Thank you. Excellent detailed response. I also complained. This one was just so huge to tackle that I just boiled it down to lack of challenge to counter-factual statements within the interview and lack of balance in having any other interview lined up to challenge it. Will they conduct an hour-long softball interview with an actual female legal expert? Could they even do it without a 'trigger warning' like those in the recent Helen Joyce and Kate Barker interviews on Women's Hour? Hell no!
At this point I just feel like swearing fulsomely at them...
NB ANOTHER report about the ex- Lincolnshire PCSO Kyle Ashley Watts alias Zoe Watts has appeared(https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2lk87qkzg4o) in which they make no reference to his trans identity, let alone his sex. They changed the headline from 'woman' to 'ex-PCSO" a few hours after publication, as if this makes a difference...
This one seems particularly intractable. Do you know if he has a GRC and that is why they are misleading us? Their defence is always that this is how Lincs police have referred to Watts. Lincs police obviously have skin in the game - presumably not wanting to draw attention to how their DEI recruiting led them to employ an absolute sh*t-show of a person. It all stinks to high heaven
The BBC is free to not use affirmative pronouns aside from in direct quotes. The fact this went out is proof that no communication has been made to BBC Regions (or the rest of news) that there is no need to affirm the gender identity of anyone, let alone criminal suspects or convicts, and that reporters should take care while the BBC's own guidelines are under review. Thank you for your complaint!
Well said! Astonishing that you had to spell out so many very basic errors to a news organisation with so many journalists and which prides itself, as the national broadcaster, on its impartially. I await their response with interest!
As Gareth Roberts has said, the people in the BBC genuinely believe that they hold mainstream, sensible views, while it is apparent that on gender ideology and Israel their views are extreme and held only by a minority. This is also true of ITV and Channel 4. The only thing which will bring the truth home to these deluded elitists is their audience abandoning them, which is beginning to happen.
Absolutely true. One of the reasons ‘the BBC’ can’t state the facts is because the facts land on one side of the debate. It’s not despite the fact they’re true. It’s being true that makes them unsayable.
This is simply masterful. It reads like it was written by someone with a deep understanding of how the BBC works. It is relentless but not hectoring. At every turn you explain what they should have done, and why that would have been better for *them* as well as better quality journalism overall. And you repeatedly point out how BBC institutional failures are at the root of this - the producers and interviewer were hamstrung by the lack of institutional knowledge and impartial coverage of this issue that should have been built up over the last decade or so but instead has been actively suppressed. It will be hard for them to read precisely because it hits the target so directly. Truly excellent work.
Thank you for your perseverence; I would have lost the will to live pointing the litany of falsehoods misinformation and blagging. It might have been easier to point out the few points that weren't falsehoods misinformation and blagging.
Thank you so much for putting this together. It has been excruciating listening to the BBC's coverage of this case, most embarrassingly where Woman's Hour is concerned, but this podcast was appallingly misleading.
I agree with the points you make about the impossibility of the BBC being able to handle this subject in a well-informed, impartial manner. This is disgraceful given that the implications are societal rather than just impacting a tiny minority of people.
Superb! Forensic, authoritative, crystal clear and cogent. 👏🏽 Thank you for writing to express what so many of us felt. The only thing I would have added was a request at the end urging them to have a corrective episode featuring the missing balancing guest(s) eg either Dr Michael Foran, Naomi Cunningham, Akua Reindorf or Helen Joyce.
Thank you. Excellent detailed response. I also complained. This one was just so huge to tackle that I just boiled it down to lack of challenge to counter-factual statements within the interview and lack of balance in having any other interview lined up to challenge it. Will they conduct an hour-long softball interview with an actual female legal expert? Could they even do it without a 'trigger warning' like those in the recent Helen Joyce and Kate Barker interviews on Women's Hour? Hell no!
At this point I just feel like swearing fulsomely at them...
NB ANOTHER report about the ex- Lincolnshire PCSO Kyle Ashley Watts alias Zoe Watts has appeared(https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2lk87qkzg4o) in which they make no reference to his trans identity, let alone his sex. They changed the headline from 'woman' to 'ex-PCSO" a few hours after publication, as if this makes a difference...
This one seems particularly intractable. Do you know if he has a GRC and that is why they are misleading us? Their defence is always that this is how Lincs police have referred to Watts. Lincs police obviously have skin in the game - presumably not wanting to draw attention to how their DEI recruiting led them to employ an absolute sh*t-show of a person. It all stinks to high heaven
The BBC is free to not use affirmative pronouns aside from in direct quotes. The fact this went out is proof that no communication has been made to BBC Regions (or the rest of news) that there is no need to affirm the gender identity of anyone, let alone criminal suspects or convicts, and that reporters should take care while the BBC's own guidelines are under review. Thank you for your complaint!
Agreed, but they chose to identify the sex of this man found guilty of a similar offence: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy4146jypjo
Ah, the strawman response: the claim you were seeking to silence him is very disingenuous. Thanks for posting this. Very helpful.
I am now going to delete as I have gone to 1B escalation. Let me know if you want me to repost the BBC response to screenshot it.x
Hi Jo - we missed this. Woudl you mind sending to seeninjournalism@gmail.com
thanks so much if you are able to
Hiya, have emailed my complaints and their response so far to you.
Well said! Astonishing that you had to spell out so many very basic errors to a news organisation with so many journalists and which prides itself, as the national broadcaster, on its impartially. I await their response with interest!
It's becoming more and more depressing.
Excellent rebuttal of a seriously flawed program.
Thank you for everything you do!
As Gareth Roberts has said, the people in the BBC genuinely believe that they hold mainstream, sensible views, while it is apparent that on gender ideology and Israel their views are extreme and held only by a minority. This is also true of ITV and Channel 4. The only thing which will bring the truth home to these deluded elitists is their audience abandoning them, which is beginning to happen.
Absolutely true. One of the reasons ‘the BBC’ can’t state the facts is because the facts land on one side of the debate. It’s not despite the fact they’re true. It’s being true that makes them unsayable.
Yes, as SEEN's letter says 'you don't know what you don't know'.
OTOH McCloud's interview is heartening in the respect it reveals what I hope is a delusional belief this will get anywhere in the ECHR.
This is brilliant- thank you.
This is simply masterful. It reads like it was written by someone with a deep understanding of how the BBC works. It is relentless but not hectoring. At every turn you explain what they should have done, and why that would have been better for *them* as well as better quality journalism overall. And you repeatedly point out how BBC institutional failures are at the root of this - the producers and interviewer were hamstrung by the lack of institutional knowledge and impartial coverage of this issue that should have been built up over the last decade or so but instead has been actively suppressed. It will be hard for them to read precisely because it hits the target so directly. Truly excellent work.
Thank you so much for these comments.
Thank you for your perseverence; I would have lost the will to live pointing the litany of falsehoods misinformation and blagging. It might have been easier to point out the few points that weren't falsehoods misinformation and blagging.
Really excellent dissection, thank you. I found it almost impossible to listen to.
It was a tough listen.
Thank you so much for putting this together. It has been excruciating listening to the BBC's coverage of this case, most embarrassingly where Woman's Hour is concerned, but this podcast was appallingly misleading.
I agree with the points you make about the impossibility of the BBC being able to handle this subject in a well-informed, impartial manner. This is disgraceful given that the implications are societal rather than just impacting a tiny minority of people.
Wonderful take down thank you. How McLeod functioned in the legal profession is a mystery.
A brilliant analysis thank you!
Wow. Just wow! Excellent piece and breakdown of the whole thing. Thank you for listening to it, I couldn't get past the first few minutes!
Superb! Forensic, authoritative, crystal clear and cogent. 👏🏽 Thank you for writing to express what so many of us felt. The only thing I would have added was a request at the end urging them to have a corrective episode featuring the missing balancing guest(s) eg either Dr Michael Foran, Naomi Cunningham, Akua Reindorf or Helen Joyce.