Not getting engaged in ill-tempered exchanges is also sound advice. At Sky, I often wonder why Adam Boulton and Kay Burley bother replying or tweeting sometimes testy rebukes at trolls, rather than just ignoring them.
Yes though I expect the person at the forefront of their minds when they wrote that was probably Alistair Stewart
I am pleased that, if it was true, that the ban on going to Pride parades was overturned.
Britain is, thankfully, a in a very different place with regard to its general societal attitude to gay people and lesbians compared to 30 years ago.
I have no doubt that the confidence, colour, and vibrancy of the gay community best expressed through Pride festivals were a minor but significant factor in changing attitudes.
I can see both sides of the argument here but I probably lean more towards censorship of staff's opinions.
This does not sit easily with me however.
I have employed people for over 2 decades now and staff's behaviour and attitudes (both online and offline) can affect public perception of an organisation and upset its place in the community.
Why should one person be able to threaten the stability or the perception of a business or an organisation through their behaviour or attitudes?
It's even tougher for Auntie.
The BBC is publically funded - it enjoys an extraordinary privilege over its competitors. (For the record, I love the BBC and I want the licence fee to continue).
The social media posting of Laura K, Gary L, Emily M, etc have called into doubt in the minds of many the BBC's impartiality and its ability to report the news without prejudice.
You may completely disagree with the people who have those opinions but the money they pay in licence fees is as good as anyone else's money and they should have just as much say in how the BBC is run.
Laura K, Gary L, Emily M, etc are in the pay of the BBC and this, imho, gives the BBC the right to insist on certain standards of behaviour.
I don't think the BBC has handled this well. Tweets like:
Next time the BBC ask me to come be live on the Radio to explain to them what Fortnite is, they’d better be real careful I don’t use that air time to accidently mention how I should have rights and they should take a stand on that.
The UK is joint fifth in Europe, with Portugal and Finland, on the Rainbow Europe 2020 rankings on LGBTI rights. Transgender rights in this country include the right to change your legal gender and name, the right to marry, enter the military, as well as anti-discrimination laws, and the right to access medical treatment as well as hate speech and hate crime laws in England and Wales.
The way the BBC has handled this leaves them open to the accusation that they're against trans rights, when the political debate isn't about the total abolition of the trans rights that already exist above, and is largely focused on the specific issue of self-identification.
What the BBC should be doing is expanding the understanding of the nation on trans issues; for example, surveys of public opinion on trans rights vary wildly because people don't understand the meaning of the jargon used to describe the various issues. The general population are woefully underinformed.
The restriction seems hugely unnecessary to me, and seems to have only fanned the flames against them without achieving much, if anything at all.
Some points in here probably are reasonable - e.g. “If you have a story to break, the BBC platforms are your priority, even if it takes slightly longer”.
However the policy doesn't seem fit for purpose and is a bit vague in areas where it shouldn't be.
Who's deciding whether a social media account is "an account which reflect only one point of view on matters of public policy" is a grey area (and hard to police - there's always new accounts popping up and who is responsible for judging this, how often would they be judging this). Similarly too what's deemed a “controversial topic" is a grey area and not clear and is the typical BBC issue of trying to create a 'give both sides' narrative in the name of "balance" when not both sides are equally reasonable and deserving of equal coverage.
The discussion point that seems to be doing the rounds this evening is sexuality. The optics of punishing employees in 2020 if they were to support people who are LGBT (e.g. maybe a close friend or colleague who's just come out or who may be LGBT but been abused in public as an example) is awful and would make it appear as if people being LGBT is "up for debate". Even if that's not the intention as Munro's tweet seems to suggest the wooly wording of the policy doesn't make it explicitly clear if something like sexuality is a "controversial topic".
Basically the Beeb had two options: use a 'common sense' type policy when it comes to have employees use social media (so leave it to employees to judge and reprimand them if they're deemed to have crossed the line) or to do an explicit policy explaining what is and isn't acceptable with a list of clear, explicit criteria so even if controversial (I don't think firms should be overly policing what employees do in their own time as long as it doesn't bring the firm into disrepute) everyone would know where they stand.
What the BBC have ended up doing is neither, created as many questions as it's resolved
and probably pleased nobody.
Isn't that what people usually point to as proof that the BBC is supposedly "doing something right"?
In some cases I would agree with this, but I think that this case just shows how inadequate these new guidelines are in general. Occasionally both sides can be right and a piece of reporting, or policy, can just be inept.
I think this is all rather disgraceful and the BBC has really harmed itself with this.
A big part of the problem is that people take a single tweet from somebody like Laura K which simply reports, accurately, what somebody has said and use that to launch a pile on about supposed bias while ignoring the other tweets from her reporting what others with opposing views have said.
We danced, rode bikes, swam near whales, kayaked, watched a movie on the beach and so much more. I realize that for most people, this is something that is so far out of reach right now, so in moments like these, I am humbly reminded of how privileged my life is. #thisis40pic.twitter.com/UYOcVBpytW
I saw something earlier that pride events were allowed but expressing support for some ‘trans issues’ such as the existance of more than 2 genders was not, as unlike being gay or lesbian that is still a debated and controversial subject.
Can’t remember who tweeted it, may have been Butterworth.
Yes, it was.
Asked for clarity on confusion, BBC said pride is fine if it is seen as a “a celebration”, but if the “trans issue" (as it was described) is involved then it passes as a protest and news and current affairs staff should not attend.
"trans issue"? Not recognizing trans people is a literal attempt to dehumanize an already vulnerable and victimized community. We can't ignore the fact that sexual orientation and gender identity are integral to every person’s dignity and humanity and must not be the basis for discrimination or abuse.
Indeed, I would have thought the "we're not neutral on racism" stance established after the Naga Munchetty complaint debacle would have applied equally to sexuality issues in this day and age.
You'd think so, but no. And that Naga fiasco came literally weeks after the BBC told news staff in Northern Ireland that they were not allowed to attend Belfast Pride. An issue pretty much ignored by the UK wide media at the time, except for one article in the Guardian, but the same policy/excuse that was applied then is what is being applied now.
There was a time where the only logical conclusion to that would have raised questions about whether BBC Journalists taking strike action were affecting their ability to report on other industrial disputes
