More reasonable reporting from the BBC

[WallaceinAnderland]

Article about Rupert Grint inevitably mentions JKR

'While Grint has largely been less prolific since the heyday of the Harry Potter films, in 2020 he was one of several stars of the Potter franchise who distanced themselves from Rowling when the author spoke out against trans activism, which Rowling said had eroded the concept of biological sex.

As a row grew, the writer was accused of being transphobic, which she denied, saying she was worried about the effect on women in single-sex spaces.'

What a turn around.

I wonder if the LGBT+++ desk at the BBC survived the Tim Davie debacle.

It's a stark change isn't it. Just shows how biased it all was from the start and how much damage has been done.

This stuck out for me:
‘The actor, who lives locally with his partner….and their two daughters,’

I hope if he has read JKRs words he may be more conflicted now he’s older and a dad. He doesn’t come across as wanting to discuss the controversy.

It really does! I find it eye-opening how very, carefully balanced this is - and, by extension, how obviously biased previous stuff has been. Kind of ironically, I actually found it a bit upsetting to read. It's so clear and fair, it shines such a spotlight on what's been lost. Imagine where we may be now if the public had simply been give this opportunity to make their own, informed judgement. We'll never know, now, will we?

The next paragraph…..

“Watson said she still loves Rowling and refused to ‘cancel her out’ despite their differences on the subject.
But her remarks were met with a stinging response from Rowling, who dismissed her as ‘ignorant’.”

I thought this was sly. There was no need to even introduce this into an article about Rupert Grint.

He's probably embarrassed about the whole trans activism thing now.

I hold the BBC hugely responsible for the utter insanity which has produced an experiment worthy of Mengele on a cohort of extraordinarily vulnerable children. One vaguely balanced article only emphasises how utterly culpable they have been for so fucking long.

I think that's just wise PR. If he had commented, the whole article and the headline would have been about that instead of the message he wanted to get out.

Not really about this, but the Trump debacle. I was talking to a fellow church goer this morning who is older than me. Remembered Trump's entire speech, when I said BBC unwise to splice it. Trump did encourage violence in that speech and it is undeniable that he did. (Should have put the whole speech in, I think - prob too long, though). This may be why Trump has gone quiet lately on sueing the BBC - or maybe he is too focused on carving up Ukraine.

It's upsetting because they all condemned her and as a consequence she endured horrendous personal attacks and abusive labelling that may well live with her forever. None of that needed to happen.

Rowling told Watson where to get off - which she deserved.

It was the BBC which flagged up what was going on at GIDS - which was the begining of the fight back against puberty blockers. It's the governmennt who are responsible for the puberty blockers trial - this is an experiment that does not need to happen. Sadly the government is in thrall to trans activism (you only have to look at the Women and Equalities Committee to know that!).
I get utterly fed up with complaints about the BBC. Yes, they have biases but they produce very good programming and were they not to exist we would have the rubbish that the US and some European companies have constantly on TV (bear in mind that we get to see the best of US TV and that Trump has the US public broadcaster in his sights). I may be furious with the BBC sometimes but it (like the NHS) needs our support against those who would have everything privatised and monetised - just as water, utilities etc have been treated.

No he didn't but you're so blinded by hatred that there's no point in arguing.

Though they do seem to have had a catastrophic effect within News, it's less with the LGBT Hub that power lies than in the BBC-wide Pride Network, which has come to operate as a parallel management structure within the Beeb.

I don't hate Trump. I supported his first election and this current one as far as women's rights go. I am very sure the Democrats lost the election on the matter of trans rights and though I know well that Trump used women's rights to lever his election still, he did support them and delivered. It's very obvious the Democrats want to continue backing men in women's spaces and as long as they do so they will lose women's votes in many states.
But Trump did incite violoence in January 2020 - it runs through his speech. He can deny it because his speech (as are many) is a nebulous word salad in many ways, but it was there. Mind, the 'insurection' is a storm in a teacup - what would the US do if it had a real one?
However, I don't support Trump in his attack on the ACA or on publicly owned broadcasting. I do support his backing of Israel. Mind, I doubt anyone can now solve the mess in the Middle East.
So, you misread me. I back Trump in many ways.

Tbh, yes and no. I mean, was it really necessary for the interviewer to bring up JKR at all? Rupert Grint said he'll always be associated with Harry Potter. How is JKR's opinions on trand ideology even relevant? Kind of seems to me that, while the language and tone is much more balanced than it has been, BBC still couldn't resist the opportunity to squeeze in that "some people think JKR is transphobic" where it doesn't even need to be brought up.

Grint disassociated himself from Rowling when she posted that she supported women's sex segregated spaces. It's entirely valid to say that he did so when talking about him now because his and his fellow actors' comments helped fuel the JKR is transphobic lie.

Perhaps, but does trans ideology really need to be forever associated with everything Harry Potter? The interviewer asked him and he declined to comment. So why include at all there wasn't anything new said. Still think it was a covert, albeit much less biased, way of BBC squeezing "JKR" and "transphobic" in the same sentence - as if they still believe that influences anyone at this point.

He was impeached by the US government for that speech.

I do think we will all feel a sense of anger and resentment for some time as, if I hope it will, balance becomes more balanced.

the level of gaslighting will become even clearer as with the level of damage caused through this abuse of truth.,

They are just biding their time until under less scrutiny. Throwing a bone for now. You can’t trust them.

To be precise, he was impeached by the House, voting mostly along party lines (all the Democrats and 10 Republicans) and then acquited by the Senate, also mostly along party lines.

It was still widely regarded that's what he meant in the speech. The fact remains that the intention of the speech wasn't altered.

The BBC functions more like the civil service or the army than like a commercial news org.

Not that commercial news orgs don't have their issues, but they don't tend to have the rainbow network operating as an unofficial management structure that's often more powerful than the official management structure.

C4 would like a word. careers.channel4.com/node/666 (lol at the URL).