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….

very, very much. They normally do report their own screw ups I thought....

Woman's Hour today, presented by Anita Rani, had the first 25 minutes devoted to promoting the new music album of someone who sounded like Rani's mate, followed by a few minutes of Rani promoting a telly programme she heavily features in. It was only the second 30 minutes that actually related to the subject matter of the programme.

After posting that I wondered whether it was mentioned on Twitter. It wasn't but Woman's Hour are having somewhat of a 'mare on there today:

https://x.com/KateBMwriting/status/1986342448759513459

Thanks, that's a really good article to share with my leftie BBC Guardian reading friends 😁. Unfortunately they'll just think it's a Telegraph article so....

A disgrace.

Re complaints - definitely one of mine regarding Fallon Fox.

The whole memo is available now.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/11/06/read-devastating-internal-bbc-memo-in-full/

https://archive.ph/F5K38

That's pretty damning on multiple fronts - I note that the positions the BBC favour appear to all be omni-cause ones.

I haven't found any mention of a response by the board. Do you know of any?

Most news outlets are not covering this.

They have all jumped on the splicing of the start and end of Trump's speech.

But is is just the usual suspects as it were, Telegraph, Times & DM, who are reporting on this.

Sadly, if the general public isn't bothered then most establishments, BBC included, aren't bothered.

We still haven't reached that tipping point. And no evidence that the BBC or its staff are bothered.

Are we as individuals allowed to complain to OfCom based on the report now in the public domain?

ie more than us as listeners suspecting bias, but a report stating this?

It looks like one of those systems that if you haven't complained direct (to BBC) you cant then complain to OfCom.

But it could be that this type of complaint might allow it https://www.ofcom.org.uk/make-a-complaint/complain-about-tv-radio-or-on-demand-services/something-else/bbc-other-regulatory-issues-including-the-bbcs-requirements-under-its-operating-licence

Presumably it was to earn gold stars on the Stonewall conduct chart the Corporation was paying for.
As to "not a significant news area", things like the Admiral Duncan bombing, Colin Ireland, Stephen Port, Reynhard Singa & the current "bodies in the Seine" case in Paris do suggest there might well be enough work for a beat journalist but not a little committee of Pride Network apparatchiks pumping out TQ propaganda.

It would only make sense if they have a newsdesk for each of the protected characteristic. Otherwise it totally political. Or at the very least bias.

They have reported the memo, first story 2 days ago led with the doctored Trump speech & went onto the criticisms of BBC Arabic. Nothing about trans though & just 5hrs ago they proudly posted the ECU's imbecile criticisms of Martine Croxall's facial expression when her script contained the transactivist phrase, "pregnant people".

Isn't that just news, like other news?

It's not like you ignore the news that doesn't have an especially assigned person associated with it.

One of my bugbears about UK media is that there are almost no religion correspondents left. So when you get a big story that touches on religion, like Sarah Mullaly being appointed ABC, there are very few reporters who've got the background knowledge to explain what it means. The BBC's religion coverage has been uniformly terrible for years.

So I think there's definitely enough gay and lesbian news out there to justify one or two beat reporters who know the community and can dig up stories. I wouldn't even have a problem in principle with a beat reporter who focuses on trans issues. It really is the committee of apparatchiks laying down a party line that's the problem.

It's great to see this being reported. Well done The Telegraph 👏👏

I was particularly disappointed at the coverage of the Cass Report and how it was "balanced". Instead of focusing on it, the BBC had a seemingly interminable stream of TW being interviewed about how sad and distressing it was that there were long waiting lists for their supposedly life-saving "gender affirming care"... aka unevidenced treatment pathways as exposed in the WPATH files... and thus spectacularly missing the whole point of the Cass Report.

From the leaked memo (thank you for the link MelOfTheRoses), these are the lines that jumped out at me on this issue:

- It noted there were more stories about the waiting times for people to receive care than examining the quality of that care itself

- Stories that raised concerns about the quality or safety of care given to gender questioning children and adults received “little or no coverage”

- 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

This thread was active at that time and is a good time capsule which shows how appalling the BBC coverage was:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5052273-bbc-wtf

Now that a man has pointed out what has been patently obvious for years, and many of us have complained about, I expect the BBC to actually respond and possibly take note.

This is the full leaked memo

https://archive.ph/4pwlb

it’s absolutely devastating I cannot believe they are sited Trumps speach? That’s insane

(not sure if this was already linked above)

Yes, that's the same story on the link that I referred to above 😊 The one a few comments up on this page.

It really is utterly insane. If the splicing of Trump's speech into a cut and shut version doesn't get people's attention, I don't know what will. I'm no Trump fan - I simply agree with him that children and vulnerable young adults shouldn't be mutilated in medical experiments and males shouldn't play in women's sports - but I'm livid that our national broadcaster created and broadcast that (alleged) disinformation on one of its flagship shows.

Once people realise that perhaps there really might be "fake news" at the BBC after all, it becomes a lot easier for them to wonder if perhaps the rest of the leaked dossier might actually be true. Interesting times.

Tim Davie and other senior leaders are in the spotlight. Rightly so. They should be ashamed of their (alleged) role in the obfuscation of gender identity, given how many people have tried to get them to see sense. I can't imagine TD's position is tenable any more. Deborah Turness too and possibly David Jordan too.

Edited to hopefully ensure I'm within the board guidelines on what is reported versus what is alleged 🤞

Really interesting read, thank you. If anything I find the issues called out on reporting around racial diversity most shocking as it’s so just so damaging to social cohesion. Destabilising the country is really not what I pay my license fee for.

As we all know too well, Britain’s social cohesion is strained, and too many politicians seek to exploit grievances around ‘fairness’. The British public should be able to rely on the BBC for an impartial exploration of the challenges and opportunities we all face in society.

The trouble is this is ?mainly being reported on the Torygraph so people won't believe it.

Despite knowing the BBC has been hopelessly biased on gender ideology for years I have found the actual contents of the memo quite disturbing. The breadth and depth of biased reporting should mean the end of the BBC in its current form. It is simply not fit for purpose.

According to that the BBC have been:

-making shit up to further their own agenda
-ignoring fact-based criticism
-arrogantly assuming they can do as they please

So acting just like Trump then?

One other significant thing that isn't mentioned is the staff issue, namely the revolving door between the BBC and the Guardian.

The Guardian has a place in our media ecosystem, but it's also the case that Guardian readers are at best 1% of the electorate and they really tend to be ideological outliers compared to the rest of the population. It's also by far the most ideological paper out there, in terms of its coverage being less about news and more about telling us the correct way to think.

The Guardian print edition would have folded ages ago if not for bulk orders from the BBC, in much the same way that the Morning Star used to be kept afloat by bulk orders from the Soviet Embassy.

Where are the Mail or Sun or Telegraph reporters getting jobs at the BBC? There are plenty of well qualified candidates about.

literally fake news - yes.