Originally a comment by Your Name’s not Bruce? on And producers let them.

Prescott notes an in-built censor: instead of a story on, say, the side-effects of puberty blockers being covered by health reporters, or the legislation by the political team, all gender stories were routed through an LGBT desk.

They need to find out who decided on this “routing” and fire them. It’s like giving control of editorial content to a bunch of astrology activists, who are going to present everything they cover through thei filter of their pseudoscientific world view, and who are never going to allow astrology-critical stories to see the light of day. All the while, the reputation and cerdibility of what was supposed to be a news organization, goes down the toilet.

One ex-BBC correspondent tells me: “They’d say ‘we’re covering that’. But they wouldn’t. They’d sit on it. So no one did.”

Why were these people who said they were going to do something, but did not, permitted to continue working? It must be nice to get paid for not doing your job because you don’t want to, or object to the beliefs of people whose viewpoints you’re supposed to be reporting on. How did this “T” desk get so much power to shape the policy and workings of the entire corporation after just a few months on the job? Did they have compromising photos of all of their managers, superiors, and supervisors? Were all of their bosses, at all levels, so afraid of the meaningless, content-free accusation of “transphobia” that they handed over the keys to the editorial suite, letting these people do whatever the hell they liked? Why did they surrender to people who should have been sacked?

Presumably the BBC had and has rules about standards, neutrality, and objectivity. Why weren’t those rules followed? Why were these delusional ideologues exempted from them? Who gave them blank cheques and carte blanche to push their reality-denying, Lysenkoist, parasitic party line, using the BBC as a host body? What did the BBC, or members of staff and management who could have said “No”, but didn’t, get out of it? Why did they sell their professional standards and standing so cheaply? And for what? Ludicrous bullshit that had to be protected from any and all examination or criticism, lest it implode through the exposure of its manifest contradictions and incoherence. At this point, the BBC stopped being a news organization and became the official, state propaganda arm of trans “rights” activism, taking on board its preferred, obfuscatory, counterintuitive language and framing, while confusing and gaslighting its audience in the process. How could this abdication of responsibility and control have ended up as anything other than a disaster for the BBC, its mandate, and its reputation? How were they so blind as to not foresee this? Who decided to let these children run around with lit sparklers on the Hindenburg?