The BBC

If Dorries wants more Man Like Mobeen and Kurupt FM she should just say so

I’d be interested to know how stuff like today’s bizarre transphobic piece, or the series of interviews earlier in the year on channel crossings by a journalist with very clear far-right ties, actually make it to publication / air. Are there central editorial teams that have to sign things off? Independent units with different interpretations of a code of standards?

Any point in people complaining?

It works for Nadine Dorries.

not just The BBC but I am so fucking sick of seeing trans people's right to exist presented as a "debate" or a "row"

It is definitely worth complaining formally. Complaints are taken seriously. If a complaint is upheld it's a real blemish on the responsible editor's record.

I'm not that close to News but aiui there isn't a 'central' team,* it's very much down to the editor of the individual programme. That editor has the choice to get a view from Editorial Policy and/or Legal but they're not obliged to follow the advice they get.

*with cost-cutting and consolidation this will be changing to an extent. There will be teams who produce material that is used across many different programmes

I just sent my complaint, zero faith anything will happen even if the complaints about it are a decent volume but it felt worth doing

Thanks TH.

Are there central editorial teams that have to sign things off?

no idea about the structural details but the thing is the higher-ups are 100% ideologically behind this

today's piece is sub-fox news, an incredible new low

this plus Stephen Nolan's Stonewall podcast, i hope they're proud

https://www.bbc.co.uk/contact/complaints/make-a-complaint/#/Complaint

Thoughts on this thread, TH?

Complaining to the BBC: a thread.

— Clagz McCla (@ClagzMccla) October 26, 2021

That’s about right. ime the Executive Complaints Unit is very good at what they do. I’ve been contacted several times for complaints against shows I’ve worked on and they’ve usually already got a draft response that’s better than anything I could have written. (The complaints were 90% from racist trolls who were complaining about why there’s no special programme for white people etc, the other 10% fact-checking some irrelevant date)

It’s not perfect obviously and I don’t know what other broadcasters’ processes are like but the fact that you actually get a response, and that escalation is actually possible, and that the complaints are actually brought to the attention of the responsible staff seems almost like a miracle when you consider the volume of complaints the BBC gets and the volume of the output.

Got a predictably sorry-not-sorry reply from the beeb today, anyone else?

The article was carefully considered before publication, went through a rigorous editorial review process and fully complies with the BBC’s editorial guidelines and standards.

Some argue that the article is flawed because it is “based on a survey of 80 people”. The article itself states there is little research in this area; that the survey featured was conducted on social media and is therefore self-selecting; and even the author of the survey admits it may not be a representative sample. Furthermore, there is a link to the detail of the findings which enables the reader to make up their own minds about the replies the sample generated.

But the article is more than just the survey.

The journalist’s work involved months of speaking to many people about the topic and the article includes testimony from a range of different sources and provides appropriate context.

As a public service broadcaster we explore a wide range of issues and perspectives. And we believe it deals with a matter worthy of investigation. We have a strong commitment to impartiality, which means we constantly consider and evaluate which stories to cover and how. Impartiality is fundamental, and includes covering stories on any point of the spectrum of debate. And stories should be seen not just individually, but in the broader context of our wider coverage.

I got the same response. I'd be interested to see if anyone got anything even slightly different given there were many different grounds you could make a complaint on, this certainly didn't address anything I mentioned in mine.

I mostly focused on the survey, which puts me in a tricky position in replying - since pointing out the nature of the "range of different sources" they point to would mean bringing up new points of complaint, which according to twitter thread above is a no-no.

Oh well, hopefully still contributed to some statistic.

I think you can still say it's not good enough

The reply says "we were justified in using junk evidence to support our claims because there isn't and good evidence"

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/dec/01/andrew-marr-to-join-new-statesman-as-chief-political-commentator

Guardian running a lot of articles on Andrew Marr and which specific outlets he's going to work for.

So he's going to write for the NS more often than he already does. Should that be a major story?

Lower down the article, the account of major BBC news figures and their big new roles is depressing. Reactionary scum boosting each other and playing musical chairs, and that's presented as an intriguing story.

(I except Mishal Husain who's seemed better.)

Statement on interview with Alan Dershowitz pic.twitter.com/MlXkqdJI8u

— BBC News Press Team (@BBCNewsPR) December 30, 2021

ffs

She was the people's daughter.

Who is Ghislaine Maxwell? The downfall of a favourite daughter https://t.co/zkyqQmxmk5

— BBC News (UK) (@BBCNews) December 29, 2021

It seems to me she lived her life like a candle in the wind.

That the BBC acknowledge interviewing Dershowitz is wrong -- is actually a surprise and a step forward. I thought things were so bad that that wouldn't even happen.

Yes I was waiting for a weaselly excuse

"We will look into how this happened"
I'm gasping with anticipation for the outcome of this no-stone-unturned investigation.

it's all about the backlash. I refuse to believe BBC senior staff have any sense of embarrassment or are genuinely sorry about any appalling editorial choices at this point.

We are ruled by trolls, and trolling

I bet Rachel Johnson still feels sorry for her too. I'm sure lots of these scumbags do

Rob Burley was head of BBC political programmes when they edited out laughs from a Johnson Question Time appearance, replaced a dishevelled Johnson at the cenotaph with another from years back, and had Laura K repeat lies about Hancock being punched outside a hospital https://t.co/CHp6BYQsvu

— black lives matter (@jrc1921) December 30, 2021

i came here to post the dershowitz tweet and i was too late but i found this bonus in the replies

This guy was just fine though, wasn’t he? pic.twitter.com/NagFKw8el9

— Cammy Middleton (@Cammy2487) December 30, 2021

i take back everything mean i've ever said as long as Trevor Nelson still has a gig

otm, the greatest ever to do it imo

i have a good celebrity story about trevor nelson. when he was still on 1xtra i used to see him sometimes around the studio. one time he was getting a quick cup of tea during a song and he made me a cup and asked me how much milk i wanted in it by asking which member of destiny’s child i wanted the final colour to resemble.

ah man the GOAT

wait it was sugababes, sorry. i said mutya.

Mutya is my answer to a lot of questions

Amol Rajan's big scoop this morning, an exclusive interview with the very "cerebral and complex" Novak Djokovic. I have been hate listening to this loathsome bullshit merchant since he was doing the R4 media show, but at least back then it was his only outlet.

nothing says cerebral like being a pig ignorant anti vax nutter

Rajan is despicable and utterly full of shit as well, he would make an ideal like for like Keunssberg replacement.

oh aye he's the worst, massive "i've got lots of uni mates who get me these jobs" energy

These two paragraphs from Rajan on the BBC News site are a fucking disgrace as well:

Djokovic is, by any measure, a remarkable individual. Raised amidst two wars in the former Yugoslavia, by parents who sold the family gold and negotiated with loan sharks to fund his ambitions, he is fluent in six languages, arguably the greatest player ever to pick up a racket; and - most pertinently - a deeply committed libertarian who believes strongly in individual autonomy.

He has clearly thought deeply about the conflict between individual autonomy and the collective good - and he feels that, as an elite sportsman, his body is his business - in both senses of that word. He says he has an open mind, but as things stand, he will not get the jab.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-60354068

No question as to what effect his actions has on others lol.

Could have replaced those two paragraphs with. "He's a cunt and nobody likes him".

on an unrelated note to him being a complete cunt i will maintain to my dying day that Federer is the GOAT and i don't care what the numbers say

Absolutely.

Yeah don't care about the stats

good to see the BBC expanding its coverage of old pop music to two nights of TV every week. maybe since BBC4 isn't working they could rename it Uncut and run non-stop music docs all week

no wait leave a bit of room to stick everyfuckingthing with Mark Kermode involved in there too

another thing they've done is replace Ash Sarkar with fucking Garry Kasparov as a Soviet Union commenter on Rise of the Nazis season 2. You might say "he lived there so fair enough" but the problem is he is a self-promoting know nothing one note grandstanding bullshit merchant and I stopped watching as soon as he came on. He should stick to getting his arse kicked at chess by a pc.