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.
UK television licence fee: £169.50 per year if you want to watch tv., plus you get to finance your BBC/goverment’s lies.
No kings. Yes Trump.
The BBC is presenting personal views by calling pregnant women “pregnant people.” So only leftist personal views are permitted?
Preventing this sort of thing is one of the ways in which we benefit immeasurably from a written Constitution with clear protection for freedom of speech, and despite the sometimes good work of the BBC, it also points out the fundamental defect of government supported, and therefore controlled, media companies.
I’m still trying to wrap my head around the notion that “pregnant people” being changed to “women” is an opinion and not a fact. Did I miss something during basic high school science class?
Time for a good laugh.
____________________
NEW: Jimmy Kimmel’s Wife & Show Producer Molly McNearney Says She is Losing Relationships w/ Her Trump-Voting Family, Wishes She Could ‘Deprogram’ Herself
“To me, them voting for Trump is them not voting for my husband and me and our family … This is not just Republican versus Democrat for me anymore, it’s family values … I’m angry all the time, which isn’t healthy at all … I wish I could deprogram myself in some way.”
People wonder why we call the left/libs crazy.
Away we go
The scene in Chicago at the alleged site of shots fired at Border Patrol agents during ICE operations
Post.
What about the original wording, was *that* meant to be disrespectful to women? Because it was.
I would be very interested to hear Turley’s opinion on funding SNAP during the shutdown, including the legality of using the funds in question.
SNAP is not debt, defense, or general welfare—SNAP provides for only 12% of the population, while general is all or the whole—general welfare is security and basic infrastructure allowing all to proceed well.
Congress may not tax for or fund SNAP.
What is your guess?
_______________________
Article 1, Section 8
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States…
My guess is that folks intentionally misqoute the Constitution. The actual phrase is, “provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare.” it is expressly not the government’s job to provide for thr general welfare. The misquotation is intentional, disingenuous, and deceptive – and you know it’s wrong.
LAW
“Tax for debt, defense, and general welfare.”
Article 1, Section 8
“Congress shall have Power To lay…Taxes…to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare….”
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT – NOT LAW
“Promote the general Welfare”
The Preamble
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
So on air talent can’t express their personal views but the script writers can?
Her momentary reaction was an accurate sentiment. We women are exasperated with the Left reducing our gender to a state of mind.
Somehow the Left has twisted compassion for those experiencing gender dysphoria into a demand that my gender doesn’t exist. Woman can no longer be defined. It is a je ne sais quois” state of being that could change at any time.
Why would women choose the bear if they could just decide to become a man, right then?
Sorry Professor. I know that you don’t want expressions of violence in your blog, but I swear there are a whole lot of people in the modern world who are in need of a trip behind the woodshed (televised, of course)
Gordy
Some folks are just full of hate. Not just this site, but look at (Blue skies) It’s a free for all.
Can anyone explain why the freedom of speech given to American citizens was abridged by the evidently unconstitutional Sedition Act of 1798?
Where has the Supreme Court been for 227 years?
The Supreme Court can only rule on cases and controversies that is before the Court and the Sedition Act expired in 1801. — Concerned Citizen