this post was submitted on 11 Oct 2023
594 points (96.8% liked)

World News

39380 readers
2772 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I guess not strictly news - but with all of the vitriol I have seen in discussions on the Israel situation, that have boiled down to arguments over wording, I feel that this take from the BBC is worthy of some discussion.

Mods, feel free to remove if this is not newsy enough.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] essteeyou@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] MossyFeathers@pawb.social -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm almost certain I remember there being more """both sides are valid/we're just being informative""" articles about trans people more recently, but here's an example of one from a couple years ago that was so controversial it got its own Wikipedia article: "We're being pressured into sex by some trans women"

[–] drivepiler@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

You claim the BBC are "suggesting that trans people are deviants who are going to ruin the moral fabric of society", yet this is the best example you can find? Such bold claims require proof, are you sure you're almost certain you remember the articles, or could you have read a comment parroting this narrative with no actual proof?

[–] darq@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

That article has been edited multiple times due to an influx of complaints. A fuller timeline can be found documented in videos here: https://youtu.be/b4buJMMiwcg

The original article is based on poor premises, elevates the voices of explicitly hateful people, mislead the reader to a false conclusion that trans women are coercing lesbians into sex, platformed a known sexual-assaulter who called for the execution of all trans women. And finally the BBC also just straight up lied about if they interviewed trans people for the article.

It's genuinely a terrible piece of journalism that the BBC should be utterly ashamed of.

[–] HeartyBeast@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

From the wiki:

...On 31 May 2022, the BBC released rulings from the Head of the Executive Complaints Unit (ECU) that stated that the article was a "legitimate piece of journalism overall" but that it had breached the BBC's standards of accuracy in two ways. Firstly, the headline "gave the misleading impression that the focus of the article would be on pressure applied by trans women" when the actual article focused to an equal degree on "internalised pressure experienced by some lesbians as a result of a climate of opinion ... within the LGBT community".[5] As a result, the title of the article was changed to "The lesbians who feel pressured to have sex and relationships with trans women".[7] Secondly, the head of the ECU found that the coverage of the Get the L Out survey "did not make sufficiently clear that it lacked statistical validity". The wording of the article surrounding the survey was subsequently altered.

[–] darq@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

I'm aware of the history of the article. The original article was significantly worse, as my comment stated.

But even above that, the article still should not have seen the light of day. It was based on a terrible premise to start with. A similar article would not have been written about other marginalised groups, and if it had it would have rightly been lambasted as absurdly bigoted. The BBC does not write articles like "do people of X race commit crimes?!"

And the fact that the BBC found Lily Cade to be a worthy contributor, even after they were informed of her history of sexual assault, raises so many red flags.

[–] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks 1 points 1 year ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

https://piped.video/b4buJMMiwcg

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.

[–] MossyFeathers@pawb.social 1 points 1 year ago

I literally replied to two other comments with an example. I've deleted the original post because I'm starting to get nasty DMs and I'm really not interested in continuing this now. Here's the link if you want it, unless you're just here to be a shithead, in which case fuck off: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%22We%27re_being_pressured_into_sex_by_some_trans_women%22