The Woke thread AKA Liberal Kaynesplaining

This. Much as I hate saying it. (This)

It's the cardinal rule of comedy and the comedians that forget that principle end up in this position Every. Fucking. Time.

Even if it's just idiots on Twitter, calling for that sort of thing is disgraceful. There's no excuse for it.

But that doesn't stop him from being wrong. The validity of opinions isn't determined by people getting unreasonably mad about them on Twitter, otherwise almost all opinions would be valid.

What a paragraph.

It is understood (by whom?) the BBC has also received a number (what kind of number, 80 perchance?) of appreciations from audience members (has anyone ever put these words together before?) about the article in addition to the complaints (you mean the 16,000 complaints)

Asking a handful of people from one special interest group and framing it as representative of a whole was pretty sloppy journalism regardless of the issue.

Grim but unsurprising

www.theguardian.com/society/2021/oct/29/research-reveals-rapes-and-assaults-admitted-to-by-male-uk-students

Unbelievable isn't it? The BBC asked the BBC about it. Unfortunately the BBC did not give exact numbers to the BBC but alluded to the fact that people liked the BBC article the BBC printed.

This sort of language is absolutely representative of the horror show that the BBC is these days, it's completely dishonest and disgusting. I'm sure that with every article where they push a specific political agenda, they "receive a number of appreciations", but here they're acting as if that somehow mitigates the incredibly offensive - and factually worthless - nature of the article.

The BBC has long abandoned any attempt to be rational, reasonable, fair, or honest. They've been throwing that stuff overboard since about 2004, maybe a bit earlier, when the 24-hour news cycle became a thing. Now they're basically the propaganda wing of the Tory party. Their kindest articles about Labour are literally all about how Labour is "doing it wrong" and "needs to be more like their Tories", and they barely cover any other parties at all. Massive Tory spats or fuck-ups are barely covered (in part thanks to the fact this might be damaging to Laura Kuenssberg's incredibly cosy relationships with assorted Tories). Their headlines consistently demonstrate bias - sometimes so severe they change them later, but the bias is extremely consistent when they first go up.

I think it's pretty clear they've realized that they can't please people under about 45 and people over that, and they've picked the older group and decided to cater solely to them (as much as their charter will allow), because that group is much less keen on ending the license fee and so on. Given they're literally run by a Tory politician (albeit a failed one), I suppose it's hardly surprising. It's never enough though - whenever a post opens up in BBC management snorting Tory pig-men MPs are grunting that they need to put in a hardline right-winger to counter all that "bias". I'd love to know when the last time the BBC had genuine left-wing bias was. Probably last century, and even then they pushed far-right opinions. I used to listen to thought for the day every morning, partly just trolling myself, from about 10-20, and there was easily a 30% chance of outright homophobia or misogyny, and about a 5% chance of being told all atheists (and possibly agnostics and in one memorable case, anyone who wasn't Christian/Jewish/Muslim) were literally amoral monster-people who were moments away from engaging in murderous violence because of their lack of god-rules. That was pretty special.

Yes, but the article had a sample size of about three while loudly implying that there was a hugely widespread issue. Which there isn't. It's a shocking article however the Beeb/Journalist try to frame it.

Well, sure it should be reported to the police...but that doesn't mean that it can't form the basis of an article.

I'm quite happy to shit on the BBC news reporting, it's almost always awful...but this is just reporting on some people's experiences. Ok, those reporting it have an agenda but like this is pretty par for the course for personal experience news reporting.

Like I said: the question is are these people's experiences real? Saying they're not worthy of reporting on because they're criminal, or rare events, or not representative is sort of irrelevant? Especially when it goes out of it's way to make the point it's not representative.

Anti-gay propaganda was (still is?) making generalisations about gay men because they were gay. Was the original article making generalisations? I skim read it, but didn't see anything. I didn't take from that the message that "all trans people are awful." Rather "these people had an awful experience and some people have offensive views."

I really don't want to get involved with this big ol bag of dicks but are the UK media really known worldwide for being savagely anti-trans?

Pretty much, yeah.

As to Load's comment, a lot of it is down to how it's reported, not whether it's reported or not. To use racial bias as an example for a moment, compare the headlines to when a PoC is a victim of crime vs a white victim, or even sometimes a PoC victim vs a white attack. With PoC you'll find the headlines often highlighting whatever negatives they can unearth (SUSPECTED DRUG USER, EX-CON, UNEMPLOYED etc), with whites you'll often find the highlighting goes the other way (VALEDICTORIAN, SUCCESSFUL BUSINESSMAN, FATHER OF TWO etc). Same thing tends to happen with these reports of abuse, they often use and position transgender status not only as the primary negative highlight, but often the implied cause.