The BBC and the Muslim Council of Britain

And while we're on the subject of the BBC Style Guide, these entries also caught my eye:

al-Muhajiroun

(radical British group also known as Islam4UK, banned since January 2010) ie lower case "al", followed by a hyphen and capital "M". Make it clear in news stories that this group and others like it are regarded by the majority of British Muslims as unrepresentative - ideally, through a quote to that effect from a leading mainstream Muslim group such as the Muslim Council of Britain. Preachers associated with these groups should not be described simply as "Muslim clerics", but as radical, fringe or similar.

 

Supporters of Shariah

(radical Islamic group)) Our policy is to run stories about this group and others like it (eg: al Muhajiroun) only if we can make it clear that they are regarded by the majority of British Muslims as unrepresentative - ideally, through a quote to that effect from a leading mainstream Muslim group, such as the Muslim Council of Britain. Preachers associated with these groups should not be described simply as "Muslim clerics", but should be labelled as radical, fringe, or something similar. Do not confuse the mainstream Muslim Council of Britain with the more radical Islamic Council of Britain - which should be labelled as self-styled.

It intrigues me how the BBC regards the Muslim Council of Britain. 

They  evidently take them as the ''mainstream'' voice of British Muslim opinion, even thought they are no less ''self-styled'' than the Islamic Council of Britain, and hardly free from controversy. 

That the BBC considers these far-from-entirely-moderate people to be their go-to Muslims [''ideally, through a quote...from a leading mainstream Muslim group, such as the Muslim Council of Britain''] doesn't surprise me but is still somewhat alarming nonetheless.

gender/sex

If you've never actually read in full the BBC Style Guide's entry for 'gender/sex' - the controversial one that's alleged to have been wholly informed by Stonewall's 'woke' ideology on transgender matters - then please take a few minutes to read it. 

As 'pure wokery' expressed in BBC terms it really is quite something: 

gender/sex

Using appropriate language is an important part of how we portray people in our stories. Sexuality, race, ethnicity or disability should not be mentioned unless they are relevant to the subject matter. But when we do focus on one aspect of a person's character we should ensure we do not define them by it.

Where possible, use the term/s and pronoun/s preferred by people themselves, when they have made their preferences clear.

Gay/lesbian: Use gay as an adjective rather than a noun (eg: two gay men - but not "two gays"). It can apply to members of both sexes, but current preferred practice is to refer to "gay men and lesbians".

For wider references, talk about LGBT people or the LGBT community (lesbian, gay bisexual, transgender). If this does not suffice, the preferred initialism is “LGBTQ”or“LGBTQ+” - the “Q” means questioning and/or queer, the “+”acknowledges not all people may feel represented by these initials. Where possible, however, initials should be avoided. The issues affecting lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people can be very different and the more specific we can be with our language, the better.

If using LGBT+ or another formulation - for example in a quote – consider the likely audience of the story and whether the term needs explaining. Instead of “LGB”, for example, consider “lesbian, gay or bisexual”.

Homosexual means people of either sex who are attracted to people of their own gender, but take care how you use it. While it can be fine in historical, judicial or legislative references, it can be considered offensive in other contexts because of past associations with illegal behaviour and mental illness.

Bisexual is an adjective to describe someone who is romantically and/or sexually attracted to more than one gender.

“Gender identity” has come to mean how people feel or present themselves, distinct from their biological sex or sexual orientation. Use sex to refer to a person’s physical development and gender to describe how they identify themselves.

Transgender, or trans, is a good umbrella term for a person whose gender identity differs from their sex at birth. A person born male who lives as a female, would typically be described as a “transgender woman” and would take the pronoun “she”. And vice versa. Use the term and pronoun preferred by the person in question. If that’s unknown – apply that which fits with the way the person lives publicly. If reporting on someone who is making their transition public, it may be appropriate to refer to their previous identity to help audience understanding. It may also be appropriate to refer to a transition to make sense of some stories.

Transsexual refers to someone who has changed, or wishes to change, their body through medical intervention. Use as an adjective - do not say “transsexuals”, in the same way we would not talk about "gays" or "blacks". Transsexual is not an umbrella term. Many transgender people do not identify as transsexual and prefer the word transgender. Try to ask or find out which term a person prefers.

Take care with the term “sex change”, unless referring specifically to the surgical element of a transition. It should not be used as a general description for a transgender person.

Queer is an adjective used by some people who find more specific terms, such as “lesbian”, “gay”, “bisexual”, “trans” and “LGBT”, too limiting to describe their romantic or sexual orientation, gender identity and/or gender expression. Originally a pejorative term, more recently “queer” has been reclaimed by some in the LGBTQ+ community, to describe themselves. However, it is not universally accepted and has the potential to cause offence. Be careful when using the term. We should not apply the term to an individual or group unless they have already adopted it.

Non-binary is an adjective used to describe a person who does not identify as only male or only female, or who may identify as both . It is increasingly common for non-binary people to use the singular pronoun “they”. Obviously, we should not ascribe a gender to someone non-binary. But we may need to explain any use of “they” as a singular pronoun to the audience for clarity. This could be without explicitly mentioning their gender, however (eg: [First name surname] - who uses "they" and "them" as personal pronouns - is…).

“Sexual preference” suggests a person chooses to be gay or bisexual. For the same reason, phrases such as “alternative lifestyle” should also be avoided where possible. Instead of “sexual preference” and “admits being gay”, consider “sexual orientation” and “is gay”.

The BBC at war

    

In contrast, another of the BBC's highest-paid stars, Stephen Nolan, has hosted a quite extraordinary 45-minute podcast about the BBC's relationship with the campaign group Stonewall, asking the question Is the BBC too close to Stonewall? 

It's an astonishingly full-frontal assault on his own employer, akin to whistle-blowing, and he wonders at the end - not entirely jokingly - if it might bring about the end of his BBC career.

 

I'm sure it will enrage many of the woker staff at the corporation and that extreme trans activists will be coming after him.

Stephen Nolan may not always be popular hereabouts but this podcast is greatly to his credit, along with that of his colleague David Thompson.

And here's where it gets even more interesting because the BBC itself deserves credit to for making the podcast available even though the podcast reveals so much that discredits the BBC and for posting a damning write-up by David Thompson on its news website. 

To sum it up:

- A number of journalists within the BBC are deeply uncomfortable about the corporation's relationship with Stonewall but frightened to speak out.

- The charge against the BBC is that the BBC has breached its code of impartiality and its independence by aligning itself to Stonewall, being led by Stonewall, being 'marked' by Stonewall, paying money to Stonewall, using Stonewall's language, appointing an LGBT correspondent who fronted Stonewall's TikTok videos, and that their involvement with Stonewall has had a chilling effect on BBC editorial staff.

-  The BBC has refused FOI to give the programme the correspondence they've had with Stonewall, and refused put up anyone for interview with the programme, and didn't answer specific questions put by the programme and later referred the programme to their previous unrevealing statements.

Here's a representative quote from towards the end, showing Stephen Nolan's frustration at the runaround the BBC has been giving him:

Stephen Nolan: We went back to the BBC to ask them about the 'style guide', We asked, 'Were Stonewall consulted by any part of the BBC about the language used in this 'style guide'? Were Stonewall definitions used elsewhere in the BBC considered when drafting this  'style guide'? How does the BBC explain its definitions being close to those used by Stonewall than the dictionary definition? We also asked them about the Allies training and about the use of 'The Genderbread Person'. What did they do? They just referred us to their previous statement. An organisation that asks many, many people, every second of every day, to appear on its outlets across the world couldn't find a human being to speak to its own organisation on this podcast and to you, the audience. Not one living, breathing human being could speak. All we got was a reference to the previous statement.

And an exchange between him and his BBC colleague:

David Thompson; Just one thing to point out why this is important and why this language is important to us as journalists. You know how tricky it is when we're doing these debates. We've debated the very issue of whether or not it's transphobic for a gay person not to want to date a trans person, for example. Well, if you go by the BBC's Style Guide that's closed off, that's decided. Homosexuality, according to the BBC, is about people who are attracted to people of the same gender. So that controversial debate is now summed up in the BBC Style Guide and they've made their position really clear.  

Stephen Nolan; I get it now. I see. You're smarter than me, so I get it now. So, basically, the BBC is stating as fact, because it's changed its language, if a male, if a gay male...in the BBC's wording now, that means they're attracted not to someone with male genitalia but to someone also who says 'I'm a man' whether they have a vagina and breasts or not.

David Thompson; Yeah. It's obviously not just about the genitalia, A lot of people will say that, but it's about the sex of the person, the natal sex, how they were born - the entire package, if you want. So people are same-sex-attracted not according to the BBC anymore. 'Homosexual' means 'people of either sex who are attracted to their own gender'. 

Stephen Nolan; And the other big question here is, who signed off on his? Cos if this is effecting the language throughout the organisation then someone very, very senior must be signing off on this.

David Thompson; These decisions are signed off by BBC News. Now this is an area of contention as well; Many bisexual people would say it's about being attracted to both sexes. The BBC now define 'bisexual' ''an adjective to describe someone who is romantically and/or sexually attracted to more than one gender''.

Stephen Nolan; So the BBC has now redefined the definition of 'bisexuality'? 

David Thompson; And 'homosexuality'. So they've redefined 'sexuality' to make it more about gender than sex, right at the heart of this whole debate.

It's all rather intriguing, as if a BBC civil war is playing out before our eyes. 

The cynical part of me has read stories about the BBC planning to follow their regulator Ofcom's lead by pulling back from Stonewall and wondered if this podcast series was part of a manoeuvre to give some cover to that break, but there seems to be a much deeper battle going on for the soul of the BBC and Stephen Nolan appears to be leading the charge for one camp.

"Daring"

There's a discussion going on in the comments at Biased BBC over a BBC News website article's use of the word "daring" to describe the Islamist terrorist attack on a cafe in Bangladesh. 

Should that word have been used? I very much think not.

The BBC calls the attacked district "a high-security area...considered among the safest places in the capital", so maybe that's why the BBC journalist (Anbarasan Ethirajan, the BBC's South Asia analyst) felt it was appropriate to use it. 

But "daring" is a word that carries strong positive connotations, inevitably bringing along with it the idea of 'courage'. 

And there's nothing 'courageous' about walking, as part of a fully-armed gang, into a cafe where ordinary, unarmed people are relaxing, eating and drinking with the intent of slaughtering them. 

And, as was said over at Biased BBC, such BBC reporters don't seem to quite realise how poorly such terminology plays with the public.

Tellingly, the BBC's own Style Guide agrees. It says the following:

Daring

Do not use in the context of a crime or military action, as it suggests admiration. 

The BBC's Style Guide

Talking about the BBC Style Guide...

(and does it having anything to say about people constantly beginning posts with the phrase 'Talking about...'?) 

If you read Breitbart London you'll know that the BBC's Style Guide isn't free from controversy itself. 

For starters, on the subject of Islam, it declares: "Our style for the founder of the faith is the Prophet Muhammad (at second reference, Muhammad or the Prophet)".

There isn't a section on Christianity, however, or any BBC 'style' concerning how to describe Our Lord Jesus Christ - though there is a bit saying "Do not use 'Christian name' when you mean 'first name'.

The other example Breitbart finds is the bit on abortion:

This strikes me as clear-cut bias, reflecting the BBC's innate social liberalism. It favours one side by adopting that side's definition of its own beliefs ("pro-choice") whilst disfavouring the other side by rejecting that side's definition of its own beliefs ("pro-life"). One side gets what it wants, the other doesn't. How is that not bias?

The rest of the Style Guide is pretty uncontroversial - and interesting, eg:

Colosseum
The Colosseum is in Rome. The theatres in London, Oldham and elsewhere are the Coliseum.

Decimate
is a word liable to create misunderstanding. Strictly, it means ‘to destroy one-tenth of something’ - but it’s commonly used to mean ‘destroy a large part of’. Best avoided.

Hunting with dogs
And not ‘hunting with hounds’.

Lake District
The only lake in the Lake District with ‘Lake’ in its title is Bassenthwaite Lake. ‘Mere’, as in Windermere, means ‘lake’ - so strictly speaking, it is superfluous to write ‘Lake Windermere’. However, Windermere is also the name of a town so, for clarity’s sake, include the label to avoid confusion - and omit it only if there is no scope for ambiguity (eg: Hoteliers in the Lake District have renewed their complaints about speedboats on Windermere).

Manned/manning/manpower
In a mixed workforce, it’s more accurate to use staffed, staffing, staffing level etc. By the same token, avoid ‘man in the street’.   

Nasrallah, Sheikh Hassan
(leader of the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah). Sheikh Nasrallah on second reference.

Ongoing
is typical management jargon - best avoided. Try continuing or developing or in progress, as appropriate. 

rack and ruin
is our favoured spelling, rather than ‘wrack and ruin’. Similarly, we prefer nerve-racking.

Sharia
Islamic religious law - capital ‘S’ no ‘h’ at the end. (‘Sharia law’ is tautologous).

Upcoming
Do not use, except in a direct quote. Substitute as appropriate expected, imminent, forthcoming, next etc.

Of course, this is also plenty of 'style' advice for one word in particular - and it's probably the most consistently controversial term when it comes to the BBC:

Terrorist
The word ‘terrorist’ is not banned, but its use can be a barrier rather than an aid to understanding. We should convey to our audience the full consequences of the act by describing what happened. We should use words which specifically describe the perpetrator such as bomber, attacker, gunman, kidnapper, insurgent and militant. We should not adopt other people's language as our own. Our responsibility is to remain objective and report in ways that enable our audiences to make their own assessments about who is doing what to whom. 

When we do use the term we should strive to do so with consistency in the stories we report across all our services, and in a way that does not undermine our reputation for objectivity and accuracy. It is also very important that we strive for consistency across the international and UK facing sites. If a BBC World story uses very measured language but a UK version does not, a user will rightly question the different approaches. 

The words ‘terror’ and ‘terrorist’ may be used in a non-specific context, or in direct quotes - but it is not for us to label a particular group or specific act as terrorist. 

Beware of paraphrasing and selective quotation, eg: “The Israeli prime minister said that while ‘terrorist’ attacks continued he would not back down.” Putting the single word ‘terrorist’ in quotes may give the impression that the BBC is sceptical about the prime minister’s assessment of the nature of the attacks. 

Domestically, we tread a similar line on Northern Ireland. The IRA is so well known, worldwide, that a label is not necessary. Groups such as the Real IRA and Continuity IRA can often be best labelled as dissident. A second reference to organisations such as the UFF and UVF could be along the lines of: The loyalist paramilitary organisation warned...