• NuPNuA@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    That’s a total misunderstanding of what the BBC is. As a public broadcaster representing the whole of the UK, it has a duty to represent all views. While I personally disagree with them, gender critical or TERF views are extant in the UK at present and the public conversation on where this will all land legally is still ongoing, therefore they have an obligation to hear from all sides, no matter how unpalatable one of them may be to some.

      • NuPNuA@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Because by and large society has decided that racism is a bad and unacceptable thing. There’s pockets of it about but no one is taking that seriously. The current discussion around gender and how society moves to accommodate peoples exploration of their identity in the modern world is still very much ongoing.

        I don’t agree with the gender critical or “TERF” arguments, I’m very much of the belief that everyone should be allowed to identify and live as their chosen gender with access to the rights and services that dictates. However some people don’t, for various reasons.

        We can call them bigots and attempt to shun them and hide them away, but it’s not going to stop smaller news outlets that are actually bigoted like GBNews or Talk TV having them on without the pro-Trans counterpoint that the BBC would have.

        Better to shine a light on these people and force them to justify their beliefs in a neutral environment than spred then in one that’s already in agreement with them no?

        • pqdinfo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Removed as a protest against the community’s support for campaigns to bring about the deaths of members of marginalized groups, and opposition to private entities working to prevent such campaigns, together with it’s mindless flaming and downvoting of anyone who disagrees.

    • stopthatgirl7@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I had no role in the instance’s decision; don’t try to argue against their decision with me. I’ve got no say in it.

      • NuPNuA@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Whether you or I may think that, if it’s in their remit, then that’s their job.

    • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s a difficult design but generally speaking I don’t think news has an obligation to provide both sides.

      A. They should not run editorials

      B. If they do run editorials presenting both sides is equal to endorsement.

      This isn’t the 1960s where the only way to be heard is via letters to the editor.