Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardCoulter
No, the role of newsreaders is not to comment or make their views known about items,, but to simply read the news.
---------- Post added at 16:46 ---------- Previous post was at 16:43 ----------
My salient problem with doing what she did doesn't lie with what she said, but the fact that she did it.
What if the troubles in NI were being reported on and, after one side was mentioned, she added the word "terrorists" and "Freedom fighters" to the other?
|
Your analogy is false.
The ordinary meaning of the word ‘woman’ is ‘adult human female’, a definition drawn from biology. Any language that does not express that ordinary meaning is liable to cause confusion. Activists, such as those who deliberately deviate from the ordinary meaning of words, do so in pursuit of a political aim. In this case the activist language obfuscates the plain understanding of the terms being used. Newsreaders absolutely can, and regularly do, deviate from the autocue when they can see that what they’re reading is less clear than it should be. They are not actors, they are journalists, whose job is to communicate with clarity.
Your analogy fails because in the case of ‘terrorist’ and ‘freedom fighter’, both are political designations. You would have been nearer the mark had you argued over the term ‘bomb’ and suggested someone else might call it a ‘freedom-bringer.’
‘Woman’ in its ordinary meaning, just isn’t a political term, no matter who says otherwise or how often they say it. To claim it is, is deeply misogynistic because you, as a man, are robbing half the population of the entire world of the word that describes the most basic category of their humanity. It’s simply not on.
---------- Post added at 21:30 ---------- Previous post was at 21:28 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien
To be fair, this bit wasn't written down by the BBC. She was quoting someone else.
|
Which doesn’t alter her responsibility as a senior BBC journalist to add clarity where an activist uses language that deliberately obfuscates. It makes it more important in fact. It’s worth noting that the senior editorial staff have supported her in this, against a barrage of complaints from trans activists. Clearly they think she was acting within her remit.