The Telegraph on the BBC’s enforcement of lying to the public:
A listener complained that the comment amounted to Mr Webb giving his personal view on a controversial matter in breach of the BBC’s requirements on impartiality.
But it’s not a “view”; it’s reality. It’s “controversial” only because way too many damn fools have made it controversial. News organizations can’t be letting damn fools make basic facts about reality “controversial.” Next it will be controversial to say evolution is true.
The BBC’s complaints unit, in a ruling published on Thursday, said it was not in a position to determine Mr Webb’s personal opinion on the issue but that it was not necessary to do so in order to judge whether he had breached impartiality rules.
It said: “The ECU understood Mr Webb’s intention in using the phrase ‘trans women, in other words males’ was to underline the question arising from the FIDE guidelines but noted a press line issued at the time included an acknowledgement that his phrasing did not convey an entirely accurate impression.
“In relation to impartiality, however, the ECU considered it could only be understood by listeners as meaning that trans women remain male, without qualification as to gender or biological sex, and that, even if unintentional, it gave the impression of endorsing one viewpoint in a highly controversial area. It therefore upheld this aspect of the complaint.”
No. You can’t do that. Your job is to report the news truthfully, that is, without lying. Pretending that men can be women is just lying. That’s not the job of a news organization. Do. your. fucking. job.
On Thursday. Fiona McAnena, director of campaigns at the women’s rights group Sex Matters, said: “Today’s ruling clearly shows the BBC has lost sight of its statutory duty, as the national, taxpayer-funded broadcaster, to be impartial.”
And to tell the damn truth.
Comments
3 responses to “It’s not a personal view”
I’d like the BBC to show its work whereby it could determine that Webb’s position is not neutral. Let’s see their side of the physiological, ontological, and metaphysical arguments. If they can show that humans can change sex, or that they can be born into the “wrong” body, they could be nominated for a Nobel Prize.
What’s next for the Beeb, arguing for the Real Presence in consecrated wafers? That would fit with their definition of “neutrality,” right?
‘Fundamentalist’ aka ‘Bible-believing’ Christians view belief in evolution as a heresy.
YNNB,
Right, a policy of editorial “neutrality” can’t possibly be applied across the board. The BBC isn’t going to change every reference to King Charles III to “the person who many contend is King of the United Kingdom, but of course blah blah blah the Jacobite succession etc etc and oh yeah, there’s this one bloke in Leeds who insists that he’s the King.” In reporting on an eclipse or other astronomical phenomenon, the BBC isn’t going to be “neutral” as to flat earthers or geocentrists.
And to be fair, the BBC’s policy does acknowledge this:
What I find interesting here is that I don’t see a way that Webb’s statement can be construed as expressing an opinion on a controversial matter, but asserting that “trans women are women” would not.