Profiling

You may have read at Guido Fawkes or in the Daily Mail that the BBC had to temporarily withdraw their latest Radio 4 Profile of Conservative cabinet minister Kemi Badenoch.

The programme has now been edited and made available again, but the BBC is being tight-lipped about what they've changed, according to the Mail:

The BBC would not reveal what had been changed in the episode, but it is understood that a claim in the original broadcast, that Mrs Badenoch, 42, had stuck 'male' and 'female' signs on the doors of gender-neutral toilets at her leadership launch venue, was corrected.

This story has a few interesting implications, especially concerning journalism. 

Firstly, I'm intrigued that the Daily Mail couldn't find out what the BBC changed. I've been able to find out though, thanks to TVEyes.

The Mail correctly 'understood' the first change - concerning these signs:

The original broadcast said:

This summer, after Boris Johnson quit as PM, Badenoch threw her hat into the ring to become leader, sticking 'men' and 'ladies' signs on the doors of gender-neutral toilets at her launch venue.

This caused a stir on Twitter with many people quoting a Twitter thread on 12 July - the date of Mrs Badenoch's leadership launch - by leading 'gender-critical' voice Maya Forstater. This called journalists out at the time about it:

This story is not what you think: These are the toilets at Policy Exchange. I first noticed these signs on 17th of May at meeting about sex based rights with various gender critical groups. At first i thought the paper signs had been put up specifically for our benefit. What I think is happening here is that Policy Exchange (or their landlords) put in nice new gender neutral toilets and the staff don't like them. They probably feel uncomfortable. Men leave the seat up etc.. so they've put the signs up for everyone's comfort.

Yet here was BBC Radio 4 repeating this discredited claim four months on.

The edited version goes like this:

It was reported that 'men' and 'ladies' signs were cellotaped on the doors of gender-neutral toilets at her launch venue but evidence later emerged that this had been done before the event.

Even this edit risks being misleading. "Evidence later emerged that this had been done before the event" might suggest that rather than Kemi herself 'sticking' up the signs, it was done "before the event" i.e. done for the launch. What Maya Forstater, and others, showed is that those signs were up a couple of months before the launch, so not connected to Kemi Badenoch in any way.

Indeed, it's so potentially misleading that Guido Fawkes apparently misread the revised version as a simple repetition of the debunked claims from the original version:

Despite the editing, the profile still reeks of W1A’s woke inclinations. It repeats debunked claims about Kemi removing gender-neutral toilets at her campaign launch, albeit with a caveat.

Maybe the programme needs withdrawing and re-editing again to remove this ambiguous wording?

What both Guido and the Mail missed though was the second edit. The original broadcast said:

It's not just race. LGBTQ activists have accused Kemi Badenoch of being anti-trans Ben Hunte, a senior reporter with Vice World News. "I've had for a number of organisations and individuals who are really concerned about Kemi Badenoch's behaviour in government. I've exposed a leaked recording of Kemi Badenoch saying that trans women are men", the government insisting her comments had been taken out of context. "I have released a report about the equalities minister saying she doesn't care about colonialism." She's been criticised for abstaining on a vote to extend same sex marriage rights to Northern Ireland. And this week, ITV News reported that Bedenoch has now paused work on a promised ban on the use of conversion therapy. "There have been a number of situations over the past year that really do kind of raise your eyebrows about what it means to be an equalities minister when you don't necessarily believe in all forms of equality within your portfolio".

The revised version edited out this line:

And this week, ITV News reported that Bedenoch has now paused work on a promised ban on the use of conversion therapy.

That concerns a 'scoop' by ITV's Paul Brand that the Government took to Twitter to dismiss. BBC Radio 4 clearly got cold feet about Paul Brand's journalistic 'scoop' too.

Both Guido and the Daily Mail note the inclusion of the activist-like Ben Hunte. The Mail uses the c-word about him - "controversial":

That made me smile because of how Radio 4's website introduces this programme. They also use the c-word about Kemi Badenoch, asking "Is the controversial trade secretary and equalities minister a future PM?":

Another thing that struck me about controversial Ben Hunte's controversial inclusion is that Radio 4 - unlike the Mail - didn't mention that Ben used to work for the BBC [and got the Corportation into quite a few scrapes]. Profile simply introduced him as "a senior reporter with Vice World News". None of his contributions were re-edited.

A final thing is that the version you can now here on BBC Sounds - which begins by saying that the programme has been edited, but not why ["This programme has been edited since broadcast"] - ends with quite of list of BBC staff behind this edition of Profile: the researcher, producers, production co-ordinators, and editor. 

Not sure I'd have wanted my name on this piece of BBC broadcasting. Maybe they'll be tempted to edit those out next?

'Super scared' at the BBC

 

Ben James-Naughtie-Slip-Risk

You may remember Ben Hunte as the BBC's first LGBT Correspondent. 

That was back in the good old days when they were just four letters in that alphabet. It's hard to keep track of how many there are now. Even Justin Trudeau of Canada can't keep up. ''LGDP...LGT...LGB...[and after prompting from an aide]...LGBTQ2+'', Justin stumbled.

Ben Hunte was the one who pledged himself to be a 'mouthpiece for some marginalised groups' and incurred the wrath of a departing John Humphrys for being far too much of an activist to work at the BBC. To which Ben [still working for the BBC] quickly snapped back that JH was 'showing his privilege'. Thus rather proving John's point. 

Many regarded BBC Ben as a 'mouthpiece' for extreme 'woke' groups like Stonewall [who have recently transitioned into absolutist trans activists], and a BBC report of Ben's on the transgender theme landed the BBC in such trouble that complaint after complaint and correction after correction followed as the BBC tried to clean up after him, and he eventually got shunted off to report for the BBC in West Africa. 

Finally enough was evidently enough - for one side or the other - and he left the BBC for Vice and immediately landed Vice in huge controversy for a piece attacking a Conservative MP that many said was full of holes - or, more charitably, a 'shoddy...hatchet job'. 

Well, the aforementioned Ben Hunte has another 'scoop' today [i.e. he's been chatting to some of his 'woke' activist BBC chums]: 

Exclusive: The BBC is expected to quit Stonewall’s LGBTQ diversity programme. LGBTQ staff at the BBC told me they are “super scared” by the implications of the decision, and they hope managers will change their minds… 

Now, if true, this is interesting. Is this a sign that you can be too 'woke' even for the BBC? 

Update: Ah, and now 'soon leaving BBC, ex-Editor BBC Political Programmes' and blog favourite Rob Burley is chipping in, saying: “Without getting into the rights and wrongs of BBC being part of Stonewall Diversity Programme, the suggestion that LGBTQ BBC staff are “super-scared” of leaving seems to infantilise LGBTQ staff at the BBC. Some will agree and some disagree, but are they “super-scared” really?”

Further Update: Douglas Murray isn't overly impressed either, tweeting 'Oh no! The BBC is quitting Stonewall’s gay extortion racket. What exactly do your “super scared” sources think will happen to gay BBC employees now,  Ben Hunte? Firings? Firing squads? Or sweet FA? What a racket. And what a hack.

Echoes

As mentioned a couple of posts ago, I'm so grateful to you all for pointing out the BBC lowlights this week on the open thread. It's keeping the ITBB archive going. 

And the BBC have had quite a week of lowlights.

I

The Great Gambo being interviewed by Victoria Derbyshire was certainly quite something. 

In my teenage years back in the 1980s, Paul Gambaccini was one of my heroes. His Radio One Saturday afternoon US chart show was something I never missed. 

Or hardly ever. And as I was in my early teens at the time and charts-obsessed, and would always be listening to it with my cassette recorder at the ready to catch every new entry on the UK and US charts, I could get quite ratty if Mum and Dad ever made me miss it. I remember going into a particularly huge 14-year old sulk on being taken off to see my gran in Kendal [Cumbrian home of the famous mint cake] one Saturday afternoon and missing the latest US Top 30 countdown from Mr G.

So I've always had a big soft spot for him. And he's always been the broadcasting pro's broadcasting pro. And I'm so glad he's come through all the horrors of hideous false allegations, and that he's now come out fighting, and is seeking redress. I wish him well.

It is intriguing though that he says he'll be coming for the BBC too one day for aiding and abetting such injustices because he does still work for the BBC. I only hope the BBC remember they still have a 'duty of care' towards him, consider their role in reporting [or mis-reporting] these stories, stick by him and avoid the pettiness that the BBC can often sink to when they feel threatened.

II

I'm not one for late nights, but even I stayed up to watch wonderful Emma Raducanu triumph in the tennis. 

She's so much more likeable a UK champion than Andy Murray, and everyone seems to be celebrating her today.

It's probably just a Twitter thing that the usual suspects have been scoring political points though. It's like an obsessive compulsion. 

I've at least left it a few hours before doing something similar and pointing out that Gary Lineker has been busy on Twitter scoring political points over Emma's victory, racialising her achievements and pushing pro-immigration, anti-government comments, and reinforcing crude ad hom attacks on Nigel Farage [with apologies for quoting the attack on Nigel that Gary joined in with, ''the nasty little turd'']. 

I've lost track of Gary's tweeting over recent months [not that I've ever paid much attention to him on Twitter], but to see him in full flow today has reminded me why he's so controversial as far as BBC impartiality goes. He remains very opinionated and politically-focused, and shouldn't have joined in that nasty attack on Nigel Farage. 

Anyhow, it was a triumph for Channel 4 too, ''humiliating'' the BBC by getting the rights to broadcast Emma's match. I hope everyone was watching that rather than Match of the Day. It's something sporting that will be remembered for a very long time. 

Update. And, being the BBC, here we go with the signalling retweets:

Why doesn't Sopes get back to reporting the lying, incompetent Biden administration? He should be rushed off his feet at the moment.

III

As Charlie noted, the BBC's first LBGT Correspondent Ben Hunte's short career at the BBC is ending. 

John Humphrys, on leaving the BBC, specifically named and shamed him for being a new breed of activist compromising BBC journalism. 

And Ben soon landed the BBC in trouble, with an impartiality-busting piece on transgender matters that saw complaints galore, and correction after correction, and BBC clarifications, and ECU rulings against it over endless months. 

He then seemed to have been sent off to Africa for months to do special reports. 

And now he's off to Vice. 

IV

I'd urge any passers-by to click on the following link to another comment on the Open Thread. LINK. 

I've read the thread and it looks like a particularly bad case of the BBC spreading disinformation by failing to check the facts. Please see what you think. 

V

The whole BBC 'allyship' thing may make your jaw drop for not being satire. But it's another bizarre sign of where we are. I'll quote Charlie's accurate summary:

Reported in The Telegraph tonight. You couldn’t make it up! BBC staff have been offered an “allyship” test which identifies whether they are more privileged than their colleagues, as part of diversity training. The manual also sets out seven types of allies that staff can become in the workplace. One of them, the “upstander”, is someone who “shuts down, reports and pushes back on offensive jokes and inappropriate comments, even if no one’s hurt by them”. This type of ally should “check in privately with anyone who’s been offended” by the joke and “don’t just be a bystander”. Another ally type is a “champion”, who “voluntarily defers to colleagues from underrepresented groups in meetings, events and conferences”. Voluntarily deferring to underrepresented groups - the BBC do this already anyway.

In tackling this kind of nonsense, the BBC is a big part of the problem. They aren't just buying the Emperor's new clothes, they're selling them on too.

Characters

Twitter folk will twitter. 

It follows actor Laurence Fox posting an image of the BBC's LGBT correspondent Ben Hunte and saying, “So glad I’m not paying for this anymore”:

Ben Hunte, BBC: My family and I have been sent racist and homophobic abuse following the below screenshot of me being posted. I am fine - but I will let the police take over. If you disagree with my job, or with the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines, or with wider LGBT-related decisions I am not involved in, please do not contact my family with hate. Please use the BBC’s complaints process. I am doing my job to the best of my abilities. I am proud of being a journalist and so grateful to those who share their experiences with me. Thank you ♥.

Laurence Fox, actor: Hey Ben, saddened to hear you have had abuse. It’s horrible and I know exactly how you feel. My view is that the BBC is increasingly identitarian and divisive and should be defunded. I believe in people, not acronyms. Loz x #DefundTheBBC

John Simpson, BBC: Deeply depressing that my excellent colleague, the BBC’s LGBT correspondent Ben Hunte, should have received racist and homophobic abuse in the wake of an unpleasant tweet by Laurence Fox which talked about 'defunding' the BBC. Fox should know better.

Laurence Fox: Hey John. Nice to meet you. Do you believe the BBC should have a dedicated LGBTQ correspondent? Where do you stand on safe spaces for biological females? Do you have a position on trans children? Really interested to have a discussion. 

Adrian Hilton, academic: Deeply distressing that [another] Laurence Fox should be on the end of abuse, reproof and damnation in the wake of this mistaken tweet by John Simpson News, which presumably was meant to target [actor] Laurence Fox. Simpson should be more careful.  

John Simpson:  Apologies to the Laurence Fox I tagged — turns out he wasn’t the character whose anti-BBC tweet stirred up various homophobic & racist types to abuse my colleague Ben Hunte. The mistake is mine, but the offence lies elsewhere.

John Simpson: [to the correct Laurence Fox this time]  I think you’d do better to express your regret that a tweet of yours should have led people who support you to abuse my colleague.

Maybe Tim Davie should just tell them to get off Twitter, and enforce that call?

A fatal act of self-harm

Tom Mangold, back in the day

Tom Mangold's Mail on Sunday piece headlined "I fear that my beloved BBC’s bizarre obsession with a toxic culture of wokeness will end as a fatal act of self-harm" ought to matter to the BBC because Mr Mangold isn't just any old BBC veteran. He was Panorama's lead investigative reporter for many years and has always been held in high esteem. So for him to speak out in such an outspoken way about "the greasy slope down which [the BBC] is sliding faster every day" is really something, and a major sign of just how bad things have got recently. 

While expanding on his excoriation of Yogita Limaye's "biased, partial, unbalanced, filled with spite and venom" anti-Churchill report (see previous post), he adds the words "Never mind the truth". I doubt he would never the phrase, of course, but essentially what he's saying is that it was 'fake news'. 

'What on earth has happened?', he wonders. After all, the BBC's charter remains "unequivocal" on its statutory commitment to impartiality. Well, he says, the "holy contract" is now "well and truly broken". 

He seems to believe that Ms Limaye's late evening report, given the full backing of the News at Ten and Huw Edwards's "authority and credibility", was a bone deliberately thrown to the BLM movement. 

And the BBC's doing it, he says, because of its "bizarre obsession with youth, diversity and the ever-growing pressure of woke argument" and because BLM - and "the Twitter trolls, the social media addicts, the young, the immature and the often daft" - have become "the BBC’s recruitment and audience target." 

Why this "'threatens to become [the BBC's] final act of self-harm" is because such people are a "minority audience". 

He also quotes another wise old head, Trevor Phillips, saying that "the increasingly woke behaviour by the Corporation is endangering the central justification for special treatment, which is its universal reach." 

All of which is very true. The BBC is alienating its core audience in pursuit of a small demographic that probably won't be watching it regardless. It's a sign of the state the BBC's in at the moment that it doesn't even seem to see the folly of its position. 

The present situation with over-75s having to pay the licence fee from next Saturday is relevant here because 66 Conservative MPs  signed a letter to Tony Hall last week objecting to the BBC's decision over the licence fee, and added: "We question the need for the BBC to allocate the enormous sum of £100 million on diversity, which with strong management could be achieved for minimal cost". 

Tom Mangold in this article makes a related point: "Tony Hall has found £100 million in an ever-ready slush fund to increase diversity in the BBC. Meanwhile it gets rid of talent such as John Ware and Jane Corbin as permanent reporters from Panorama, presumably to save a bob or two". 

Why is the BBC splashing out such huge sums on diversity? After all, as the Observer observes today, it's devoting £12m of its commissioning budget "to making diverse and inclusive content" for the next three years, and devoting £100m of the current television commissioning budget to "on-air inclusivity", and bringing in a mandatory off-screen target for "20% diversity across the networks for new commissions" from April 2021? Because it's signalling to its new target audience. 

Tom Mangold goes on to quote Trevor Phillips saying, "The BBC has to recognise social change, sure, but it is not the institution’s role to lead it." Well, yes, but that's not how the young Turks who have been silently taking over at the BBC see it. To take just one example, on being appointed the BBC's first LBGT correspondent Ben Hunte said "There are a lot of marginalised voices that need to be given a mouthpiece" when he was appointed. He clearly meant that he intended to be that "mouthpiece". There's a lot of that about at the BBC now. 

Wonder what the bulk of the BBC will think about this? I'm guessing a huge chunk of them are too far gone to care what one of the old hands thinks, especially if it's in the Mail on Sunday. But some might take it as a proper, serious wake-up call. If they love the BBC as much as Tom Mangold does, what are they going to do about it?

Trouble at the BBC

As noted on the Open Thread, Julie Bindel has a fascinating article at The Critic which raises serious questions about BBC standards and BBC agenda-pushing. 

Julie - as you'll probably know - is a feminist presently at war with transgender militants, and as far as trying to strike a balance in this bitter 'war' goes, she reckons that the BBC is far more one-sided even than The Guardian. "The BBC appears not to even try", she says. 

Her immediate targets are (1) Megha Mohan, the corporation’s first “gender and identity correspondent” and (2) Ben Hunte, the BBC's first “LGBT correspondent”.

Both express strong opinions and sometimes act and sound more like activists than journalists.

(We have, of course, been following this here).

Julie Bindel says she's heard from BBC journalists that "there is some dissatisfaction in the coverage that Mohan and Hunte are responsible for", what with both of them being "young and junior journalists" and yet being appointed to cover "one of the most contentious issues of the day for one of the world's biggest media outlets". 

She says they've also ignored attempts to broaden their range of issues. 

So, it seems, the big BBC programmes like Today won't feature them. "They’re more likely to be found on the BBC website among articles about YouTube stars and Jeremy Corbyn", she says. 

More broadly, she blames BBC executives "obsessed with generating 'content' that chimes with the mores of a younger audience". 

Plus: 

Privately, some BBC suits give an explanation closer to home. Internal staff surveys show that as many as 2 per cent of all BBC staff “identify” as transgender. The corporation’s LGBT staff forum is willing and able to flex its muscles over editorial decisions that displease members. “We have to tread very carefully to avoid complaints from them,” says one of the BBC’s most senior editors. Some say tensions are growing within the BBC between an older generation of journalists and the younger breed of activists with microphones. 

Very interesting. 

"John Humphrys’s privilege is showing"

Ben Hunte

I see that Ben Hunte, the BBC's first LGBT Correspondent, has hit back at John Humphrys. 

The former Today man had objected to him saying after his appointment, "I'm looking forward to being the mouthpiece for some marginalised groups". JH thinks the BBC "must not act as anyone's mouthpiece" as "that's what lobbyists and public relations people do" and that "to confuse the two is to undermine the job of a journalist".

Here's Ben's response, quoted in The Sunday Times: 

John Humphrys’s privilege is showing. I am not a spokesperson for the LGBT community. However, what I can do — and I have done — is open the BBC’s platforms to some individuals who have been left out of the conversation for so long.

Hmm, if you say you're not a spokesperson maybe you shouldn't have used the word 'mouthpiece' then, Ben?

mouth·piece

 (mouth′pēs′)

n.

1. A part, as of a musical instrument or a telephone, that functions in or near
the mouth.

2. Sports A rubber or flexible plastic protective device worn over the teeth, as by boxers.

3. Informal One, such as a spokesperson, through which views are expressed.

Free at last!

"For much of my career, I’ve felt rather like the junior butler trying to blag a seat at His Lordship’s dining table in Downton Abbey"

(John Humphrys, on being a working class, non-arts graduate at the BBC)

Just two short days after departing the Today programme, in mourning weeds, with tears in eyes, John Humphrys has seriously let rip at the BBC in (OMG) The Daily Mail...

Feedback will be appalled, and doubtless John's choice of publication and what he has to say there will only confirm to his many left-wing haters on Twitter that he's the right-wing fossil they've been so vociferously asserting he is over recent years. 

Many of his criticism of the BBC will be very familiar, and we've made them ourselves...over many, many years. But it's always good to get it from the horse's mouth, even if the horse felt the need to bolt from the stable first. 

It's a long piece, so I'll try to summarise it:

1. He says he's now free to speak and no longer has to "submit to the BBC Thought Police" his "subversive musings". 

2. The BBC is "a tremendous and irreplaceable force for good" and "this country is the stronger for its existence". "Our democracy needs it" and he's "convinced that it occupies a special place in the nation's heart" and that "we would be poorer without it".

3. The BBC has a "great fear... of the politically correct brigade and the most fashionable pressure groups — usually from the liberal Left, the spiritual home of most bosses and staff".

4. BBC bosses didn't even try to disguise their horror at the result of the EU referendum. It wasn't what they expected or what they wanted. They saw it as "a disaster".

The Brexit crisis had exposed a fundamental flaw in the culture of the BBC. Its bosses, almost to a man and woman, could simply not grasp how anyone could have put a cross in the Leave box on the referendum ballot paper.

Here's a lengthier extract with a telling anecdote:

We note how much time the typical boss spends in meetings — usually with other bosses — and how little in the various news rooms. It’s true that they tend to appear on the mornings after, say, General Elections — offering a few nods and smiles and the odd encouraging remark to the poor bloody infantry who have been slaving away all night. 

The morning of the EU Referendum was different. Leave had won — and this was not what the BBC had expected. Nor what it wanted. 

No nods and smiles when the big bosses appeared. No attempt to pretend that this was anything other than a disaster. 

Their expressions were as grim as the look on the face of a football supporter when his team’s star player misses the penalty that would have won them the cup.

5. The BBC has an "institutional liberal bias". The main reasons for this are (a) its recruitment process, which overwhelmingly hauls in middle-class, university-educated, often private school-educated arts graduates ("and it’s a racing certainty that there won’t be more than a handful of Tories among them") and (b) groupthink:

There is, I believe, a groupthink mentality, an implicit BBC attitude to what makes news. Decisions are influenced, if only subconsciously, by what the organisation has done in the past. So it can too often be willing to settle for the status quo, settling into the same lines of thought.

6. Because of that groupthink, immigration and euroscepticism became two important areas where the BBC "failed so badly to spot a change in the nation's mood".

7. He himself voted Remain in the EU referendum. He's voted for most political parties over the years (though not the far-Right or the far-Left) and considers himself "pitifully middle-of-the-road".

8. The BBC finds it "hard to resist" the temptation to engage in social engineering. It sometimes tries "to create society in its own image" and "places its powerful finger on one side of the scale of social justice":

Which is why I raised my eyebrows when the BBC announced it had created the new post of LGBT correspondent — and the man appointed said: ‘I’m looking forward to being the mouthpiece for some marginalised groups . . .’ It was the use of the word ‘mouthpiece’ that jarred. Obviously, the BBC must give a voice to minorities, but it must not act as anyone’s mouthpiece. That’s what lobbyists and public relations people do. To confuse the two is to undermine the job of a journalist.

9. More and more people at the BBC "conflate and, perhaps. confuse their own interests with those of the wider world...The logic seems to be that if they feel strongly about a given issue, the BBC should not only listen to them but modify its output to reflect their own world view." He cites the example of members of the BBC's LGBT group, including a business presenter, demanding on Twitter that a question on Question Time asking if it was morally inappropriate to teach five-year-olds about LGBT issues shouldn't have been allowed. It's not a good look for people at the BBC to engage in censorship.

10. The BBC's handling of the Carrie Gracie affair and his leaked off-air banter with Jon Sopel about it "made the Kremlin circa 1950 look sophisticated". He doesn't believe he did anything wrong.

I was disappointed by the BBC’s reaction. They might have made the point that my 50 years’ service at the BBC showed that to accuse me of misogyny on the basis of one bit of private banter was risible. Fat chance. Instead, they came up with the typically pompous comment: ‘This was an ill-advised off-air conversation which the presenter regrets.’ And a ‘source’ told the Guardian that ‘management are deeply unimpressed’.

And he's particularly angry at how then-PM presenter Eddie Mair - the real "boss" of PM - handled the story (or, as JH sees it, non-story), going on to complain:

Mair was not a team player. When he joined PM in 2003, it was a straightforward news-based programme. By the time he left, it had become — in my view — a vehicle for his ego.

11. Yes, he enjoys arguing and approaches people in power "with a pretty strong dose of scepticism", but he's come to realise that the "gladiator sport" style of interviewing is far from ideal. What does it actually achieve? "Too many interviewers (present company included)", he says, "are too often more concerned with making headlines than with helping the audience understand the issues at stake." He admits he got "a little heated, too heated" in the past, did "a lot of interrupting" and, to his "great shame", lost his temper at times, but "calmed down" over the years. 

12. Punchline: After 33 years on Today, he "can't deny that he's rather looking forward to tomorrow".

BBC Tending

Here's a little social media activity from this very afternoon, featuring the aforementioned Mike Wendling of BBC Trending:

• BBC Trending: Last week journalist Carlos Maza (@gaywonk) from Vox News posted a video about the anti-gay and racist abuse he was receiving from rival video-maker Steven Crowder on YouTube. Now YouTube says anti-gay slurs do not break its rules.
• DB: I see Mike Wendling & his BBC Trending team of SJWs are joining the left-wing media's attempt to shut down @scrowder's very popular YouTube channel. (Note the @BBCTrending tweet doesn't include [Steven] Crowder's twitter handle.)
• Iconoclast: For info: Maza's bio: "I write Strikethrough for @voxdotcom. Marxist pig. Tucker Carlson is a white supremacist." Nice huh? Vox is a far left fake news outfit, so support from BBC Trending & Alt-left hunter Mike Wendling not altogether surprising I guess.
• Mike Wendling, BBC: Confused. Did you read the story? Is there factual inaccuracy? (Also, why so angry?) 

It all relates to this BBC News website article: 

For the purposes of this blog, the question is more 'Is it biased?' 

Well, the choice of subject is 'very BBC' (identity politics, bad social media, right-wingers 'in the wrong'), but the story is the story. And the BBC could be reporting it fairly. 

Look though at the opening paragraph:

YouTube is one of many companies that has given its logo a rainbow-themed makeover to show support for LGBT rights - but, underneath the colourful veneer, a row has erupted over how the video-sharing site enforces its own hate-speech policies.

And then look at the closing paragraph:

With LGBT Pride Month just kicking off, it will be interesting to see how many other organisations will adopt rainbows across their brands, without necessarily backing the queer communities they are desperately marketing themselves to.

Though the first paragraph comes from the by-line-free main part of the report, the last comes from the closing 'Analysis' by the BBC's LGBT correspondent (oh yes, that really is his job title) Ben Hunte, and the narrative arc of the article is as perfect as a rainbow.

As DB and Iconoclast say, YouTube is surely being pressured by the BBC here to follow their favoured agenda here, don't you think?

That whole closing 'Analysis' from LGBT BBC Ben runs as follows:

Many professional LGBT video-makers will be familiar with uploading material online and instantly being tormented by certain audiences, solely because of their sexuality.  

YouTube's take on this will disappoint the LGBT community.  

It will surprise them that hurtful things considered hate speech and punishable by law in real life can simply be labelled "debate" online, and not require any repercussions.  

With LGBT Pride Month just kicking off, it will be interesting to see how many other organisations will adopt rainbows across their brands, without necessarily backing the queer communities they are desperately marketing themselves to.

You might defend Ben here with 'The Katya Adler Defence'. Just as Katya is tasked with reporting what the EU says, so Ben is surely only reporting what the LGBT community are saying? Unfortunately, he lets himself (and the BBC down) with that word "desperately" in the final paragraph. It betrays his feelings.

As Mike Wendling might say, 'Also why so angry, Ben?'