There is a controversy at the BBC over a correction made by presenter Martine Croxall on air when she changed a reference to “pregnant people” to “women.” The network later received 20 complaints and agreed that Croxall had violated network policies. (For full disclosure, I previously worked as the legal analyst for BBC).
In the segment, Croxall began by stating, “London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine has released research, which says that nearly 600 heat-related deaths are expected in the U.K.” She then added “Malcolm Mistry, who was involved in the research, says that the aged, pregnant people — women, and those with pre-existing health conditions need to take precautions.”
When she said “women,” she seemed to briefly pause in frustration in making the change.
According to the BBC’s Executive Complaints Unit (ECU), the brief pause and facial expression conveyed bias and a “personal view”:
“The phrase ‘pregnant people’ was followed by a facial expression which has been variously interpreted by complainants as showing disgust, ridicule, contempt or exasperation.
Even accepting this explanation, however, the ECU considered the facial expression which accompanied the change of ‘people’ to ‘women’ laid it open to the interpretation that it indicated a particular viewpoint in the controversies currently surrounding trans identity, and the congratulatory messages Ms Croxall later received on social media, together with the critical views expressed in the complaints to the BBC and elsewhere, tended to confirm that the impression of her having expressed a personal view was widely shared across the spectrum of opinion on the issue.”
I can understand that the network does not want on-air staff to convey their personal views on divisive subjects, particularly controversies that the network is covering. What I was less clear on was the standard being enforced here.
There is no BBC rule that I know of requiring the use of “pregnant people” as opposed to women. So, if that is true, the violation was the brief pause and facial expression. If Croxall had simply made the change without the facial expression, would she be in compliance with network standards?
Croxall clearly disagreed with the nomenclature used by the writers, as many do. The fact that the BBC received 20 complaints is hardly surprising and the reliance on such complaints as proof of meaning is a dangerous practice. It is now common for individuals and groups to file a flurry of complaints against anyone who holds opposing views on issues like transgender rights or identity. The United Kingdom has eviscerated free speech with criminal prosecutions and investigation for years. Flash mobs form quickly to pursue dissenting voices such as J.K. Rowling, who maintain that these policies undermine the progress on women’s rights.
Notably, BBC initially supported Croxall and told complainants that Croxall’s script change was “done for clarity and was in no way meant to be disrespectful. We’re satisfied it was duly accurate and impartial, and in line with the BBC’s editorial guidelines.” As more complaints were filed, the network changed its position.
I understand that BBC does not want presenters to express personal views on such subjects on air, but it has remained uncomfortably vague on how presenters address such issues. Croxall clearly felt that “pregnant persons” was a clumsy and inaccurate expression. Is BBC saying that this is the correct way to speak of pregnant women or can presenters change the language, as did Croxall? The current position seems the worst of all options for BBC to remain silent on the correct term while finding a presenter in violation for how she corrected it.
Here we go again. Now libs just like last time are screaming that when they take back the house they will swamp the Supreme court.
Now this is what a dictators looks like
How many dictators does any one country have at any one time?
Ask the dems. They can’t wait to shred our Constitution.
Taking a poll. Which is better UK BBC News or German DW News reporting?
Re: BBC v DW — Personally, while both are deeply flawed as propaganda publications spouting the self-aggrandizement of “liberal socialist” oligarchical autocrats, I find Deutches Welle somewhat more informative than the Philby Broadcasting Company (whoops, meant British Broadcasting Company). While both are strafing tools of censored speech and individual freedom thereof, sometimes, DW sometimes provides in depth evidence, while ✌️B/PBC✌️ stays cleanly on “you’ve been indoctrinated and if you do not follow our indoctrination, you are contemptible and we wish horror upon you and your family with prosecutorial and terrorist attacks – which you deserve”, sometimes you can find the news somewhere in the marsh of DW.
“When she said “women,” she seemed to briefly pause in frustration in making the change.”
She is just pointing out what all us sane and normal people are thinking.
True. This is a mind virus. A tiny minority of mentally ill people are attempting to force others to corrupt the English language and say stupid things or things that are not. The fault lies with liberals who know this is stupid but are too craven to stand up to the mentally deranged.
Agree, oldman. Perhaps BBC UK should consider using AI images with neutral, frozen vapid facial expressions to present the news. They will soon…if haven’t already.
The AI bot could come fully equipped with a pronoun-checker. Human news anchors will soon be looking for work, I suspect, in Europe and America.
Hope I’m wrong.
Pray tell, what is a tiny minority? Is it anything like what everyone sees here – a big minority of geriatrics?
Anonymous: A “tiny minority” constitutes a bunch of ageist, spoiled, snot-nosed brats who can’t handle contradictory opinions.
Have someone change your diaper. You stink. 👶
A Voice in the Wilderness,
I would also add, they are clearly unhinged, lack reason, common sense, logic and cannot handle reality.
OldManFromKS,
Well said. Fortunately, the whole “woke” crap is dying. Of course we can help it along to it’s demise by calling out the obvious reality and common sense.
Craven? I too have used and overused that word. But no more! When talking about those unwilling to confront the rabid Left, I prefer to state the truth, which is that such people are scared out of their frickin minds, as we see the Left forming into separate vigilante groups whose principal purpose is to gain political power through intimidation. And intimidation does not work very well unless you absolutely harm those you oppose. I believe this dynamic I’ve described is the main driver of policy that we see at the universities, at the city government level, at the corporate level, and on and on. Nobody feels safe as long as these radical groups are catered to by those in leadership. GOOD LUCK, WORLD IF YOU THINK THIS PROBLEM IS GOING AWAY.
BBC’s motto: “Reality has no home here.”
The BBC has standards? How droll. And American English just continues to move away from the increasingly inept and laughable UK and its old English. Are enough of us at the point where we don’t care what they do in England. They have lost their minds and rapidly are losing their heritage.
This from an old man who can’t understand what he reads.
This from a moron who can only throw out insults and has no real answers.
This is precisely another example of the point I posted yesterday about Indeed’s television and radio commercial, “Your shipping manager left to find themself [themselves].”
“The Roar of the Greasepaint; the Smell of the Crowd.” (old time Broadway hit)
For centuries the male was the generic. It worked well that way and everyone understood. I personally always use the singular male pronoun as a generic, sometimes quite consciously as a rebellion against the language police who want me to either use the female singular (in legal circles), the plural – which is contrary to fact – or the very awkward “him or her.”
Wholly agree with the generic reference, which I also prefer to use, and I am without question a female.
Lin – I remember in law school even in the 1990s (went mid-career), in legal talk all professions were now generic-female, including truck drivers and auto mechanics . . . except secretaries and nurses, who were invariably male.
Good point
Correct! The first lie was to convince people that the generic form excluded feminine gender. From that lie came the ‘he or she’ nonsense. And now we’ve moved into the faze whereby sentences, especially longer ones, are cluttered up by multiple ‘theys’ such that it becomes undecipherable. Although I must say that the use of ‘they’ relating to nonspecific forms such anyone, anybody, everybody, someone etc,. have had long-standing acceptance in all parts of the English-speaking world. For instance: “Anyone who would do that to THEIR own son is indeed cruel”
“… the aged, pregnant people,… women, and those with pre-existing health conditions…” She/her/hers simply needs to apologize for the unprofessional facial expression of disgust and explain that it was directed at both the notion of embryos (who aren’t even people) and also that women had been left out of the list of vulnerables, (as were those of color). Confess, self-correct with proper blame placed upon systemic institutional patriarchy, and then give penance by donating to the right charities. Problem solved and societal progress gains another win over entrenched bigotry. BTW, did 600 succumb to the Capitalist Climate Violence, and how many potential victims were spared by the reporting this study? The newsperson should also tout BBC’s heroic role in this crucial reporting and her privilege to participate.
Is this comment satire, or is it real? I ask because in today’s world that which appears to be satire is, in fact, real. I hope you can sympathize with what I’m saying. In other words, if it’s satire, it’s magnificent satire, but if it’s real, we all have much more to fear than I thought.
It is simply a fact that “pregnant people” are women. Using one word “women” rather than two words “pregnant people” expresses the idea more succinctly and clearly.
It’s like how in America the left wing kooks call you a bigot if you refer to blacks as “colored people”, but when they use the phrase “people of color” it is perfectly fine. They’re using the roots of the exact same words but demanding we rearrange the order and add an additional syllable. It’s retarded. Why people tolerate this form of mind and speech control is maddening.
I wrote an email to my local NBC affiliate asking why they constantly use the phrase “unhoused people” rather than the traditional phrase “homeless”. In the same email I asked why they use the far left’s preferred phrase “gender affirming care” when what they really mean, at least in part, is chopping off the perfectly healthy genitalia of people with a mental disorder. They failed to respond to my email.
That Turley even tries to sympathize with this perversion of language is wrong. The correct response is to ignore the complainers. They’re a bunch of power made creeps trying to force us how to think and speak.
KNICKERS too tight!!!
How unfair for Martine Croxall. She was merely giving a “pregnant pause” before delivering the rest of the story.
(For full disclosure, I previously worked as the Dairy Farmer for 60+ years and can recognize Bull Sh*t when I see it)
“You cannot be serious!” John McEnroe 1981 Wimbledon !!!!
Ha Ha – Leave it to the Limeys to destroy themselves by accommodating every wacky loony niche of their swirling-the-drain society! Nothing like a lack of common sense to convince the rest of the world they are on their way to S-Hole status! Ha Ha!!!
Just like what Turley is doing with your kind?
Ano
doing with your kind?
_________________________
Please tell us more, sense you seem to be the expert.
Ha Ha – We started this over here, exported our cultural Woke Marxism to infect the entire world, and with that infection of our lunacy, for a second time in world history we’re sticking our American finger in the British eye.
Benny Hill would have fixed all this CRAP!
When jokes, even prayers, can get you arrested, it’s pretty clear that the UK is no longer a free country. Now, ambiguous facial expressions can lead to problems. This is only one of many problems they’re having. When you have to lie about immigrant crime stats so that you don’t offend people, you have much bigger problems.
I wonder if now it is a controversy if anyone calls the BBC with support.
“. . . the impression of her having expressed a personal view . . .” (BBC)
According to the BBC’s Ministry of Truth (euphemistically called the “Executive Complaints Unit”), it is okay to express on air the personal view “pregnant people.”
But the expression of the personal view “pregnant women” is verboten.
I don’t think their concern is with the expression of a personal view.
Wow. 20 whole complaints. Astounding
Don’t spin it.
That’s only the number “upheld.”
Imagine the driblets not upheld.
Please name all the people who are not women (female) who are pregnant?
I hope the list is not so extensive as to not fit in the format of Mr. Truley’s comment format. LOL!
Name them? Why don’t you, you raise the issue. Clown.
All the people that can get pregnant.
1. Women (females)
You happy now.
Hey clown, there are none you idiot
Because there aren’t any you moron.
Hullbobby
The libs/left will never learn. They are so blinded by their stupidity.
DustOff,
Exactly!
You mean hatred, no one is that stupid!
There aren’t any. Are you a complete idiot or are some parts missing?
The entire universe of pregnant people who are not women is the null set. Expressed using mathematical symbols: { }
Ok TranAnon, reference one, just one incident of a biological man giving birth. Shouldn’t be difficult for you, just one.
The left is insane. The UK is insane. The BBC is insane. Most Anon’s here posting are insane. Insanity will ruin the human race.
This kind of insanity is only temporary. The next shiny object is just around the corner. The fundamental problem is our educational system, which is churning out these fools on a daily basis.
And yet you sit here 24/7/365 calling others insane, lacking education. Can’t be a competent lawyer if you’re here all day long. And weekends.
It’s damn easy to recognize the mentally ill leftists by the drivel they post, like this one I am replying to.
Hey dummy. Look who is also here. (YOU) LOL what a fool
Wiseoldlawyer,
It is not the new next shiny object around the corner that is the issue/problem. It is to what level of absurdity the stupid and crazy the left will want us to believe in their delusions. That is the issue/problem.
I think it more the lemming effect
shrink is so stupid he claims all axons are insane, yet he uses an anon moniker. He’s anonymous. Too stupid to realize what he commented. Now that’s insane stupidity.
An axon is a long, slender fiber extending from a neuron (nerve cell), which transmits messages to other neurons, muscle cells, or glands.
You need a better vocabulary.
Insanity, pure and simple.