The gender ideology thread

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Stephen

She reads the autocue she doesn't write it. Her personal opinion doesnt come in to it. If she doesn't read what is scripted then she is voicing her own thoughts and the BBC have to be impartial.

She has a brain, and the BBC were not being impartial, so she corrected it.

[Carth]

Imagine the person programming the autocue having a hissy fit and writing:

"in other news, King Charles, the jug eared wazzok, today visited the .. blah blah"

. . and a news reader having the stupidity to read that out live . . because that's their job

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Pierre

She has a brain, and the BBC were not being impartial, so she corrected it.

Her employer disagreed.

---------- Post added at 07:48 ---------- Previous post was at 07:47 ----------

This incident was mentioned on the BBC 10pm news last night as one of several issues that led Tim Davies to resign (Huw Edwards, the Gaza boy commentary and the various Linekar incidents being the others).

It was said that he had "no fight in him left" and that the Trump speech editing was what broke the camels back.

Trump has, as expected, been gloating over these resignations.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Her employer disagreed.

Her employer is ideologically compromised, as even a blind man could tell you.

Originally Posted by Chris

Her employer is ideologically compromised, as even a blind man could tell you.

Yup - getting rid of an ex-Tory candidate and a Director of News who wanted to change News Reporting output to gain the trust of Reform voters should definitely make the BBC more right-wing…

[Carth]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Yup - getting rid of an ex-Tory candidate and a Director of News who wanted to change News Reporting output to gain the trust of Reform voters should definitely make the BBC more right-wing…

. . . . to gain the trust of Reform voters?

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Yup - getting rid of an ex-Tory candidate and a Director of News who wanted to change News Reporting output to gain the trust of Reform voters should definitely make the BBC more right-wing…

I guess it depends on who the replacements are.

[Dingbat]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I guess it depends on who the replacements are.

Is Boris Johnson job-hunting?

[Carth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I guess it depends on who the replacements are.

Whomever it is, there will be someone, somewhere, making accusations of bias towards - or against - <insert minority faction here>

[Inactive Digital]

The autocue script broke the BBC's own style guide and misquoted the individual that the words were being attributed to. It was therefore appropriate for the presenter to correct that. Suggesting that a highly paid, experienced journalist should not change, correct or acknowledge an incorrect pre-written script is a ridiculous assertion to make - this is not Korean Central Television. It's telling that the BBC upheld the complaint because of the eye-roll, and not because she deviated from the script.

Originally Posted by Hugh

Yup - getting rid of an ex-Tory candidate and a Director of News who wanted to change News Reporting output to gain the trust of Reform voters should definitely make the BBC more right-wing…

I don’t know what you want but I want neither a right-wing BBC nor a left-wing one. I do want a BBC that doesn’t think it’s its mission to treat highly contentious, niche social movements as simple expressions of diversity to be taught, embraced and complied with and doesn’t allow the political views of its newsroom staff to leak into its processes so that editing errors are not only made but unnoticed and then, eventually, covered up and, finally, defensively explained away rather than simply corrected and apologised for. None of those things are either left or right wing, they are the bare minimum standard we ought to be able to expect from a state broadcaster paid for by everyone. I don’t care about the new DG’s politics, I do care that they understand what the BBC is for, what it is not for, and has the balls to lay that law down in the Panorama office, to the LGBTWTF network and wherever else it needs telt.

[RichardCoulter]

The news story in question concerned matters of people taking health precautions. Bad enough if she was inserting her own opinion on a matter of party politics, but it’s really not up to her to decide that vital health advice should or shouldn’t be given to people based on their gender identity.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

The news story in question concerned matters of people taking health precautions. Bad enough if she was inserting her own opinion on a matter of party politics, but it’s really not up to her to decide that vital health advice should or shouldn’t be given to people based on their gender identity.

Oh for the love of Nancy will you give it a rest, at least until you’ve bothered to understand what you’re talking about.

In what way does obfuscating biological reality with so-called ‘inclusive’ language improve the delivery of health advice?

The *medical people* who wrote the document that was the subject of the BBC news item used the medically correct term, ‘pregnant women.’ It was a BBC scriptwriter who chose instead to say ‘pregnant people’, which Croxall then correctly altered live on air, as she should have done.

Are you saying that an unnamed autocue script writer knows better than a medical researcher?

You and the, what, 19 other people (most of whom are politically-motivated members of the BBCs transgender staff agitator network)?

Do you have no self-awareness at all?

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

The news story in question concerned matters of people taking health precautions. Bad enough if she was inserting her own opinion on a matter of party politics, but it’s really not up to her to decide that vital health advice should or shouldn’t be given to people based on their gender identity.

What utter drivel.

She did not insert "her own opinion on a matter of party politics", the auto cue writer did that, she simply corrected it.

How on earth does that "decide that vital health advice should or shouldn’t be given to people based on their gender identity."

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

not up to her to decide that vital health advice should or shouldn’t be given to people based on their gender identity.

Correct it should be based on their sex.

Would you advise a Trans-Man (i.e. a woman) to get their prostate checked?

Would you advise a Trans-woman (i.e a man) to get a cervical smear?