BBC trans coverage ‘censored’ by its own reporters Corporation’s LGBT desk ‘keeps other perspectives off air’, leaked internal dossier claims

[SingleSexSpacesInSchools]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/5ac2c6a0bb851134

absolutely shocked.

no really….

https://www.youtube.com/live/fyfgHCXERZY?si=BXUdzhi0b5EVfF5f

Lisa Nandy might be the first Labour MP to lose the safest seat in the land if she cracks on like this. Rumblings of discontent being heard round the owd folk of Wigan. They're starting to twinkle at reform. They can't understand her politics, lol, nor her general disregard for the place that gave her the job she has.

As someone who has spent years dealing with the issue of impartiality told me, this is an entirely wrongheaded and now discredited view of impartiality, the sort of view that led to airtime being given to climate denial.

This is a revealing statement. One of the problems is that journalistic standards have been given new meanings - the professionalisation of wokeness. In many cases the BBC no doubt thought it was strictly adhering to journalistic standards. When you call something transphobic, isamophobic, racist or genocide, you no longer have to give a broad set of views. In fact it is considered a dereliction of journalistic duty and immoral to do so.

It is. Ending payment helps a bit, if you haven’t already.

This is utterly appalling.

It's obviously not as bad as the Trump clip-spicing issue (given that may have actually been illegal, as it could be seen as influencing the outcome of the US election) but it's very much cut from the same cloth.

They have again done a cut and shut when quoting someone and have chosen to leave out key details.

Sadly, their obfuscation seems to be paying off as all I'm hearing today on the radio is that Davie resigned because of the Trump issue.

Hopefully they won't be able to contain the problem relating to sex and gender for much longer with journalists like Nick Wallis on their tail.

I thought that guardian article was good. And I feel a little concerned that this all-out assault on the BBC is motivated by people who want to undermine it, to free the landscape for commercial interests and/or to weaken one of the relatively few news sources that are committed to impartiality, however badly it fall shorts of that ideal at times.

I don't want to see the BBC undermined, I want to see it improved. In particular I want it to restore its spending on hard-news journalism, which I think would do a lot to enable it to tackle the trans issue properly instead of just relying on cheap/free PR-style content about drag queens, etc, and on 'investigations' approved by the centralised LGBT newsdesk.

I'm actually quite glad that the criticisms re trans coverage have not been given much salience in coverage of events of the last few days. I don't want these legit criticisms to seem to be just part of a populist and/or corrupt coup against the BBC.

I wonder whether Woman's Hour will tackle this in the programme starting in 20 minutes. And if they do, whether the narrative will be it's-all-about-Trump-and-possibly-some-other-minor-stuff-not-worth-going-in-to.

It looks like rather than having a segment to cover the issue, they've invited people to send texts and they'll read them out. I wonder what kind of filtering will be applied.

None of the messages that WH called on the audience to send made it onto the programme. Those filters must have been mighty strong.

Sad times.

Mark Urban, former News night presenter, mentions the gender issue, e.g. JK Rowling being labelled problematic, in an interview with Sophie Ridge on Sky News. There is a clip of the interview in their live news feed.

Yes it seems a bit of an own goal to do that to be honest...

Radio 4 man brought himself to mention gender this morning, and was easily satisfied by a response that mentioned "two sides of an argument" "differing opinions" etc.. i.e. They are attempting to equate FACT and Cult belief: There is no equivalence between the Fact the earth is round, and a Flat Earth Belief it is flat. There is no equivalence between the Fact a man cannot become a woman, and the autogynophile cult Belief he can.

P. S. Please Mumsnetters, can we all just point blank REFUSE to use any Stonewall invented language? Men can't become women, therefore there is NO SUCH THING AS TRANS.

There are sex fetishists, and if they display their fetish in public it is a form of exhibitionism, and exhibitionism is now correctly identified as a red flag, pre-rape.

I understand people who do this, but I am too big a supporter of the BBC to do that. I want it to succeed. In particular, I think that BBC World Service is one of the most important and positive contributions that the UK makes to the world (though really should go back to being funded by the foreign office).

Apparently Trump is threatening a billion dollar lawsuit.
The curse of #Gowokegobroke strikes again...

Of course he is. I don't think his record with lawsuits makes that as scary as he would like.

Start 6 minutes in to miss commercials

Except that if Trump could get this into a US courtroom, and succeed in establishing that that court is the correct venue, then Trump gets discovery and gets to look at a considerable amount of internal BBC emails. In some of Trump's other lawsuits it's when discovery becomes the next step that the defendants hand over millions of dollars.

I would have thought criminal law should be the first step, given the clip was created and broadcast 3 days before the US election. AFAIK this would fall under the criminal act of interfering in global elections i.e. the charge to prove/disprove is whether this alleged deliberate creation of a video "error of judgement" was intended to influence voters in the US. I guess it would need to meet a threshold of how likely it was that US voters saw the footage. Maybe it didn't and that's why this is following a civil law route.

The programme was aired IN THE UK
three days before an election 3000 miles away

There's this thing called the Internet. Are you sure no one was able to watch it online in the US?

Don’t they generally stump up anyway?

Although the apology option in this case is free.

Helen Lewis has just been on PM talking about this. She said there are some really good points in the Prescott report about sex/gender and about there being an activist desk that is vetoing stories.

Helen did well to get Evan smug Davis to listen to her

Helen Lewis gets a lot of stick for trying to sit on the fence, but people like Evan Davis will listen to her because they think she is reasonable and moderate. Let's be honest, Evan Davis is never going to be persuaded by Helen Joyce.

This is what I'm wondering. If there was no way to watch it outside the UK then it would make sense that it wasn't a criminal act and that instead it's a civil law issue.

BBC i-player is pretty locked down AFAIK so if it was only broadcast in the UK, not on BBC World, and there is no way to watch it on the internet, fair enough.... and I hope the BBC gets successfully sued. The audacity to call this an error of judgement shows that they really do believe they are innocent - and it gives them space to continue blaming "the right wing".

A court case would be a great way to demonstrate otherwise. And I say that as a someone who wants to see the BBC bounce back from this and become again what it used to be.