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….

Hear hear 👏👏👏

Even 6 Music is constantly promoting trans artists. Their recent ‘artists in residence’ have both been, even though they’re totally unknown and….not very good

I used to nanny for a bbc journalist who changed jobs and mentioned to me it was because she was fed up of being told what and how to write about she didn’t feel like a journalist. This was years ago and may not have been in relation to the trans coverage she never said what it was about. It’s stuck with me though and I think of it every time people mention the bbc as impartial

I used to work for the BBC. Doesn't surprise me in the slightest.

I was very junior so much too far down the pecking order to know about any of the cover ups directly, but there were rumours (I worked for them ages ago so it wasn't about the trans stuff; it was more about Jimmy saville and other sexual assault cover ups such as the doctor who guy, barrowman etc) that my boss said she'd heard her boss's boss talk about.

Their MO is just to brush things under the carpet. It was a bit of an eye opener for me. I'd always held them up in high esteem and was so proud when I started working for them but they were just the worst at covering up stuff. Someone I knew had been sexually harassed by a male colleague and it was just totally ignored. It was fairly low level, but still not appropriate at work and she had a legitimate reason to complain but it was just minimised. I was quite shocked at how little the high ups cared about it.

I hope this all does come out properly.

The Justin Webb farrago springs to mind. An interesting nugget in this bit of coverage is that the reliably inept Tim Davie had appointed himself some kind of Supreme Leader of the ECU. In terms of improving BBC balance & accuracy that seems to be firmly in the realm of chocolate teapots. www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/justin-webb-trans-row-causing-190000262.html

No shit Sherlock! Of course there’s a serious bias they don’t want to address or remedy. I hope that external bodies hold the bbc accountable

They had DEI before it was DEI! In the 80s and 90s any job advertised there which I felt qualified to apply for were reserved for minorities only, no white person need apply.

Given how captured the rest of the media are no one is going to take any notice of this. It will just be dismissed as anti BBC bias by the Telegraph.

It isn't a secret. It has come up before.

And on one occasion that sniggering school boy who present PM actually had to apologise.

And yet the years have gone by and nothing has changed.

Not because it is the BBC, because it happens elsewhere, but because the public as a whole dont see it as a priority interest.

coming on FWR and telling each other how awful it is that the TRAs are in charge, isn't going to change the perception of wider society.

And sadly even those who are actively challenging such as Sex Matters, the majority of the population want know about it.

In fact it is more of a worry that we dont here about what is going on in other institutions.

Nobody even remembers who Jenni Murray was and how her life was made a misery.

Good thread, with more insight, from Nick Walllis (of Post Office Scandal fame) :

“This was all there in plain sight and the BBC completely failed to listen to the concerns which were being raised to it internally. The story of how the BBC allowed itself to get so captured it used female pronouns for male killers and rapists may kill it”

https://x.com/threadreaderapp/status/1986197308581532106?s=12

Is the difference now that government are asking questions?

Optimistic?!

Why do they even have an LGBT newsdesk? What’s it supposed to do? It’s not a significant news area.

Andrew Doyle has reposted the excellent show Free Speech Nation did on the WPATH Files in response to this. Well worth a watch. THIS is the sort of broadcasting the BBC SHOULD have been doing.
https://x.com/andrewdoyle_com/status/1986183723835129911

After 10 years of being gaslit by the BBC over this issue it’s such a relief to see their mad bias called out in black and white. I used to complain to the BBC but got so sick of their gaslighty‘nothing to see here’ responses that I just gave up

it driven me nuts, it’s like watching them commit slow motion suicide. I genuinely believe the BBC is on balance a force for good in the world, and won’t be stopping my licence fee anytime soon (despite the fact I consume hardly any of their content now because it feels like it’s not for me).

There are a wide range of organisations and individuals who would very much like to kill the BBC for commercial and ideological reasons. You can see on this thread how people are starting to agree with them.

Looking people in the eye and telling them that some men are women, when everyone knows full well that’s dangerous nonsense just undermines trust in them completely. It’s INSANE that they can’t see that. They evidently understand that they rely on the trust of the population because they keep running those ‘this is our BBC’ ads. When you’re aware of their behaviour they just look fake and hollow

This is good news right?
More sunlight
When I think of how many emails I've (wasted) sent, objecting to the beeb's coverage on Certain Matters its good to see this reported
And their overpaid presenters riding aboard the gravy train is another thing, while I'm ranting
Not Fit For Purpose 😠

And why is the BBC not reporting this. I can’t see it anywhere and there’s a very strong public interest test here surely.

Sharing below the gaslighting response to my complaint about lack of balance in reporting and failure to invite an informed guest onto the programme, which resulted in the BBC broadcasting ill informed speculation on the supreme court ruling. This piece managed to include most of the points of misinformation addressed by Akua Reindorf writing in The Times (I attached a link to her piece). I suggested that there were plenty of informed people who could have been invited onto the programme to avoid spreading misinformation which was inevitable as Ben Bradshaw himself stated he was not a lawyer but nevertheless went on to opine fulsomely on what the judgment must mean...

It took them SIX WEEKS to send me this pile of crap which re-characterised the nature of my complaint and dismissed it.

"Thank you for taking the time to contact us regarding The World at One broadcast on Radio 4 on 22 April.

We understand that you were unhappy with the interview with Ben Bradshaw.

Firstly, we’re sorry about the delay in getting back to you. We know people appreciate a prompt response and unfortunately, we’ve taken longer to reply than usual – please accept our apologies.

The Supreme Court ruling on the definition of sex as it relates to the Equality Act 2010 is a subject that has been covered and discussed in depth right across the BBC.

In this instance Ben Bradshaw was featured as a prominent and well-known trans supporter and he gave his views and interpretation of the ruling. He did make it clear he wasn't a lawyer, so listeners knew this was his opinion.

We reference Akua Reindorf KC, a barrister and a Commissioner at the EHRC, in the following article:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clyw9qjeq8po

Due to time constraints within individual programmes it is not always possible to provide all details on a story; however it is important to note that our coverage is intended to be balanced and informative in the long run - where issues can be examined in more depth, when time and research permits further analysis over weeks and months.

We value your feedback. Blah Blah Blah"

Yesterday, in the slot between the end of Pointless and the start of the BBC News at Six, they ran a promo video extolling the virtues of truth and how BBC was at the forefront for promoting truth!

Michael Prescott, who wrote the report, is appearing before MPs next Wednesday, and Ofcom also intends to investigate.

BBC editorial standards: MPs to take evidence from former BBC editorial standards advisor Michael Prescott - Committees - UK Parliament

It would be nice if Woman’s Hour was pertinent to discussing the wide range of women’s rights again, instead of ignoring a huge chunk of the voices.

Have Woman’s Hour even covered any recent developments ? Either of the nurse’s cases? The lack of tabling the EHRC guidance?

SEEN In Journalism break it down:
The BBC - what next - SEENinJournalism’s Substack

Well done to the whistleblower! I believe he's appearing before the Culture etc Select Committee next week. Should be interesting! And worth a watch.

I think there was a fairly hostile interview with the Darlington nurses a while back iIRC.

The interview was referred to in court I think.

A description in Catholic media here: https://thecatholicherald.com/article/bbc-womans-hour-grills-nurse-on-christian-beliefs-and-association-with-religious-organisation

During a pointed discussion for the 20 November Woman's Hour episode, Hutchinsen was repeatedly asked to justify her objection to sharing the changing room with the transgender colleague.

The BBC presenter, Nuala McGovern asks: "How do your Christian beliefs come into this [the issue of trans]?"

Hutchinsen replies: "I believe sex is a biological fact and that it isn't interchangeable – at all."

"Is that a Christian belief?" McGovern asks.

"I think it is a Christian belief and a scientific fact," Hutchinsen replies.

The nurse was also questioned about her association with Christian Concern and the Christian Legal Centre, which are assisting Hutchinsen in her legal case.

In the interview, Hutchinsen ends up having to give a "justification" for using their services. She notes that though she is "unapologetically Christian" and comes from a family that is "unapologetically Christian" too, at the same time "this is not a Christian campaign". She adds that it is "for all women" and women of "different religions, different cultures, different backgrounds".

McGovern goes on to describe the apparent problems of a religious organisation that supports, in the words of the BBC presenter, "individuals who want to challenge buffer zones outside abortion clinics", and that supports people who hold a "biblical view on LGBT issues”.

McGovern says: "Does it concern yourself at all to align yourself that way?"

Hutchinsen replies: "No. It doesn't concern me."

I've seen this exact same tactic used by the CBC with regards to these kinds of complaints, when I've made them, and also reading through the ombudsman's pages.

It's always "and individual show cannot always bla bla, this show was focusing on bla bla...."

But the whole problem is that none of the shows are looking at the other side, or even both sides. None of them are inviting the informed guests. But the complaint process focuses on single shows.

As far as this with the BBC, when I've been nosing around reddit there is very little on it - and what is there is mostly dismissive, implying it is fake news from the Telegraph which is not a good paper, so nothing they say matters. A few exceptions but it's very quiet for such a large scandal.

This is really quite scary. It's the kind of stuff communist regimes did linking inconvenient people to unpopular causes.

🍿