Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Comment: Biased BBC skews the debate on LGBT issues

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Jock S. Trap 27 Mar 2012, 10:55am

    Completely agree. The BBC has done nothing about reporting those if favour and chosen to represent those who are against. This from a channel that is, by all accounts, supposed to be impartial. Well I haven’t seen that and don’t see why we should be force to fund a channel that does not speak for me.

    I pay a subscription for channels why should I pay for extra for a couple of channels that clearly doesn’t want to represent me in any way.

    BBC = shamefully bias in too many areas.

    1. BBC= Bigoted Broadcasting Corporation

      1. Jock S. Trap 27 Mar 2012, 1:24pm

        Amen to that! (Oh the irony.)

    2. Us atheists call it the Bible Broadcasting Corporation. The BBC is very pro-religion, remember the revolting biased reporting of the pope’s visit?In many news stories the BBC trots out some rent a quote religious nutter for comment. The beeb allows unrestricted access by all religions and is uncritical and deferential – especially to islam.

  2. Mumbo Jumbo 27 Mar 2012, 10:59am

    Quite so.

    Robert Piggot, or Bob the Bigot as I call him, is a joke journalist: the corporation’s bland, smiling purveyor of so called reasonable and balanced “on the one hand on the other” lazy prejudice.

    And as for c4m, I suspect that many people would be appalled to learn of the backers of the petition religious leaders are persuading their followers to sign if only a real journalist in the mainstream media would investigate.

    Panorama anyone? We’ll see.

    1. I have rung the BBC on a couple of occasions in the past to leave comments, lodge a complaint

      03700100222

  3. Hey, I’m from Italy and I’m curious. Is BBC really that bad on gay rights? The other day I was searching for gay contents on “The Guardian” and it struck me how many articles were antigay. Sorry for my english.

    1. The Guardian? Surely you mean the telegraph?

      I always find the Guardian to be super pro-gay.

      1. Pro-equality I should say!!

    2. There has been a surge in anti-gay television over the last year or two, as we get closer to having equality they get louder and the BBC, for reasons known only to itself, is giving them a voice.

  4. I find their view “interesting” when you see the responses given when it came up on Question Time and the audience seemed to be the entire opposite from what the BBC view has been

    1. Absolutely. The stance taken by the audience in QT was if not entirely supportive of equality – almost entirely in support. I loved the elderly guy who when asked whether he was “for or against gay marriage” said words to the effect of “well, I wouldnt have one myself, but its not going to harm me if those who would want one can”. I think this guy spoke clearly for a large segment of what used to be called middle England, and the audience spoke powerfully for Britain as a whole – most people either welcome equality in marriage or have no concern about the implications of allowing gay couples to marry.

      Shame the BBC do not feel their editorial policy can not more accurately reflect society (like the QT production teams managed to do in their audience).

      As for Robert Piggot, I find his bias incredible and his lack of ability, desire or willingness to ask probing questions or investigate impropriety in the church, CI and other organisations disappointing.

  5. We pay our licence fees because they force us to. I would gladly let the BBC and every putrid thing it stands for crash and bloody burn. No taxation without representation and bollox do I feel represented by the BBC as anything other than cannon fodder.

    1. Spanner1960 27 Mar 2012, 11:34am

      I think that rather unfair. Just because their news is biased and they do churn out some populist crap, they are still by far the best TV production outfit in the world, bar none.

      1. When prime time saturday night viewing was watching Ann bloody Widdecombe getting winched around the dance floor, I knew that the days of saying that the BBC was a maker of quality TV were over.

        I suppose it’s fine if you like dancing, talent shows, cooking, DIY, more cooking, antiques, more cooking, soaps, cheesy game shows and the paying of seven figure sums to talentless hacks who haven’t been funny in years….

        1. In fairness, Paxo was pretty clearly on our side in that rather raucous equal marriage debate on Newsnight the week before last, and Stella Duffy was given the time to make her [excellent] point.

          http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/9706513.stm

        2. Spanner1960 28 Mar 2012, 12:12am

          I didn’t they were perfect, I said they were the best.
          Please tell me of any broadcaster that does any better than the BBC as an all-round public service provider.

      2. Paddyswurds 27 Mar 2012, 6:38pm

        @Spanner1960….
        …i totally disagree. The BBC is the mouthpiece for the rabid Tory right and this was blatantly obvious throughout the conflict here in the north of Ireland, when the BBC rigidly stuck to the old tory unionist line on Ireland. Indeed editorially the BBC was completely against the Belfast Agreement and we can see how that turned out in spite of their opposition. Had the BA failed think how many more people would now be dead on both sides and both sides of the Irish Sea. This is also the line in regard to Marriage Equality and indeed human rights in general. They also oppose the European rights bill and indeed oppose any similar bills which may be mooted here. So rater than being unfair, i think Valksy has it right.

    2. So, the answer is: sell your TV, get a large computer screen with a fast internet connection and watch TV on-line. No licence required. Simples.

  6. A beautifully written – and argued – comment, Adrian. Thank you for that.
    I doubt the BBC would have the testicular fortitude to respond to the points made here, but this article should probably be sent to the corporation’s Head of News.

    1. Seconded, well said Adrian.

      1. Thirdeded…some brilliant points made here. The media is FULL of gays; why on earth are we being sidelined?

  7. This is a very good expose. The BBC likes to find two opposing viewpoints and give them equal representation regardless of the fact of whether one view is an offensive minority view. In reality they should do more to reflect the balance of public opinion. In the gay marriage debate it should not be one pro and one against but several pro and one against. The worst thing is that they have sought to present the debate in a very black and white way as gay versus religious and haven’t given a voice to the many religious same sex marriage supporters.

    1. Likewise considering how non-religious the UK is, there is no reason on earth for the horrific number of cult based stories on Pink News.

      Apply the same standards people.

      Otherwise you are being hypocrites.

      1. I rather think the number of attacks against gay equality from religious sources justifies coverage!

        1. Well that depends.

          By giving the oxygen of publicity to cults like the Westboro Baptist Church, Pink News enables and supports homophobia.

          1. To be fair though, PN have not mentioned anything about WBC in relation to the debate about equal marriage. Thats a link you have just made, dAVID.

            Also to be fair there are gay religious people who clearly contribute to PN and they have a right to have stories relevant to them.

            Also, PN have a responsibility to be balanced in their coverage – and that includes identifying stories which are relevant to LGBT issues including marriage – whether we like the content of what is being reported or not.

  8. Spanner1960 27 Mar 2012, 11:32am

    A very articulate and comprehensive article that other mainstream journalists ought to read.

    What I don’t fully understand though is that certainly 15-20 years ago BBC TV was awash with gay people. Whether that is still the same today, I don’t know; but if this is the case surely they should be in the best position to tell their paymasters and corporation just how biased they really are.

    1. Pink News ought to take a leaf out of this writer’s book also.

      Pink News is also obsessed with religion – at least half the stories that appear on this site concern religious cults – strange considering how atheist Britain actually is).

      it’s not really far to apply a double standard here – the BBC is no more guilty of focussing on religious cults than Pink News is.

      (And at least the BBC is not actively promoting homophobia in the way Pink News does when it advertises the Westboro Baptist Church by writing about it.)

      1. But ‘promoting homophobia’ to whom? Reporting on the WBC (admittedly a group that it would be better to ignore) on PN is hardly going to get them supporters, is it?

  9. Quote from Adrian Tippetts article

    “In the studio debate, held just after Baynham was kicked and punched to death in Trafalgar Square, there was no interview with the Home Office minister, the Chief Commissioner, or a member of the judiciary.

    Instead, the presenter Kirsty Wark invited us to consider: ‘is the violence a result of Christians being marginalised because of the equality laws?’ Not only was this obvious cop-out of a question hugely insulting to the many Christians who do not see accepting gay people as an attack on their faith; it was a complete irrelevance: generally, the concerns of a bed and breakfast owner in Cornwall are not in the minds of hate-fuelled thugs in the process of smashing up their victims’ faces.”

    . . . . . . . . . .

    I agree, although it was good to see Johann Hari challenge Ann Atkins in the “very limited” space which was set a side for this debate. However, why did the BBC invite Ann Atkins to represent main stream Christian views, when clearly her presence as a trustee for the Gay Cure Charity “True freedom trust, marks out her views clearly as extremist rather than mainstream.

    http://www.truefreedomtrust.co.uk/council_of_reference

    Inviting Ann Atkins to comment on this issue in the light of Ian Baynham’s brutal killing, was not only insulting, but an invidious collusion with the homophobia which led to Ian’s death in the face place.

    1. Very well said John K

      1. Thanks JON

    2. Rashid Karapiet 28 Mar 2012, 9:01am

      Ann Atkins owes her ‘celebrity’ and spkesperson status to being rude about the Lesbian and Gay Christian movement in Southwark some years ago; this was in a ‘Thought for the Day’ slot. Almost immediately the Daily Mail offered her a column and The Guardian, to its continuing and unacknowledged shame, did a special report on so-called controversial figures, I think it was, featuring La Atkins on the cover of G2 in a very cheesecake, almost Page Three pose. There’s been no stopping her since then which only goes to show how the media looks after what it regards as its own. And she is, of course, a failed acctress and a vicar’s wife.

      1. Thanks for this Rashid.

        Come and join us on “My pink news” . . . MY (in the link bar)

        In the group Media watch (on my pink news), we are paying close attention to Ann Atkins media maneouvers, your contributions would be most welcome

  10. The BBC is overrun with Islamist sympathisers &, until this situation is rectified, gay people & Jews can go f#ck themselves

    1. Islamist sympathisers? Really?

  11. I wonder if this editorial bias will shift when the Beeb’s catholic Director General Mark Thompson retires?
    Quite how you can invite Stephen Green into a tv studio for “balance” in anything is beyond me. How do you balance that?
    The guy is an alleged wifebeating rabid fundamentalist who hopes we all burn in hell. He makes Torquemada look like a hippie.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1351585/Stephen-Green-rails-immorality-voice-Christian-Britan-private-wife-beater-says-partner.html

    1. In the same manner as you invite a racist extremist like Michael Lucas to write on Pink News about the Arab Spring (without identifying him as a racist extremist).

      Pink News needs to apply the same standards to their own reporting as they seem to require of the BBC.

  12. I agree with this wholeheartedly. There are many good things about the BBC, but how it treats equality issues, and issues involving LGBT+ people in particular, is not one of them.

  13. So very well put. If you consider that the percentage of people who are active in the Christian churches (7-10%) is very similar to several of the estimates of the proportion of LGBT people in the UK, the church gets a disproportionate proportion of airtime.

    Whilst I’d agree that the BBC is streets ahead of most of the world’s TV channels (I say this having experience the pain of French and German TV for the last 15 years!) I do feel that they are unfairly biased towards positive representation of the church and sensational, negative representation of LGBT views.

    1. The Office for National Statistics report put the proportion of the homosexual
      people within the UK population at 1%, which is far lower than the “several estimates”
      referred to in your post, Emily.

      1. The precise figure is irrelevant, Carol … the bottom line is you are seeking to suppress a minority and segregate LGBT people in marriage (a legal matter – not religious).

        Furthermore, the 2008 UK government figures put the figure at 6% – a bit different to your 1%. Its just a game of statistics if you batter around figures, the fact remains you are seeking to suppress LGBT people – thats wrong, thats homophobic, thats bigoted and it is going to stop.

  14. I see Christian Concern is trying to tie gay marriage into the “Cash for Access” debacle.

    http://www.christianconcern.com/our-concerns/social/major-donor-had-voice-heard-on-redefining-marriage

  15. Ash Anthony 27 Mar 2012, 12:27pm

    I Have To Agree With ‘Jock S. Trap’ On This, Couldn’t Have Put It Better Myself!!

    1. Jock S. Trap 28 Mar 2012, 2:47pm

      Thank you Ash! :)

  16. Amusingly, the Telegraph are arguing that the BBC doesn’t give *enough* of a platform to religion: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9167267/Bishop-criticises-BBC-over-sidelining-of-religion.html

    Shifting the goalposts, one by one…

  17. Well, they’re better than Fox News IMO, but still it’s not very good. You’re supposed to be balanced at the very least (even though pro gay would be preferable).

    This is why I’m glad I always get my news online. Lol.

  18. Ironically the only program that BBC gets right is the religious Big Question on Sunday. Always well balanced panel of speakers and guests.

  19. So, how do we start a campaign to refuse to pay our TV tax until BBC has more accurate representation?

    1. Jock S. Trap 27 Mar 2012, 1:26pm

      How about them being made to pay for themselves and having the option whether we want the channel or not?

    2. You can legally watch BBC TV shows on line via the iplayer without a licence. So sell your TV, get a decent internet connection and a large computer screen and watch on-line. Ok, you may see your favourite programmes later than your mates, but you don’t have to finance the BBC from a licence. Simples.

  20. “Arguably the BBC breaks its own standards because of the inflated level of attention it pays to religious opinion in general.”

    This is also an accusation that can be made about Pink News.

    Pink News breathlessly reports EVERY time a religious cult (regardless of how minor) comments on marriage equality, either for or against.

    Considering that the majority of Britain is either atheist, agnostic or completely non-religious (only 10% are religious according to this Pink News articlle), it begs the question – WHY are more than 50% of Pink News stories about religious cults.

    I realise that this is merely an opinion piece.

    But considering Pink News’s literal OBSESSION with religion, then the accusations levied against the BBC in this commentary, can just as easily be levelled against Pink News.

    1. Jock S. Trap 27 Mar 2012, 1:28pm

      Actually PinkNews has continuously reported from both sides. It is important that they do so for us to know. The BBC could learn alot from PinkNews reporting.

      1. Not true.

        Pink News is almost obsessive in its reporting of religious cults’ attitudes to marriage equality and gay people.

        It’s very strange and weird considering how non-religious Britain as a country actually is.

        Yes Pink News reports on whether a cult is supportive or not. But that does not alter the fact that only 10% of the population is religious.

        Demanding journalisitic standards from the BBC is perfectly fine and I support that.

        I’m just pointing out that Pink News does not apply the same standards to itlself.

        1. Well maybe when Christian websites promote both sides of the story Pink News will…. aka not going to happen ;)

        2. Jock S. Trap 28 Mar 2012, 2:44pm

          Debate means both sides that effect us. Unfortunately that means opinions we also don’t agree with and it important that PinkNews reports all it can that does mean religion as they are the main stumbling block on marriage equality. Equally just as we have negative support from some religions we also have positive support from other more progressive one.

          This is news we Need to know about. It is important to know who are our allies and who are not!

          1. Jock S. Trap 28 Mar 2012, 2:47pm

            Would also like to point of that the percentage of the population is much, much higher than 10%. However not all those religious people support the argument of the Bigoted Catholic leaders.

        3. @dAVID

          So which stories do you think PN should not have covered?

    2. Pink News has an “obsession” with religion because of how much religion denies us LGB people marriage and rights and speaks out against us, mistreats us.

      1. OK Fine.

        So if it’s OK for Pink News to obsess about religious cults then it’s a bit hypocritical of Pink News to be making accusations about religious bias towards the BBC.

        Pink News also treats religion as something more important than it actually is in Britain.

        1. Pink News isn’t denying anybody basic human rights, religion is.

          And religion is very important to some people, and by survey 70% of people in the UK are Christian, 3% are Muslim, 0.5% are Jewish, and there are several other anti gay religions. It also affects us because they are the vast majority of people trying to stop us from having rights. Once they shut up about us being evil/disgusting/unnatural/wrong and that we don’t deserve rights, then I’m sure Pink News will shut up.

          1. The BBC isn’t denying anybody basic human rights, religion is.

            And if Pink News is allowed to obsessively report on relligious cults (in a manner FAR more obsessive than the BBC) I fail to understand the criticism levelled at the BBC not also being levelled at Pink News?

          2. Because Pink News is pro LGB, BBC is being anti LGB. Of course a site that promotes equality isn’t going to get as much criticism as a homophobic (as it seems now) channel.

            I take it you’re not gay or bisexual.

        2. Think about the audience for PinkNews and the audience for the BBC. Think abou the way they’re funded.

          The Church might not be important, but it has a voice! They get to use the BBC to amplify their views, whereas, as is the point of this article, the LGBT community is being sidelined.

          These aren’t difficult concepts.

          1. “Think about the audience for PinkNews”

            OK.

            Predominantly atheist or agnostic I imagine.

            How incredibly offensive was it of Pink News to treat the RIDICULOUS non-story of whether cults be allowed to perform CP’s in their buildings as being important to anyone other than a TINY minority of its readers.

            I am not defending the BBC by the way.

            I just find it bizarre that an opinion piece like gets published in Pink News, when PN itself is guilty of pretty much the exact same bias.

          2. @dAVID

            Regardless of how many people religious CPs would effect it was a story relevant to the LGBT communities. PN did not propose the legislation – so don’t blame them for reporting it!

        3. Jock S. Trap 28 Mar 2012, 2:49pm

          Er, ok but if you don’t want to know the news why come here? Why not buy a copy of Dandy or Beano?

    3. Reporting news is one thing, and as it happens the biggest opposition to gay equality comes from religious quarter, and presenting news in unbalanced biased way is another. I can accuse PN of many things but not gonna have a go at them for reporting news.

      Get your figures right, currently over 65% people in this country identify themselves as christian, but only 10% actively practice the faith

    4. dAVID, you have made the same point here quite a few times. Although it appears to be of particular concern to you, your continued repetion of the same argument only weakens it and any support you may muster. I would advise that any concerns about PinkNews’s editorial policy be directed to them in the form of an e-mail.

      1. Well what’s the point of that.

        My point is not that Pink News stop obsessing about religious cults.

        It is free to obsess about what it likes.

        It’s just hypocritical in the extreme for a news outlet which is itself obsessed by cult activities, levying the same accusation against another news outlet.

    5. To my knowledge, Pinknews has never made the claims of impartiality that the BBC has.

    6. “Considering that the majority of Britain is either atheist, agnostic or completely non-religious…” That’s not quite right. Being athiest is not believing in a supernatural deity, being agnostic is not believing in any form of organised religion, and so putting “or completely non-religious” is basically repeating agnostic.

      I guess this shows how little you REALLY know about what you’re saying.

  21. Excellent article Adrian, well done.

  22. I want Pink News to commit to the same standards which is applies to the BBC when reporting on marriage equality.

    Stop reporting on the attitudes of religious cults towards marriage equality. Why are over 50% of the stories on this website about religious cults attitude to marriage equality.?

    If Pink New is allowed to report on every time some useless cults farts out an opinion on marriage – whether pro- or anti-equality, then it’s quite hypocritical to whine about the BBC doing it?

    So the catholics, muslims, orthodox jews and sikhs oppose marriage equality.

    Who cares? Civil marriage has nothing to do with them.

    The manner in which Pink News reports on the farcical non-issue of whether religious cult buildings be allowed to hold CP’s was actually very damaging to the marriage equality campaign, as it made it look like whether cults were allowed to perform CP ceremonies or not, actually mattered to anyone other than the TINY number of LGBT people who are interested in religion.

    1. Talk about missing the point?!

      If you can’t understand why it’s important that the BBC be balanced, or why Pink News is currently running a lot of stories about the opposition to same-sex marriage, then you’re a lost cause already.

      1. I fully accept that it is important for the BBC to remain balanced.

        Why that gives Pink News a license to be obsessed about religion eludes me however.

        Applying the same standards to different media outlets only seems fair?

      2. Jock S. Trap 28 Mar 2012, 2:56pm

        Agreed. Beside the main even if what you were saying was true (which personally I think it isn’t) we don’t have to pay a licence to fund PinkNews or pay a £1000 fine if we don’t. Sadly the same cannot be said about the BBC which means it is right and proper that PinkNews pull up this article about the BBC and it’s bias reporting.

        If you don’t like PinkNews you are free to find one you do agree with, however if you don’t like or watch the BBC you still have little choice but to pay for them or be fined.

        1. Jock S. Trap 28 Mar 2012, 2:57pm

          Sorry got carried away… meant to say “besides that, even if what…”

    2. Its not just about reporting religious opposition as some sort of irrelevant oddity, PN reports those news knowing very well that religious establishment in this country has a political power as in 26 bishop lords in House of Lords, Queen as a head of state etc.
      BBC on the other hand does the same but with blatant disregard to impartiality and fairness too all sides.

    3. Pink News is not funded by every household in the country who owns a television though. It’s a site set up to report stories which affect us as LGBT citizens. If a religion has a shot at us it’s quite correct that they report this. The BBC is taxpayer funded. By people of religion, no religion, LGBT or heterosexual. If they wish to report these stories then they have a duty to every single person who pays for their coverage to either be balanced in their reporting or to not report it. That or people should have an opt out of the licence if they don’t agree with the direction the Beeb are taking on a story.

  23. David Wainwright 27 Mar 2012, 1:49pm

    With a Roman Catholic director general is it any surprise at the scope of the institutionalised homophobia at the BBC ?
    The continual lack of coverage of LGBT Pride every year is testament to their erasing of our cultural contribution to the capitals calendar, is there any other festival which attracts so many people which is virtually whitewashed from the news ? As far as most people in the country are concerned this annual event simply does not exist and they are totally unaware of the numbers it attracts . Coverage of LGBT Prides should attract as much airtime on the national news as the Notting Hill Carnival does. And it is time that London Pride took on this very public slight as a matter for POLITICAL ACTION, they shame the community by not doing so.

    1. But surely the Director General’s religion should be

      neither here nor there ?

      1. I think the important word there is SHOULD, Jon

  24. The BBC is one of the national treasures of this country.

    For all its faults it is streets ahead of Sky and all the other news broadcasters in Britain.

    Without the BBC I expect that British broadcast journalism would sink to the pathetic MESS than exists in the US and Italy.

    1. This absolutely does not justify what this article is discussing. It’s a completely irrelevant point.

      1. It is actually VERY relevant in light of Pink News’ longterm anti-BBC agenda.

        1. That doesn’t mean that the BBC cannot be improved upon. When it comes to coverage of LGBT issues, there is massive room for improvement.

          1. Jock S. Trap 28 Mar 2012, 2:59pm

            Indeed, esp in the light that we, even the LGBT community help fund the BBC.

  25. Unfortunately the BBC – like most news outlets – thrive on conflict. Conflict brings entertainment, whereas agreement is boring. The government has already said that they WILL be legalising same-sex marriage, there’s no debate about that. So the BBC want people who disagree with it for conflict, and (as has been pointed out) the only real conflict comes from these religious nutters (and a few extreme right-wingers). It’ll always be that way no matter what subject they’re reporting on.

    1. Here, here !

  26. Robert in S. Kensington 27 Mar 2012, 1:55pm

    Maybe we should start a petition to the BBC warning them we will withhold our licences. Hit them where it hurts, in their pockets. Why should we pay and not receive equal treatment? It annoys me that we’re not getting enough positive coverage in regard to marriage equality. My cousin in Dorset said she’s so fed up with the way this debate is being controlled by the opposition that she just has to switch the channel.

    Why aren’t any of our entertainment celebrities speaking up for a change? Why the silence?

    1. Because celebrities (for the most part) don’t care. They do what their agents tell them, and their agents will be telling them to do what makes the most money.

      If the BBC is lining their pockets, the celebrities aren’t going to be saying a word about this.

      I must say though, I’m surprised at peoples’ reactions here. I’ve personally hardly ever see the BBC cover anything LGBT, whether positive OR negative. I would say that the fact that they aren’t covering anything directly negative is a good thing, surely? But they do certainly need to get their act together about it all.

  27. Excellent editorial. I hope it comes to the attention of the BBC. Thank you.

  28. Staircase2 27 Mar 2012, 2:27pm

    There is something very odd going on over at the BBC ever since Lord Patten took over as Commander-in-Chief…

    The BBC had then been taking a considerable (traditional) bashing from the Conservatives.

    Of late we’ve had a BBC who has almost totally ignored the NHS Reforms Fiasco – despite considerable opposition from the medical profession, politicians and the general public.

    There are also allegations of vested interest and dodgy dealing afoot re Lord Patten’s links to Private Healthcare Companies.

  29. Staircase2 27 Mar 2012, 2:32pm

    Each time I tried to post that last comment it didnt work (until I removed the link to the alleged dodgy dealings…)

    So here’s a bitly version: http://bit.ly/GKvU89

    This article in the Daily Mail is also interesting in pointing out prior animoisty between Patten and the BBC over the NHS and a FOI request from Tory MP Philip Davies, prodding Patten to ‘hold the BBC to account':
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2047741/Has-Chairman-Lord-Patten-forgotten-war-BBC.html

  30. Staircase2 27 Mar 2012, 2:34pm

    Being, as it is, beholden to the Government as purse-holder-in-chief, the BBC has always been at the mercy of whichever Government is in charge.

    The whole point of the BBC IS impartiality and fair and honest reporting.

    I am currently very disappointed with the BBC indeed.

    1. I’d take the BBC over Murdoch and his skuzzy empire any day.

    2. Jock S. Trap 28 Mar 2012, 3:02pm

      Actually I find the BBC is Very bias, favouring both Religion and The Labour Party. Neither should be and I certainly don’t see why I have to fund a bias channel. Like other channels we should have a choice.

      1. Jock S. Trap 28 Mar 2012, 3:05pm

        Sorry Staircase2 I meant to say that I agreed with most of your comment but… then the message above.

  31. I have been surprised and diappointed by the biased nature of the BBCs coverage of this issue. Could there be pressure coming from the very top, from people whose job it is to be truly impartial?

    Does Lord Patton have direct or indirect influence over the coverage?

  32. Robert in S. Kensington 27 Mar 2012, 3:04pm

    And why aren’t we doing what the Americans and Australians are doing by promoting marriage equality on YouTube and other video methods on television and the internet? Is it no wonder the public’s perception will be that the religious bigots are winning and making sense? We’re so damned disorganised. Unless the BBC provides equal coverage, we’re not going to get anywhere. Why doesn’t StonewallUK produce a video to be aired on all channels saying why marriage equality matters and what it means and counter this bigots once and for all with a constructive, intelligent argument why civil marriage equality should be legalised? All of the negativity from the opposition is going to do a lot of harm if we don’t get our message across.

    1. Robert don’t just complain about other people not doing things. If you feel so motivated YOU make a youtube video.

  33. I see David Cameron is being accused of taking a “cash for Access” bung from the Daily Telegraph owners to water down gay marriage.

    1. See “Archbishop Cranmer” blog.

      PN is not allowing me to post the link.

      1. why what does it mean / is it ?

        Why no url ?

    2. See “Archbishop Cranmer” blog. —————

      PN is not allowing me to post the link.————

      1. Paddyswurds 27 Mar 2012, 8:17pm

        @socrates…
        …..Is this you link Remove the spaces after pasting… http://arch bishop-cran mer.blog spot.co.uk/

  34. I stopped listening to the Today Programme last year as I was so appalled by the people they were inviting to voice their opposition to Gay Rights. They need to use the same careful criteria they use when inviting opposing views on race issues. How are they getting away with it? Some of the most offensive homophobia I have heard has been on BBC news and current affairs shows.

  35. I totally agree with this article. I’m also extremely disappointed by the complete lack of marriage equality coverage in the Guardian, who you would think would be our “natural allies”. The Times (?!) has done a great deal more than they have.

    Thankfully, the Independent had a few weeks of consistent positive coverage of equal marriage also.

    I am actually going to write to the Guardian and the BBC to express my discontent with them on this issue.

  36. The role of BBC Worldwide is often overlooked. In my view the commercial arm of the BBC needs to be examined very carefully to find out how much influence it has over our own national programmes.

    For example, is it easier to sell programmes around the world – especially in the United States – if there is little or no portrayal of LGBT people?

    Could it even be that negative stereotyping of LGBT people might actually help sell programmes abroad?

    We need answers to questions like this.

  37. Craig Denney 27 Mar 2012, 4:51pm

    in 2004 I contacted the Panorama Programme about homophobia in schools and in 2011 over the Witerbourne view care home scandal and in both case they ignored supporting the gay community and I got quite angry with them.

    And in 2009 I found out the BBC’s Children in Need wasn’t giving any money to gay kids, so I kicked their ass and since over half a Million pounds has been given to gay youth groups (see here http://tinyurl.com/yamze6b)

    Also look at the Sunday Programmes the church gets while we get nothing!

    1. You have Torchwood.

  38. Craig Denney 27 Mar 2012, 5:15pm

    What we need is a group of people to refuse to pay the licence fee and then take the court case all the way to high court!

    And the once great and mighty BBC will fall.

  39. the BBC must be doing something right if LGBT are complaining.

    Normally BBC are v anti-Christian (a recent report has just said so).

    It is not just religious people who object to gay marriage: look at the list of people on C4M.

    The President of the Philosophical Society (or some such), crossbench peers, etc.

    1. Your first two sentences are contradictory – either you welcome the BBC picking on minorities or you don’t. You can’t welcome bias against groups you dislike yet complain when it’s allegedly shown against groups you support. Try swapping LGBT and Christians round in your first two sentences.

      The BBC is supposed to be neutral. It should also make clear that the proposed legislation refers to CIVIL marriage and, therefore is nothing to do with any religions.

      Excellent article, Adrian!

      1. Thanks! I think James got here via Anglican Mainstream, which has also promoted this article. Good for them. All we need now is for David Skinner to come and tell us how the Brits would have switched sides and fought for the Japs if they had known they were fighting for the rights of you and me to write articles like this :-)

        1. :D You’ve got David Skinner down to a tee! I still can’t get my head round the rabid dislike he has for LGBT people and the energy he puts into attempting to deprive us of rights. Sometimes I wonder if he’s completely lost sight of what he was originally aiming to do (i’m hoping such hatred and bitterness towards others wasn’t his original intent). He’s so fired up, over the top and, well, rabid :D

          He and his ilk have put a lot of my friends off Christianity with their constant obsession and ridiculous pronouncements.

          1. And he is, or until very recently has been, a spokesperson of Anglican Mainstream. Tells you all we need to know about the Coalition For Marriage really. :-)

        2. Yep, lets wait and see if David Skinner pays us a visit, not that we cannot already pre-empt his empty ridiculous Anglican Mainstream Rhetoric.

    2. Whose report said that? Was it the Christian Institute or some such?

  40. Paddyswurds 27 Mar 2012, 8:12pm

    This is an interesting link…. Remove the spaces before clicking
    http://arch bis hop-cran mer.blog spot.co.uk/

  41. Paddyswurds 27 Mar 2012, 8:19pm

    when trying to post a link add spaces and instruct to remove spaces after paste and it should work…..did for me

  42. Robert in S. Kensington 27 Mar 2012, 8:30pm

    I just don’t see the Tory party prepared to suffer defeat in 2015 if they fail to support marriage equality which is what will happen if they don’t get on board. They only just managed to scrape by with a handful of votes in the last election, a hung parliament. They need every gay vote they can get. Do the opponents in their party really want to see the it defeated over this one issue? I doubt it. They’ll need a megadose of pragmatism if they want to see their party re-elected. Tory MP Francis Maude had it right when he said failure to support it will mean the party will be unelectable. He’s so right. This is about CIVIL marriage, nothing more, nothing less. It cannot be said enough times.

  43. Agreed so much with this and thank you so much for putting together such a comprehensive exposure of how homophobic the BBC is

  44. Thank you to all those who have commented on this important topic.May I urge you all to make your opinions known to the BBC as well. Even if they don’t change policy, it’s still important: the more the people who deal with complaints hear what you think, the more likely they will take your feelings into account. If things really are that homophobic at the BBC then, at the very least, they have to read your complaint, discard it, and – if they follow such a routine long enough – realise their job is based on untruth, misinformation, deference to authority. They will hate themselves and it will sap their morale.

  45. Actually, I’m sorry for not including this in my article…

    It turns out Robert Pigott has indeed interviewed ‘homosexual’ people about their opinions – so-called ex-gays in 2006, urging the government not to pass legislation protecting LGBT people against discrimination, because ‘people can change’ apparently. That really says it all…
    http://www.peter-ould.net/2007/03/20/ex-gays-on-bbc-radio-4-today-programme-wednesday-morning/

    1. A great piece Adrian ! Really informative and encouraging.

      Thank you.

      (That Peter Oulds is appallingly patronsing and smug withall)

    2. Thanks to Adrian as well

      It was refreshing to see a piece addressing and teasing out the
      vicissitudes, and convolutions of homophobia at the BBC.

    3. Hello Adrian.. freedom of sexual expression surely includes those who feel they are no longer homosexual.. why does this group bother you so much? I am genuinely, seriously eager to know.

  46. What a superbly written article. More like this, please, Pink News.

  47. To be honest, the deference that BBC News shows towards religious groups is not just smothering debate on LGBT issues. It affects many issues from compulsory town council prayers to education and abortion. We are all in this together and we need to form a unified response to this.

  48. Craig Denney 28 Mar 2012, 11:07am

    I say we should all contact channel 4’s Dispatches Programme and question the BBC’s over inflated level of attention it pays to religious opinion in general and or the news broadcaster sounds more like the Church’s public relations department.

    Contact them here: dispatches@channel4.co.uk

  49. Paying your licence fee does not entitle you to a voice, it entitles you to watch tv.

    It is not the BBC’s responsibility to take LGBT issues seriously.

    Again another militant leftee homosexual bullying everyone, Adrian get a life, one that doesnt inflict your leftee opinions on otthers.

    The BBC does not and will not answer to the small minority man that is you.

    1. On the contrary, remit of the BBC News is to give an impartial, objective report. It seems your faith is so weak, you depend on your opponents to be silenced to get your message across. And bullying? Give yourself a break. I’ve only just warmed up.

    2. @Aiden

      Bullying is not only a rather weak form of argument, but it also shows you have lost the argument before it has even begun.

  50. Great article, Adrian. I think the BBC should invite you on to a panel and give you the opportunity of putting all those questions to Colin Hart etc etc.

    I wrote to the BBC to complain about their biased coverage in the News the weekend of the RC church letter being read in pulpits. I quoted durations of time being given to the church and to the opposition and the lack of any sense of probing questions being put to the church – the resposne I got was that my concerns would be placed in the daily log for senior management but that the BBC denied any editorial bias in this matter.

  51. What an almighty whinge! The idea that the BBC is anything but biassed towards the gay rights lobby is just hilarious. See how they rig the audiences for Question TIme, (Guildford pro-gay? Seems odd that sleepy Tory Guildord would be so pro-gay marriage when nationally 70% want to keep it as it is)..watch THe Big Question on a Sunday morning.. Andrew Marr had it right, the BBC is full of gay folk and the BBC agenda reflects this. Impartial? No.. otherwise why send Scott Mills to Uganda to report on laws against gay activity, and the list goes on.

    Re the Bishops, the vast majority of Church-goers oppose plans for same sex marriages, it is the Bishop’s who are famously more liberal than the congregants, not the other way around! Stop perverting the statistics!

    I agree with one point made, BnB owners who dont want to let out double rooms to gay couples etc are not the people who go and beat up gay folk.

    Not reporting matters according to the Pink NEws line is not bias, it is sanity.

  52. One more point… Johann Hari couldn’t rip his way out of a paper bag, he’s a poor speaker, and just comes across like a whiny sixth-former who will have a tantrum if people don’t see how ‘clever’ he is.

  53. Anna Hayward 11 Oct 2012, 3:07pm

    What the BBC seems to forget is that some of us LGBT types have children & families, and the endless air-time given to the hate-mongers gives a very clear message to our kids that theirs are not ‘proper’ families, that they should be ashamed of their parents. Our kids need to know that most people don’t think like that.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all