Butterflies

First they altered the BBC Style Guide to re-write the meaning of the word “gay” to mean same-gender attracted, rather than same-sex attracted, then they used red ink and a rubber to censor the testimony of a female rape victim so as not to offend her male transgender attacker, and now we learn that the BBC hired a trans organisation called Global Butterflies to train BBC staff on trans matters. 

Global Butterflies told them to be 'allies' and use their influence to sway the public and politicians. 

This has understandably raised both eyebrows and hackles:

Mary Harrington: This is a scandal. The BBC is meant to be politically neutral, not hiring ideologues to catechise their HR teams on how to ensure all staff enforce only one one side of perhaps the most controversial and divisive political issue out there.

The fascinating complication in this latest story of trans activism sweeping the BBC is that it was a BBC programme that broke it, with Stephen Nolan continuing his charge against trans extremism at the BBC. 

The BBC is still evidently caught in something of a civil war on the issue. 

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.

Upheld, upheld, upheld

Yes, complaining to the BBC does sometimes pay off. 

Here are three examples, published over the last three days.

The latest one concerns Sally Bundock's infamous interview with Tim Martin of Wetherspoons. We previously posted an earlier BBC Complaints response to criticism that was typically 'BBC' in its refusal to admit wrongdoing - except that the BBC has now admitted wrongdoing.

The directions of travel, bias-wise, here are interesting. The first suggests anti-Catalan independence bias, the second pro-transgender activism bias, and the third anti-Brexit bias.

Enjoy! 

Up All Night, Radio 5 Live, 21 December 2018: Finding by the Executive Complaints Unit 

Complaint
The programme included an interview about the political situation in Spain with Irene Lozano, the Secretary of State for Global Spain. A listener complained that terms used by both Ms Lozano and the interviewer had given the false impression that the leaders of the Catalan independence movement had been convicted of crimes. 

Outcome
As was made clear in the interview, the trial of Catalan leaders had not yet begun. However, the use of terms such as “these crimes that they committed” by the interviewer and “political leaders that have committed criminal offenses” by Ms Lozano conveyed the false impression that their guilt had already been established.
Upheld 

Further action
The presenter has been reminded of the importance of precise language, especially when legal proceedings are imminent.

The Stephen Nolan Show, BBC Radio 5 Live, 17 February 2019: Finding by the Executive Complaints Unit 

Complaint
The programme included a discussion of Martina Navratilova’s recently-published views on trans women athletes, in which the trans woman cyclist Rachel McKinnon participated. Five listeners objected to the fact that an invitation to another speaker, Nicola Williams, had been withdrawn after Dr McKinnon had made that a condition of her own participation, and complained that the resulting discussion was one-sided. 

Outcome
The decision to accept Dr McKinnon’s terms was a matter for the programme-makers’ editorial discretion (exercised in view of the fact that Ms Navratilova had cited Dr McKinnon in the article in question and that Dr Williams would be invited to take part in a subsequent edition of the programme), and not a matter for judgement by the ECU. In Dr Williams’ absence, however, there was no challenge to the views expressed by Dr McKinnon, either from the presenter or the other guest, and the result was not duly impartial.
Upheld 

Further action
The programme team has been asked to ensure that debates properly reflect due impartiality either in their casting or in the nature of the questioning.

Business Briefing, BBC News Channel, 28 March 2019: Finding by the Executive Complaints Unit 

Complaint
The programme included an interview with Tim Martin, Chairman of Wetherspoon, who was described by the presenter as a business leader “who wants a clean break from the EU”. Two viewers complained that the interview was not conducted in a properly impartial manner, with Mr Martin being persistently interrupted by the presenter. 

Outcome
In the ECU’s judgement, it would have been easy for viewers to form the impression that the presenter held a distinct view of her own on Mr Martin’s support for leaving the EU without a deal, and the interview fell short of the BBC’s standards of due impartiality in that respect.
Upheld 

Further action
It has been stressed to the presenter that the way questions are framed should make it clear to the audience that this is for the proper purpose of impartial challenge and that a personal view is not being expressed.

"The process has been slow and utterly inefficient"

Before the sun finally sets on the last Open Thread, I'd just like to highlight this comment (just in case any of you missed it):

Anonymous9 March 2018 at 15:46  

A while back the DUP took a complaint of bias by the Nolan programme (about the green heating incentive scheme scandal), which was partly upheld on grounds of inaccuracy, and a faint tap on the wrist administered.  

What's interesting though and will strike a chord with anyone who has attempted complaining to the BBC is the DUP's comment: "The complaints were submitted by the party many months ago. The process has been slow and utterly inefficient. We welcome that a response has finally been forthcoming from the BBC. Whilst a complaint has been upheld against the BBC, the matter has now been escalated to Ofcom. We await the outcome of that process." Good luck with that, I say. 

From The Belfast Telegraph: 

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/dup-reports-nolans-rhi-scandal-coverage-to-ofcom-after-bbcs-slow-and-inefficient-response-36626305.html

The faint tap on the wrist was the Nolan show's senior editorial team "received a reminder that repeat broadcasts must be accompanied by any relevant updates about people and/or events featured within them." I bet they couldn't sleep for (days) seconds afterwards. 

Life's too short

If you’ve got a spare 5 minutes, listen to caller “Caitlin” spout handfuls of cliches and meaningless banalities in a quavery voice on the Stephen Nolan show. 

You’d get a better picture of the programme, which was about the Livingstone affair, if you heard the whole thing, but you might feel life’s too short. 

Towards the end of the show when the torrent of falsehoods reaches a crescendo, Nolan silences Douglas Murray. “Let Caitlin speak!” So Douglas was prevented from putting matters straight.  What unsatisfactory chairmanship. A truly pathetic way to chair a phone-in.

You're not going to start putting down butterfly laws to immigrants too, are you?

This is quite a listen...

It's Stephen Nolan on Radio 5 Live completely misunderstanding a caller's point and becoming quite beyond satire in the process:

I think this whole debacle can be put down to that strain in BBC thinking which assumes that anyone who wants to control immigration must be a racist. 

"...might have been better phrased..."

Some of you may already be aware of this, but for those who aren't...

Breitbart London reports that they've "seen" a statement by the BBC about Stephen Nolan's now notorious exchanges with various callers to his Radio 5 Live show over the migrant crisis.

(I could be mistaken, but it looks as if someone's shared a reply from the BBC Complaints department with them.)

Breitbart quotes the BBC as saying the following:

As he would with any caller, particularly one putting forward strong views that some listeners are likely to find upsetting, the presenter challenged Jonathan and asked some searching questions about his opinions and beliefs. At each stage, Jonathan was given the opportunity to answer in full. We believe this was reasonable and expected in the context, while accepting that a couple of the questions might have been better phrased…

So an admission that Stephen Nolan didn't get it quite right, countered by lots of reasons why he essentially really did get it right. (That sounds like the BBC Complaints department to me).

So Jonathan from Swansea had "strong views that some listeners are likely to find upsetting", eh? Well, it didn't upset me, as what he said what quite reasonable. 

What this BBC response doesn't answer is the charge that Stephen Nolan then misrepresented what earlier callers said when people began challenging him about it (although maybe that wasn't the bit complained about). 

******

Incidentally, although I said I wouldn't mention Any Answers again, I did spot Anita Anand putting in a milder version of the 'Are you sitting comfortably in your armchair?' question at one point during yesterday's programme. (I can't face listening to it again to find the exact quote though. If you can bear it, please add it to the comments below).

YouTube if you want to

Here are a couple of YouTube videos that are well worth watching.

The first, Callers challenge BBC presenter over biased coverage of migrant crisis, is a selection of calls to BBC 5 Live presenter Stephen Nolan over a couple of nights earlier this month.

At the start Stephen dishes it out with a vengeance but towards the end the tables are well and truly turned as listeners call him out on his behaviour. He isn't happy, and I think it's fair to say he dishes it out a lot better than he takes it!

The second, INTERVIEW: Ex-EDL Leader Tommy Robinson interviewed by Breitbart London’s Raheem Kassam, is (in a different way) hardly less intense, especially the section on his prison experiences, which - if true - are shocking (to put it mildly). A 40-minute interview with Tommy Robinson isn't something you'll ever see on the BBC (unless they ever start broadcasting show trials!). 

For those interested in the issue of BBC bias, the opening few minutes are particularly interesting. They touch on the media's (especially the BBC's ) coverage of the phenomenon of 'Asian street grooming gangs'. (I didn't know about Eastenders).

Watch for yourselves (if you wish) and please make up your own minds.

Another Miscellany for Advent Sunday (afternoon)

What did we learn, bias-wise, from the previous post then?

That Evan Davis may have been pushing his pro-EU bias at us on Newsnight, that Andrew Marr's show was pretty much OK, that Radio 4's Sunday was its usual liberal-biased self, and that Hugh Sykes still doesn't like UKIP (and ain't afraid to show it on Twitter)...

...in other words, biases (where found) from the usual, expected direction. 

***

It's not always like that though (and I refuse to be the sort of blogger who refuses to admit that). 

Take today's The World This Weekend with Mark Mardell, which rather surprisingly (well, it surprised me) focused on the severity of the UK's budget deficit. 

It asked election candidates from the two main parties - and their think tank counterparts (from the centre-left IPPR and centre-right CPS, both properly labelled) - to spell out their thinking on how the next government should reduce the deficit.

On a day when the big political news is that George Osborne is trying to outbid his political rivals over extra NHS spending, focusing on our national indebtedness and how drastic the steps required to tackle it are going to have to be, this isn't the sort of thing I expect from the BBC. 

The programme, incidentally, made use of the FT's deficit calculator and its editor, Nick Sutton, has asked us to give it a go too. So I have done, and all Radio 4 listeners and Is the BBC biased? readers should too.

It's eye-opening. No wonder the politicians interviewed didn't get anywhere near the target. They wouldn't dare spell out just what needs to be done. I, not needing any votes, cut everything, except defence (how right-wing of me!), and still didn't get there. (Must try harder next time).

***

George's extra (vote-buying) NHS spending pledges, incidentally, formed the main subject of last night's extended paper review on Radio 5 Live's Stephen Nolan show, hosted by (Peter Allen) Stephen Nolan and, unusually for a BBC programme, one of the guests spoke from a non-pro-NHS position. 

This programme isn't something I normally listen to but I'd read (at Biased BBC) that Biased BBC/A Tangled Web editor [and non-NHS fan] David Vance provided good value on it so thought it might be fun to listen to. [It comes in the last hour, if you've clicked on the link above].

It was fun. And he did. 

It wasn't the kind of debate you get on Radio 4. After a brief appearance from a David at the Sun on Sunday, David Vance and another David from the Daily Mirror locked horns, and Biased BBC's David came out on top - even reducing the Mirror's David to stunned silence at one stage (following by a Damascene acceptance by the Mirror man of his unquestionably fair but somehow-rarely-heard-on-the-BBC point). 

And (David No...) Stephen Nolan got his horn stuck in too from time to time, occasionally trying to gore David Vance. 

Now, I know DV and SN go back a while (Radio Ulster, and all that), but from what I've heard of their encounters before, Stephen always seems to go for him more than his left-wing opponents. SN tried a particularly sharp move here, trying to entrap his guest with suggestions of snobbishness or racism (I'm not sure which as DV deftly batted it away before he could spell it out). Far be it from me to step into their relationship, but that suggests possible left-wing bias to me on the part of the BBC host. 

I do like paper reviews, especially when the reviewers come from different perspectives. 

***

Returning to The World This Weekend...

After a depressing report (and interview) on the present situation in Afghanistan, where (pace the BBC) Islam and violence in no way go together, the Islamist Taliban has embarked on yet another intense killing spree, the programme lightened up and took us to the UK's very first Jewish Comedy Festival...

...where were found such jokes as:

I went home the other night, found my best friend in bed with my wife. I said, 'Lenny, I have to. But you?' (Saul Bernstein)

I'm a reform Jew, which means I go to synagogue twice a year: Yom Kippur and Christmas. (Josh Howie)

Another comedian, Raymond Simonson, made a couple of important points:

One of the biggest differences between the Jewish community here and in the United States is in our size. We're under half a percent of the population in the UK, 275,000 Jews. There are five and a half million of us in America. So Jewish comedy there, the Jewish community there, out, loud and confident, and  the Jewish community here have been quite quiet, kept their heads down.

I think whenever there's a time where anti-Semitism has been on the rise - and this summer there was the highest ever levels of recorded anti-Semitic incidents in the UK, so the Jewish community shrink further down - so what we're saying is, no, we're going to stick out heads further above the parapet and we're going to have people - Jewish, non-Jewish - laughing with us. That's so important.

And the best of luck to them.

And well done to The World This Weekend for broadcasting that.

And if you click on the link to the programme you'll also find two bonus jokes.