldn't happen again and threatening to kick the RoRAF out of British airbases.

In all four scenarios, a Ruritanian beat up a Brit. The practical outcome of the victim being left with bruising and a broken nose haven't changed. The factors that increase the level of public interest are:

• Who did it? What are their roles in society?
• Who do they work or volunteer for? What is their employer's/organisation's role within society?
• Did they do it as part of their job or voluntary service?
• Did their boss, boss's boss, etc know?
• Were they authorised to do it?
• Were they ordered to do it?
• Do the head honchos know?
• Has it been covered up?

The further you go down that question list, the more serious a matter is.

In the case of the BBC, the answers go:

• Panorama crew.
• BBC. The State-funded, State-owned national broadcaster of the UK, with enormous international influence. They position themselves as trustworthy, leveraging their status as national broadcaster of the nation that respects rule of law and has "the mother of all Parliaments" to do so.
• Yes.
• Yes.
• Yes.
• The bottom-tier Panorama staff will have been ordered to do this.
• Yes, Michael Prescott's report told them.
• Yes, that's why Prescott leaked it.

If it was some randomer on Youtube splicing a US president's speech together to stitch him up, no one would care nor need to care. But it was the Beeb, with complicity right up to the top, so we should care.

Antithesis or epistrophe, perhaps

https://www.agnesscott.edu/center-for-writing-and-speaking/handouts/repetition.html