Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Exclusive: Whitehall questions why equal marriage was largely ignored by BBC, Channel 4 and other media

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. The majority of the population are heteros. This legislation doesn’t affect them in the least.

    1. The majority of the population aren’t Catholic fundamentalists either but they get a fair share of screen time and news coverage. The majority of the population aren’t effected by much of what’s in the news, what’s your point exactly?

      1. GulliverUK 20 Jul 2013, 3:51pm

        What are you referring to? The DAYS of screen coverage of the Pope that 90% of the population didn’t want here? The endless pandering to religious views week in week out on Sunday morning shows? If so I agree. Still we can’t have anything other than religious pieces on Thought For The Day, and the CofE is covered like it was more important than the Monarchy – didn’t most broadcasters devote a huge amount of coverage to Welby’s fantasy crowning.

        The joke is that when 1 million attend Gay Pride in London you’re lucky to get 2 mins of air-time. Homophobia can be silent exclusion from society, which is exactly what they’ve done with the equal marriage bill.

        1. Superbly put.

    2. That doesn’t in any way explain the saturation coverage given (mainly by the BBC) to opponents of marriage legislation at Christmas and earlier this year.

    3. “This legislation doesn’t affect them in the least” Tell that to the hysterics then whose wailing and gnashing of teeth was frequently air time on the BBC.

    4. Kate Middleton not having a baby doesn’t even affect Kate Middleton.

    5. According to Alfred Kinsey’s research into human sexuality in the mid-20th century, most humans do not fall exclusively into heterosexual or homosexual classifications but somewhere between. The Kinsey scale measures sexual attraction and behaviour from 0= “exclusively heterosexual” to 6=”exclusively homosexual”. The study showed most persons fall within the range of 1 to 5 equating to a continuum between heterosexual and homosexual, which evidences that most of the population are bisexual, not heteros..

      Unless you have studies and proof more extensive and superior to Kinsey’s respected research on this, I suggests you keep promulgating evidence of your ignorance.

      1. eratta: “keep from promulgating evidence of your ignorance.”

      2. This needs to be taught in schools. I’m so sick of being the one who has to educate these people because school’s and parents have failed to do so. Over and over and over again it’s US who are left to explain to homophobe’s who don’t understand us.

        I’m only 22 but have been an online “activist” for many years, providing previously denied discussions and debates on the subject on global forums. The only reason our society is more accepting is because people like me are slowly educating people one by one. It’s about time parents and the state done their part to help us because I’m getting fed up with having the same conversation with the same ignorant people saying the same horrible things!

    6. Sacre bleu 20 Jul 2013, 1:24am

      Mykelb. What an ignoramus you are. News is only news if it is about the ‘exception’. Perhaps we should make you the news, ‘for being exceptionally stupid’.

    7. GulliverUK 20 Jul 2013, 3:46pm

      The majority of the population have a friend or family member who is gay, and a majority of that majority would want us to have the same rights, and this is about a fundamental breakthrough as you can get, so it would be of interest to most people, and most people would be happy this has happened.

      Allowing mainstream media to get away with ignoring this ground-breaking change is to allow them to send the LGBT community to Coventry, and akin to bullying tactics. Ostracizing people by refusing to even mention their existence unless it’s on your terms is discrimination.

      ps. I’d just mention that on my Android App for The Guardian there is no mention of this break-through under either “gay rights” or “gay marriage” sections — which is absolutely astonishing. Even the Telegraph managed several bitter Luddite sky-is-falling pieces decrying this advancement.

      btw, give it two years and the Telegraph will probably be saying they were in favor of this all along !

    8. Don’t feed Keith!

    9. Government collapsing in Egypt? Why the hell should I care? I don’t live in Egypt!

      You sound like an idiot.

  2. BBC was hopeless. ITV was a bit better with this report on their News at Ten – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyIzIzkVQuY

    Don’t believe it was reported on the early evening bulletins

    1. People should stop paying their TV tax, excuse me license, and tell their local council why they are doing so.

  3. Because most people are indifferent towards equal marriage, that’s why, and before I get a flaming, consider this-it’s my belief that the vast majority of the public have no objections to same sex marriage. That’s a good thing, right?

    But that doesn’t mean to say that they’re going to be dancing on the streets about it, either. People are jaded about marriage; it’s becoming irrelevant to most people regardless of who is doing it.

    It’s no big deal to the man on the street. Frankly, it’s not worth major news coverage. Especially when we’ve had civil partnerships for nearly a decade which most view as being marriage in all but name

    Bet I’ll get flamed even for pointing this out.

    Consider the response from a friend of mine:
    Me: gay people can get married now

    Them: Thought they could marry a few years back. OK. What’s the weather like?

    Gay people have the right to marry. Fine. But, frankly, the news should be concerned with bigger issues.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 19 Jul 2013, 5:50pm

      Well then, in your not so brilliant deduction, the BBC and all other media outlets should just not cover major events in the same manner since none really affect the average bloke or woman on the street.

      1. Oh get a grip, Robert, nobody gives a monkey’s if you can get married or not. Nobody cares either way; isn’t that what you want? To be left alone? Well being left alone means being left alone.

        What on earth do you want-dancing on the streets?

        1. “Nobody gives a monkey’s if you can get married or not”

          In what world do you think it’s appropiate to appoint yourself the spokesperson of the whole world? In YOUR opinion nobody gives a monkey’s, probably because you don’t give a monkey’s. It’s never acceptable to speak for an entire group of people, or even another person.

          I happen to give a monkey’s on wether LGBT can get married or not, as do my friends and family, straight and gay. So yeah, you’re wrong, soz

        2. “Nobody gives a monkey’s….”

          Well they gave a lot of bloody monkeys when they were denigrating us and opposing us tooth and nail from all angles before it became law.

          Or were you asleep during that bit?

          What planet do you live on as it certainly ain’t the same one the rest of us reside.

        3. Sacre bleu 20 Jul 2013, 1:29am

          ‘nobody gives a monkey’s’

          So, does that make you a monkey?

        4. Sacre bleu 20 Jul 2013, 1:35am

          So, if same-sex marriage does affect or concern many, why are you on this site? Please explain?

        5. Jock S. Trap 20 Jul 2013, 8:18am

          If “nobody gives a monkey’s if you can get married or not” why did those certain people make such a fuss to use the media for their discriminatory propaganda agenda?

          Guess it’s easier to change the facts than admit the truth that people of this country were supportive all along.

          The hate speaks for itself.

      2. St Sebastian 20 Jul 2013, 1:48am

        Robert, don’t bother arguing with this idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
        :-)

    2. 10% of the population are LGBT. That means that 10% of the money in the BBC’s pocket comes from tax paid by LGBT people and they do not deserve to be discriminated against by what is supposed to be an unbiased public service that THEY pay for!

      Everyone knows the news is not about real news anymore. It’s about what makes the best “story”. They go out knowing exactly what they want and edit the footage to suit their ideology accordingly, and to support their biased argument. All of the UK and US’s major news outlets are run this way now, They manufacture consent, twist or conceal the truth, validate lies and shape public perception. They deliberatley leave out information they’d rather the public not know about, such as Equal Marraige or the death of Iraqi civillians. If the public don’t know about it, then it didn’t happen.

      “He who controls the past controls the future,
      he who controls the present controls the past”

    3. Yeah right. The biggest news story today on BBC news UK website – three britons escape drug charges in dubai – who cares about that?????

    4. The swivel eyed seem to disagree with your analysis. They seemed to regard the issue as apocalyptic. And they were given plenty of air time

    5. Sacre bleu 20 Jul 2013, 1:31am

      ‘before I get a flaming’

      Go one then, self immolate!

    6. Sacre bleu 20 Jul 2013, 1:46am

      ‘Consider the response from a friend of mine’……. Hmmm – indicates your friend isn’t too bright, and speaks volumes about the company you keep.

    7. Your crass comments are painful to read.

  4. Robert (Kettering) 19 Jul 2013, 5:44pm

    The media was too busy giving the swivelled eyed loons publicity to be bothered to mention the fact the Act was passed, overwhelmingly, by both the Commons and House of Lords. This IS a total disgrace and proof that homophobia is alive and well in places like the publicly funded BBC & ITN.

    1. Especially the BBC. Time for privatisation. Way overdue. It is not a public service broadcaster any more. Hasn’t been for many years. Chases ratings just like ITV. Just costs more while keeping a bunch of overpaid parasites fat at our expense.

      If the beeb are convinced of how popular they are just make the licence fee voluntary. End of argument.

      1. If it’s privatised, it’s even more likely to be unbalanced in its coverage. The answer is to remove political influence from the BBC and to review its charter to make it fairer.

        1. According to the article ITV did cover it. The Beeb couldn’t be more unbalanced they didn’t mention it at all.

          1. They did, if only as a quick “it’s passed, first marriages expected next year” bit in between more important stories like a 12 year old stubbing her toe in school and Kate Middleton not having a baby yet.

  5. Oh, you should be fair to the BBC.

    They did have plenty of articles covering gay marriage. They just didn’t seem to find those in support of the measure worth interviewing.

    I remember when there was that incident with the European Court of Human Rights a while back where 4 Christians were appealing punishments involving homophobia and religious persecution. If memory serves, two of them were hotel owners who had denied services to gay people (both lost their case), one of them was a nurse whose indignant and dangerous decision to wear a cross during surgery got her fired (she also lost) and the final one was an air hostess who had been banned from wearing a cross necklace at work.

    Of the four, only the air hostess won her case. Of the four, she had about 90% of the BBC coverage.

    It’s rapidly losing its credibility as a news outlet, in my opinion.

    1. To be fair, the vast majority of complaints to the ECHR are unsuccessful and Eweida’s case seemed to be the only one that took anyone by surprise, and the only one that altered the way UK employers have to treat their employees. The BBC does seem to have a bit of an obsession with Christianity, though.

      1. They also gave popey the thought for the day slot while banning atheists from ever having a thought for the day because apparently atheists don’t have anything worth saying.

        They are institutionally homophobic and misogynistic. That means it’s obvious to the rest of us but they haven’t noticed.

    2. How funny that pro-gay supporters feel the BBC has an anti-gay agenda. Did you actually follow their coverage of the marriage debate? It couldn’t have been more fawning to the cause.

  6. The Daily Mail did have a passing reference to the story, but it was in an article as much about Stephen Fry as gay marriage.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2367192

    It was hidden in with the bottom of the page fluff stories and took several minutes worth of searching to find.

    1. I searched the Daily Mail website every time the bill passed a major hurdle and they barely reported on the bill. I was looking forward to drinking the tears of Dailymail readers… Oh well…

  7. Colin Andrew 1966 19 Jul 2013, 5:50pm

    I was listening to Radio 4 on Monday night and they have a news bulletin at the top of every hour but there was no mention of the passing of the bill- I thought perhaps it hadn’t happened yet so eventually I checked on PN to find out what was happening only to find it had passed 5 hours earlier !! The BBC was much more bothered about the benefits cap and the hot weather !

  8. Not sure how much i care? I think the media just reflects what’s of interest or importance. Most of my friends though i was married anyway. They hadn’t made the distinction between our civil partnership ceremony and marriage. Although some did enquire if it meant we were having another party would they be invited a second time. Seriously, the swivel eyed loonies are a popular side-show freak attraction – that’s why the media give them so much airtime. I think it’s encouraging that the majority of the country don’t seem to care. What is amazing is the amount of disbelief around the world’s media that the Queen signed the Act. You’d think she’d been personally involved in pushing it through or dancing on a float down Old Compton Street!?!

    1. Well you need to stop thinking that way right here right now. Everybody does. The news has not done what the news should be doing since the mid-90’s. It now caters fully to the political and corporate elite. It deliberatley shapes public perception. It deliberatley distracts it’s viewers from real issues and distorts the truth and validates lies. It has become the tool of an increasingly totalitarian government to shape the minds of the people to their desired worldview.

      The news systematically demonise & scapegoats minorities like LGBT or Moslems. It has become a propaganda tool. My dad falls alseep to these lies every night, they’re drilled into his brain and he never questions the news once. He swallows it up without question. Very dangerous.

      Don’t ever, for a second, assume the News is an unbiased source who’s only motive is to bring the people the truth. Once upon a time yes, but now it’s all about the $$$ like every other industry.

  9. I too was astonished at the paucity of coverage by the BBC – one little article on the main site, hidden away under the ‘politics’ tab.

    I thought maybe they were waiting for the Royal Assent before making it a proper news item, but they didn’t – and that pissed me off so much that, for the first time, I actually emailed a complaint.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 19 Jul 2013, 6:40pm

      Rehan, I did just that two weeks ago and received a very lame response from the BBC. They dismiss our complaints with contempt. You’ll get an email survey shortly after. Make sure to give them poor ratings. Email, tweet MPs and the Lords. You can use the LobbyALord.org website to do that. I’ve just sent 40. Be sure to email all gay MPs too and of course, Lord Alli.

    2. Midnighter 20 Jul 2013, 8:03am

      I also complained, and queried the lack of prominence and notable brevity of the token article on the website. I also asked why they felt the need to stick “bulldozed” as a bold ‘heading’ centred in the copy, placing it nowhere near the context of reference to Howarth’s comment, giving a greatly misleading impression of the sentiment and support in government.

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23338279

      1. Yes, I too was furious that ‘Bulldozed’ was the only sub-heading.

  10. Robert in S. Kensington 19 Jul 2013, 5:53pm

    I hope this is taken further and seriously too. The BBC has NEVER given equal time to supporters of Equal Marriage. Instead they allow the right wing religious loons plenty of coverage and short shrift to those in support. I actually complained about it recently and received the customary lame response.

    The question should also be raise as to why we’re paying tv licences to an organization that is in no way representative of the entire population, particular minorities including ourselves.

    There has been far more coverage about the Bill passing this week in the American media than in the UK. Several friends there told me they heard it repeated on several news channels and adequately in the press, the influential NY Times and Washington Post notwithstanding.

    There has definitely been a partial media blackout covering this debate, no question about it. The BBC et al need to be held accountable.

    1. That’s your problem, Robert, you want to be part of a minority AND be regarded as normal- hence your fight for same sex marriage.

      Well, I’ve news for you; you’re either a minority and therefore different to the majority by definition and same sex marriage should not apply to you

      OR you accept that you are no different to anybody else and stop whingeing when the news doesn’t treat gay people as being newsworthy anymore.

      1. That There Other David 19 Jul 2013, 8:45pm

        So you honestly think the changing of Robert’s status and that of every other gay person in the country (there are MILLIONS of us, sam) from minority to normal is a smaller story than a baby not being born yet?

        You really don’t understand much do you?

      2. Robert in S. Kensington 20 Jul 2013, 12:02am

        Why don’t you just go away, delusional loon and self-loather. What is normal? It seems it is you who has a problem with being gay as well as being ‘normal’ whatever that means. You contribute nothing but negativity to the debate or to anything else for that matter. You sound much like that Spanner UKIP apologist who comes in here from time to time.

        1. St Sebastian 20 Jul 2013, 1:59am

          Robert, some cause happiness wherever they go. Others whenever they go – I think Sam is in the latter group.

        2. You’re the delusional loon, Robert.

          You utterly fail to see the irony, don’t you?

          You fought for same sex marriage-fair play to you on that score, I’m not having a go at that at all. Some would say that made you a hero. And most people would say and for what? To be normal, to be no different to the straights. All laudable aims.

          So now the straights are thinking, ‘Gay people are just like us. OK. Time to move on. No big deal that they can get married. They’re just like us. No need to cause a fuss’.

          I think the problem with you is that you’ve nothing left to fight about on this issue. Actually you have as the bill is not yet equal, so you whinge instead.

          1. clearly you are missing the point. people didn’t fight for equal marriage rights just so they could marry now (civil partnership act largely provided gay people with legal protections afforded to married people), or to paraphrase you “To be normal, to be no different to the straights”.

            many did fight for equal marriage because they wanted to be EQUAL

          2. Robert in S. Kensington 20 Jul 2013, 12:14pm

            So then you should stop whinging about the Bill not being equal. What exactly did you do to make it happen?

        3. Anira Mabeela 20 Jul 2013, 9:42am

          ” … that Spanner UKIP apologist … ”

          Spanner1960’s posts always remind me of the internet troll who posts foam-flecked rants to stories on asylum and immigration issues, and who uses many different nicknames to do so. On the Guardian for example, it uses the names Angus McKay, Raibert and BLOCKEM, as well as a host of others. Far from being a mere UKIP apologist, Angus et al gives every indication of being a card-carrying member of the BNP, and is often accused by others of being such.

          I wonder if today is Samday.

          BTW, elsewhere, the troll has never struck me as being gay.

          1. Robert in S. Kensington 20 Jul 2013, 12:16pm

            Interesting, Anira. Have you also noticed the sudden absence of Keith and whatever other aliases he uses? He predicted the Bill would fail, but he’ll be back shortly I’ve no doubt to regale us with his next predictions and risible outcomes.

  11. Those defending the BBC on the basis that no-one cares about ‘gay marriage’ will need to explain the BBC’s main news on Christmas Day i.e. This

  12. Robert in S. Kensington 19 Jul 2013, 5:56pm

    This does prove though once and for all just how homophobic most of the media are in regard to LGBT issues.

    Just wait and hear how they respond now that Whitehall is making noise about it. Lame excuses, one after the other undoubtedly and none will be pursued as to why.

    1. Peter & Michael 19 Jul 2013, 6:43pm

      We believe that the BBC has been shameful in not including mention of Royal Assent of two people of the same sex being able to marry, yet, always bringing people whom in not agreement to score points against a minority. We come from a time when the BBC actively accused homosexuals of ‘flaunting’ their sexuality, indeed, we can remember when the General Medical Association vehemently were condemnatory in their opinions of homosexuality. Today, the boot is on the other foot, the christians are actively ‘flaunting’ their lifestyle to no avail.
      Today, no homosexual should be threatened by their sexuality and can lead their lives knowing that the law of England and Wales is there to protect them !

    2. And yet the French 24 news channel had a full report on the issue AND managed to give a full report on the matter again the next day including the fact that the legislation had been given Royal Assent and not just in a single bulleton but a number of times during the day.
      I’m just stunned at the BBC and Ive had the same innane and whimpering replys to a number of complaints.

      1. Robert in S. Kensington 20 Jul 2013, 12:07am

        You should send that observation to the key MP players in passing the Marriage Bill as well as the BBC. My friends in the U.S. said it received a lot of coverage on the tv news channels and in the press, far more than what we have seen in the UK.

  13. I asked myself the same question.
    The BBC has repeatedly shown itself to have a slight anti-equal marriage bias. Dressed up in statements like “bill passes Lords, despite 133 opposing the bill’ as a subtitle. Well yes, 133 opposed it, but close to 400 supported the bill, (I’m estimating here because I can’t remember the figures, nor the exact subtitle in the article). I mean it’s something that fits right as a subtitle. It makes it seem like the bill was largely unsupported, or controversial. When it wasn’t. At least in terms of those who supported it against those who didn’t. A close 50/50 split in support, I’d excuse, but it was a poor attempt at subtle bias, no doubt some influence in the bias has to be from the director general’s? catholic faith. Whose also known for talking negatively about secularists.
    There was more coverage and interest from the US ‘CNN’ than Britain’s own media. It’s a real shame.

    1. * [something that *doesn't fit right as a subtitle]

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 20 Jul 2013, 12:21pm

      Mike, I wouldn’t call it a slight anti-equal marriage bias but and ‘acute’ one and you’re right, far wider coverage from the U.S. media, even mentioned on several ‘talk’ shows from what I’ve learned from friends living there and receiving cheers and applause. Meanwhile, nothing on this side of the pond. Absolutely disgraceful.

      I’m surprised Ben Summerskill isn’t saying something, Michael Cashman or Sir Ian McKellen included.

  14. I am not going to pay my license fee in protest, and when they take me to court, I am going to cite multiple issues of homophobic press coverage and their lack of news coverage to pro LGBT issues. Why should I pay them money if I do not want their homophobic services???

    I think if other LGBT people did the same they would soon change their attitude towards us.

    1. Agreed. Stop paying your TV license! When they knock on your door and ask your why, slap them with a big list of the BBC’s offenses. That “Should gay people be executed?” topic on their “have you say” should be sufficient.

  15. Christopher Coleman 19 Jul 2013, 6:03pm

    For all its faults, the BBC news remains better than many. I admit I am thinking here about radio only. The Australian service is also good. Apart from these I read the Guardian online and I go to LGBT sites for appropriate news, as I do not expect it to be covered adequately elsewhere.

    I agree with other comments that this is an issue of interest to a minority of the population. No need for great mainstream coverage. Less publicity also means fewer opportunities for the looneys and bigots. Just look at France, for example. Also, with the Lords caving in and Canterbury openly admitting that opposition to same gender marriage had little public support a splashy story about the new law would generate little or no controversy. And it is controversy and scandal that sells newspapers.

    Let’s be positive. Let’s assume that the news coverage has been low key on purpose, to shield LGBT people from hateful outbursts from all the usual places.

    1. Christopher you make an utterly reasonable post here. Yet you’ve been negatively rated.

      That tells you everything you need to know about the mindset of the majority of people here.

      I suspect that if you are planning on getting married, you see the lack of coverage as a positive thing. As in, the vast majority are mildly happy/mildly unhappy/ indifferent about it.

      The people here are still not happy because it has finally dawned on them that they’ve nothing left to whine about. They’re realising that marriage makes them normal and they want to be different AND normal at the same time.

      They’re having hissy fits and men who have hissy fits-gay or straight-aren’t worthy of the title Man. Women would be more appropriate. You, on the other hand, are a man with a capital M.

      1. ‘… You, on the other hand, are a man with a capital M…’

        stop it woMan, just sprayed my morning coffee all over my white t-shirt with unexpected burst of laughter while reading your post

      2. You’re acting as if every person who comes here just loves to play the victim and likes to have a good old moan. And to say equal marraige is regarded as the last step to equality is downright ludicrous. I’m much more concerned with the intitutionalised oppresion/suppression, conscious & sub-conscious prejudices & physical threats in my own country as well as the horrifying genocide that’s occuring around the globe.

        Your point of view is used often to silence minorities, to reduce their frustration to a persoanl grievence, to discredit the information by painting it as an emotional outburst based on a grudge or spite.

        A black man was elected president in 2008, but a young black boy was shot in Florida this year just because he was black, wearing a hood, and it was night time. The deep seated prejudices die long after the law & the fight against all prejudice wether it’s sexism, racism or homophobia is far from over…

        You say we care too much, but I don’t think you care enough !

    2. Muslims are a smaller minority than Gays If you include gay muslims – Why then is every Fecking issue about their whining superstition main stream news? FOOL!

  16. I don’t know why this has turned into a lot of BBC bashing, don’t get me wrong I’m no supporter of the BBC, however all of the UK media, including the Guardian seemed to ignore this event. I think the French got more coverage on the Guardian website when it was legalised there.

    1. Mihangel apYrs 19 Jul 2013, 6:32pm

      tsk, tsk: the Torygraph published the RCC’s opposition at some length

    2. It’s because the BBC and the Catholic Church actively colluded to try and sink the legislation. They are much worse than the others like ITV and Channel 4

      1. No need to get paranoid.

        The BBC did NOT collude with the catholic cult to sink the legislation.

        That is simply delusional.

        1. your irony is strikng

    3. Beelzeebub 19 Jul 2013, 7:40pm

      Because it is the one media outlet we have to pay for whether we watch there wretched programming or not.

    4. Well I think you’re all missing a worrying trend in the UK media as a whole by focussing on one outlet. Channel 4 didn’t even run the story on their news, at least the BBC gave it lip service (no pun regarding lesbian tv dramas intended). Channel 4 thought it a great idea to broadcast the call for Ramadam though, for those of you who are concerned about the increasing media coverage of religion.

      The license fee is immaterial in this instance as it was not just the BBC at fault and the problem was not confined to TV.

      1. ‘…Well I think you’re all missing a worrying trend in the UK media as a whole by focussing on one outlet…’

        unlike other outlets, bbc is not a private enterprise and has duty to be impartial and reasonable in covering the news and also to serve all sections of society. there are no excusable, valid reasons for the behaviour of tax payer funded entity in the way it ignored the events surrounding the passage of the marriage bill

  17. bobbleobble 19 Jul 2013, 6:22pm

    I think part of the problem is that after the second reading vote in the Lords, the bill’s passage was a foregone conclusion and suddenly it stops being interesting to news directors.

    Still I would have expected something to mark the bill’s passage on the BBC main news bulletins. And the lack of reporting on the Guardian is just perverse! Perhaps Rusbridger is away this week and Michael White is in charge?!

  18. Robert in S. Kensington 19 Jul 2013, 6:33pm

    I’ve tweeted 40 MPs and Lords about it. I don’t see why the tv licence fee is justified if the BBC alone can’t be impartial. It’s absolutely disgraceful.

    1. how do u tweet 40 people without being suspended for spamming?

  19. beeing ignored is probably as equal as you can get !!!

    1. Well said, Len. Some here want the world to be different somehow.

      The. Majority, Don’t. Care. Either. Way.

      That’s good enough for goodness sake.

      To the whingers here: Most straight married people are ignored; now gay people will be too. Get over it!

      1. Commander Thor 19 Jul 2013, 8:11pm

        So why the fcuk were the homophobes given so much air time???

      2. Robert in S. Kensington 19 Jul 2013, 8:35pm

        You need to get over yourself. Straights never had to fight for their right to marry since it was always a birth-right, among many other rights they take for granted. They’ve never really experienced what true discrimination is.

      3. You can really tell the person posting this, and many other people, are white straight men. You can spot them a mile off by their ignorant points of view. White straight men have never (seriously) experienced prejudice or discrimination and so they have no empathy for minorities. They think “it’s no big deal” because they don’t actually have to “deal” with it, ever.

        Except of course when it’s “shoved down their throats”, then they get all pissy because the straight white male isn’t being exclusivley catered to like the status quo demands. They feel they’re having something taken away from them, trying to act like minorities want “special treatment” when all they want is the privileges you were granted at birth that you done nothing to earn but feel give you the right to speak for “the majority”.

      4. Sacre bleu 20 Jul 2013, 2:14am

        ‘To the whingers here’

        Sam, I think it is you that it the whinger here.

      5. Sacre bleu 20 Jul 2013, 2:17am

        ‘That’s good enough for goodness sake.’

        Sam, if that was the attitude all of humanity took, then we’d still be using flints for knives and living in caves. Me thinks you might be a caveman.

      6. Sacre bleu 20 Jul 2013, 2:21am

        “Some here want the world to be different somehow.”

        Sam, do you have a problem with difference? Should we all be blancmange like you? Often it is the different (on a whole range of issues) that make the world interesting, but I guess you’ll never know.

      7. Sacre bleu 20 Jul 2013, 2:28am

        ‘The. Majority, Don’t. Care. Either. Way.’

        The majority are sheep, waiting to be herded because they don’t have the smarts to use their own minds. But, as you appear to think like a sheep, you probably wouldn’t understand the concept of using your own mind, preferring to follow in the herd mentality.

        1. That really IS funny. You’re the sheep here, Sacre bleu because you want same sex marriage.

          You don’t see the irony, do you? Marriage IS sheep like behaviour. It’s about being part of the herd.

          It’s about wanting to be like everybody else. To be accepted (yuk) by society.

          Baa.

          1. Commander Thor 20 Jul 2013, 7:38am

            It’s amazing how idiots can keep replying to threads where there is still a chance for them to continue spewing their bullsh!t, and completely disappear when they have to admit they are wrong – you have not answered my question: If 99% don’t care about gay marriage…… why the fcuk were the homophobes given so much air time???

          2. you are not only a sheep, but the dumbest one in the herd.

            its not about ‘…It’s about wanting to be like everybody else..’ its about gay people being EQUAL like everybody else

            Baaaaa

          3. Actually, Kane, equal marriage IS being part of the herd and why not; nothing wrong with wanting to be treated just like the straights.

            Although it may have escaped your attention that now gay people can marry each other, society will expect them to do just that.

            You see your straight allies in ssm didn’t support equal marriage for equalities sake, they did it because they thought you wanted to be married just like them. Marriage has brought them some happiness and they want you to be part of it. Bit naive of them, I admit.

            If they thought for one second that no gay person would get married, they wouldn’t have bothered. Nobody fought for women having the vote on the grounds of equality only; they did it because they thought women would damn well vote.

          4. Oh dear Sam, you really are a dolt. This is not about marriage, it is about equity and choice – concepts about which you clearly have little understanding. It is precisely because I am not a sheep that I am in favour of same-sex marriage – I want to be able to choose whether I get married or not.

            Sorry to be the one to break it to you, but as a sheep you have no cognitive ability and would therefore not be able understand the process of making a choice.

      8. Sacre bleu 20 Jul 2013, 2:31am

        ‘Get over it!’

        Sam, perhaps you could take some of your own advice!

    2. Sorry, Kane, but you are the one being a dolt on this particular issue- you may be really clever about other things, but not this one: don’t think for one second that now equal marriage has been achieved, you won’t be expected to get married. You will be. Marriage is something that will now be expected of gay people-just like it is the straight people.

      You and your partner -if you have one (not a dig, you may or may not, how do I know)- will now face questions by well-meaning people about when you’re going to ‘settle down’ blah blah. When you’re going to have children and so on.

      This is the type of s*** that straight people experience all the time. Don’t think this has dawned on you yet though, has it? Why would it? You’re not straight. Just wait, though, marriage is about suburban existence. That’s all.

      1. are you saying the possible nagging from “well-meaning people” is the real reason why you didnt support the equal marriage rights?!

        really?

        1. No, Kane, I’m just pointing out the obvious truth that when the straights fought for equal marriage they did so because they thought that gay people actually wanted to get married. They did so with this intention in mind. Nobody who fought for civil rights for black people or votes for women did so so that those people could JUST have equality; they did so because they thought women would vote and black people would make use of their new found rights.

          So don’t be surprised that those straights will now expect gay people to marry each other, OK?.

          I think that equal marriage is from a strategic viewpoint, a bad thing. It’s the icing on the cake when the cake has not yet been baked. In other words, it should have taken place once homophobia is eliminated and nobody gets beaten up for being gay.

          Now that equal marriage exists, that will be the end of gay rights in the public’s minds: there’s equal marriage, what are they complaining about now? Will be the viewpoint.

          1. when black people in usa were afforded equal rights they were no longer forced to sit at the back of bus, they of course could still choose to sit there if they wished, at the same time i dont think white people expected them to sit in the front seats just because they were equal now.

            and just because black people became equal in the eyes of law it doesn’t mean the racism all of sudden disappeared, same applies to gay people

          2. Kane, straight people fought for equal marriage because they genuinely believed that same sex couples are no different from them in terms of love and commitment. Therefore, love and commitment are seen as being the reasons for same sex marriage.

            Do you not think that there will be an expectation by many straight people that gay people will now get married given THEIR (sorry for capitalisation no bold key) view that marriage is bound up with love and commitment? I don’t think you’ve realised that gay people will now be seen, in a funny kind of way, as torchbearers for marriage (which the straights have admittedly done a lot to screw up themselves).

            Have marriage, give it a go if you want, but the cynic in me says that it won’t make you any happier than it’s made straight people, but to pretend that gay people will not be expected to marry given the fact that it’s been promoted as a love and commitment thing by supporters of ssm is a bit naive, don’t you think?

          3. i think you make up the narrative as you go i dont accept there is a genuine pressure from straight allies for gay people to make the marriage fashionable again. equal marriage its not about straight people so lets not dramatise and worry where there is no need for it.

            and one other thing, legalising equal marriage sends out strong message to other homophobic countries around the world that being gay is not something you should be punished for nor the reason to commit suicide.

  20. Jacob Dugan-Brause 19 Jul 2013, 7:00pm

    A little story. in 1994 when my partner and I filed for a marriage license in Alaska and were denied, we talked afterwards with the city desk editor of our state’s major daily about it when a reporter was taken off the story.

    He thought the whole notion totally non-newsworthy and told us, “buy an ad” if we wanted his readers to know about it. Ok, his readers…

    Our subsequent court victory, after the Hawaii win, became a wake-up call in the grass roots equal marriage struggle in the US. Vermont and its legal teams were still several years off.

    What’s odd is that the Guardian ran a 2-page story on it all — huh?

    I’m certain any of us who’ve been news sources (famous for 15 seconds, really) can weigh in with other stories of editors making odd calls on what’s news…. and how they were quite off.

    As to the BBC, it’s big and being big makes it even easier for producers and editors to be dismissive.

    Thank-you to all who helped make this (quiet) victory possible.

  21. it seems personal views of those in charge of bbc (tax payer founded entity) dictate what will make to the news programs.

    these days i’m more likely to ignore all bbc media outlets and visit other major news sources including foreign ones for reliable and credible coverage

    1. Not only that, but they deliberatley pander to the political and corporate elite. The news/media has been taken over. It is in no way informative or unbiased anymore, it has deliberatley attempted to shape public perception through propaganda since the mid nineties. It has manufactured consent for the “War on Terror”. it has also deliberatley silenced “big” stories and distracted the public from serious issues with not-so-serious issues. Their coverage of the Bosnian genocide while it was happening is more than enough proof the BBC deliberatley distort the truth and validate lies for political or corporate gain. They are puppets now and nothing more, question everything!

    2. Quite right.

      I used to watch the BBC all the time, especially when travelling as it was the only reliable, objective, news source available on the hotel channels when I found myself in yet another country which language I didn’t understand. It used to be CNN but I gave them up 15 years ago already as useless.

      Unfortunately, over the past 10 years or so, and especially the last 5, the BBC, as in BBC International for me, has seemingly focused almost exclusively on South Asian and Middle Eastern affairs and happenings. Every little hiccup or non-news event would be extensively covered ad nauseum.

      It now being just another corporate entity I can only conclude that the once great BBC is now so obsessed with their South Asian and ME markets that any news that might upset their viewers there is deemed inadmissible, no matter its importance ‘back home’. It sounds like they’re applying this to the UK as well now?

      I’ve stopped watching it altogether. Shame, really.

  22. I have no doubt the BBC’s coverage in particular has been unbalanced and homophobic.

    Over Christmas and New year I made 3 complaints. Apart from the usual stock answers I was completely ignored. Their complaints procedure is more like a roadblock, completely useless.

    I am pretty sure their unbalanced coverage is a breach of the BBC’s charter.

    I am about to try and escalate my complaints I will see how that goes.

    It seems to me the BBC went from unbalanced reporting to omission and indifference.

    1. I don’t want the BBC abolished as the idea of the BBC is wonderful and we absolutely cannot allow the media to be contolled by evil men like Murdoch.

      I won’t pay my license fee again until the BBC starts doing balanced and adequate coverage to gay news.

      1. I agree, when I have been abroad for extended periods, I have relied on the BBC to keep me up to date, with what is going on both at home and often in the country I am in.

        They do have a usually deserved reputation, for good, honest reporting. On the subject of Gay Marriage however, they seem to have gone astray from there usual standards.

        1. ‘…I agree, when I have been abroad for extended periods, I have relied on the BBC to keep me up to date…’

          well, on this occasion if have you relied on the bbc to keep you up to date, you would still be in the dark about the momentous day when equal marriage become the law.

  23. Jeremy Hoad 19 Jul 2013, 7:41pm

    This is not equality.

    Gaining the right to get married is significant.

    Gaining all the same rights (as married heterosexuals) that go with marriage will be MORE significant.

    Equality means equality. This isn’t equality.

    1. Fair point BUT we will be back to amend these last loose ends….with your help I hope.

    2. St Sebastian 20 Jul 2013, 2:23am

      Yes Jeremy, but it is a step in the right direction.

  24. The media coverage was so low key that I suspect the majority of the population aren’t even aware that marriage no longer only means a “union between a man and a woman”. Have the English dictionaries changed yet, the French dictionary did when they changed the law, but then France did allow gay couples to get married straight away.

    1. According to the Oxford Online Dictionary, nope.

      “the formal union of a man and a woman, typically as recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife:”

      They’d better get a move on!

  25. Maybe because many people thought it had already passed? Or was a foregone conclusion? Or didn’t realise the significance of ‘passing on its third reading in the Lords’? I’m not sure myself how parliament works at times.

    I think the most heartening thing to take from this is how little of a reaction there has been from the bigots. In France, they had huge demos. Here, it’s one big ‘meh.’

  26. I cannot even put into words my rage.

    I was outside Parliament on Mon & was looking forward to seeing and hearing something on TV & radio….there was SOD ALL. The same happened on Wed and AND Fri after the 2.06 Royal Assent.

    What is really going on here? It just dose not make sense…this total media snub.
    I have Any Questions on at the moment….I put money on that Equal Marriage will be ignored….again.

  27. Craig Nelson 19 Jul 2013, 8:40pm

    Well the glass is either half full or half empty. Half full says it is no big deal for people and that the opposition was all froth and nonsense (which we knew anyway). Half empty points up the difference between the BBC and Christmas Day coverage. Still for me the bill is now an Act; we won, they lost. Our society sees it as somewhat as a non-event. Funny that the Act had better coverage in foreign media than our own media (not just the BBC). British media only have time for the following: ‘Tory splits’, ‘UKIP’, ‘blistering attacks by bishops’. The entire issue just dropped out of the media after the successful House of Lords 2nd Reading.

  28. Any Questions on BBC radio 4 tonight. Just 1 day after Equal Marriage became law….Not A World.

    Again …. The plain truth is that the bbc is grossly homophobic.

    Add itv c4 and all printed press….

  29. Isn’t the reason obvious. The media report news. 99 percent of the public are not concerned about gay mariage

    1. Commander Thor 19 Jul 2013, 9:43pm

      99% of the public wasn’t interested in the homophobic bullsh!t we heard either…and yet it was all over the news when it had a chance to appear like a widespread opinion. Once it was overwhelmingly ridiculed by the thorough trashing it got in both houses, that side of the news no longer seemed appealing and they dropped the debate altogether rather than have to present the winning side.

    2. St Sebastian 20 Jul 2013, 6:05am

      “99 percent of the public are not concerned about gay mariage”

      You addlepated twit. Homosexuals constitute more than 1% of the population, then there are their straight friends and family, the good souls that are concerned with social justice and equity; and that is before we even start on those that are opposed to equal marriage rights.

      Besides, what brings you to this website – you are either a homophobe or a closet case. Please explain, which of the two you are?

      1. Robert in S. Kensington 20 Jul 2013, 12:32pm

        It sounds a lot like ‘sam’, ‘spanner’, the UKIP apologist twit and whinger. I’m absolutely appalled that Nigel Farage hasn’t chimed in to express his outrage now that his party of loons is losing ground to the Tories who are now almost at level rating with Labour. So much for the mass defection of the disillusioned fools.

  30. In fairness, there was a lot coverage in the lead up to the first votes in the house of commons – mostly the coverage was given to a minority of opponents who looked liked fools.

    The passing of the crucial vote in the house of commons itself got a lot of coverage too. After that it was certain this law would pass. So any mainstream coverage was to really state the obvious. I am gay, so look in the gay press for coverage – and there’s load.

    I suspect when the first marriages actually happen, then you will see the mainstream press take notice again.

    1. They will because they’ll be a chorus of disapproval from anti-gay marriage advocates. That has been the thread of all of the stories throughout the debate.

      I really think the BBC is on the wrong side of public interest on this. This is an historic moment, regardless of whether its a ‘minority’ issue.

      1. Beelzeebub 20 Jul 2013, 3:00am

        Indeed.

        For the past few years all we have heard about is how “Gay Marriage” will forever alter the unalterable holy institution, etc etc.

        It becomes UK law, and silence prevails.

        Zilch. Nothing. Diddly Squat.

        They really do not want us to have our day in the sunshine.

  31. I actually thought I was going mad the other night. When Royal assent was given I expected a bulletin or something but as I was busy with other things I just assumed I kept missing it.

    Now that I know it wasn’t at all covered I am livid that I am taxed for a service which offers such disproportionate coverage for me. I did notice john snow wearing a rainbow tie but that was it.

    I’m seriously disappointed that in one day future generations are going to look back on this event and see a tumbleweed of silence rolling across the news outlets.

    It really takes something for the politicians to have to point this out to the BBC. Appalling.

    1. ‘..I did notice john snow wearing a rainbow tie but that was it…’

      it is regular item in his wardrobe and i think its got to do more with it being a symbol of peace rather that statment of his support for gay rights

      1. Fair enough. I’m not that familiar with his sartorial habits. I probably only picked up on it because I was on the lookout for any reference to this historic event.

  32. I think people assumed that it had become law when it passed the Commons as evidently the media did.

    No better example of no news is good news.

  33. Harry Underwood 19 Jul 2013, 11:04pm

    I would like to use this comment to thank PinkNews, Gay Star News and other British LGBT news outlets for their coverage. It speaks just as much to the viability of the Internet as to the utility of the LGBT press. Furthermore, so much more of British politicians’ and activists’ comments, both pro- and anti-LGBT, were published on sites like PinkNews than on less-niche news sites.

    I hardly ever looked on BBC News, The Guardian, The Independent – sites which I would expect to be attentive to social reforms of this type – for anything LGBT-related, except for their coverage of the anti-LGBT far right in France.

    From an American, Thank You, GSN and the LGBT Press Very Much for your coverage, and for making history in your country.

  34. If it had only been the BBC which hadn’t given coverage to the passing of the Act I wouldn’t have been that surprised, but, it was all the media, even the Guardian.

    …..it was an interesting phenomona , even the antis didn’t get much coverage. No quotes from Bone or Burrowes or from an irate tory chairman. I know people have thumbsed down some comments but there must have been a reason for the lack of interest of the final royal assent…perhpas it dragged out too long, perhpas there was no gay marriages to celebrate for another yr, perhpas it was thought to be a done deal when the lords voted against dear’s amendment, the whole process did seem to continually go over old ground and get a bit tedious at times.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 19 Jul 2013, 11:58pm

      Odd about the Guardian. It was one of the first to endorse the Marriage Bill. The Independent, Evening Standard, Financial Times and the editor of The Times supported it as did the influential magazine, The Economist.

      1. St Sebastian 20 Jul 2013, 2:39am

        Robert, surely there is something in the BBC’s charter that would require them to report such a significant change in the social environment? Is there no such thing as a media watch dog/commission to who complaints can be made?

  35. PeterinSydney 19 Jul 2013, 11:49pm

    It seems to show that a major source of homophobia rests with media owners and bosses. Perhaps a purge at that level is urgently needed. After all Murdoch’s Fox in USA is a serious opponent of gay equality in America.

  36. “he BBC’s flagship News at Ten featured a lengthy report about a child asking The Queen about the royal baby but it did not have time to mention the historic bill”

    Well it’s good to know that the BBC know their priorities.

  37. BBC can make all the excuses in the world about not covering Equal Marriage. As far as live news radio or television, I can’t comment because it is not available. The Web page however is my home page, checking frequently the story was never reported. One PN comment said there was mention of it on the site but one had to search as there was no headline for the story.

    By contrast this am, BBC “BREAKING NEWS!…. Heat wave moves north west! BBC “BREAKING NEWS! Woolwich attacker assaulted in jail!

    Can’t quite fathom why a historic Equal Marriage bill failed to be hotter news to the BBC than a heat wave. But that’s the Beeb for you… Maybe they figured they would have that wretched Sir Gerald Harworth all over them if they did report it!

  38. Peculiarily I think this may have gotten more coverage on Swedish public television than British. Here’s SVT’s publication on the matter: http://www.svt.se/nyheter/varlden/storbritannien-tillater-enkonat-aktenskap

    (And yes, this is on the royal signing, not the ‘final vote’.)

  39. Lets not bitch. Enjoy the moment and move on. Now lets tackle bullying at school. It must be hell for kids nowadays

    1. But they are related. I hear school kids walking home in my neighbourhood spouting the same “religious liberty” homophobia the BBC are pushing. If the BBC was presenting this in a positive way, kids would pick up on it. That is how attitudes change in the modern world.

  40. Gay marriage in the uk is like the notting hill carnival. The largest carnival in Europe the 2nd largest in the world and totally ignored by all the press….unless something goes wrong

    1. That’s not true James!, there is almost always a large photograph of the NH Carnival on the cover of most newspapers the next day – in marked contrast to the general lack of coverage of Pride in previous years.

      1. Hardly Glastonbury coverage is it

  41. Jan Bridget 20 Jul 2013, 8:14am

    There are six main institutions that create and perpetuate homophobia: religion, law, medicine, media, education and family. Of these six, law is the only one that has changed significantly. If we want to tackle homophobia the other five institutions must also be changed.
    At first I wasn’t too bothered about the same-sex marriage campaign but quickly realised that it was more than marriage – it was a challenge to religious homophobia. As time went on this became more and more obvious. And I actually do think the campaign has challenged, in a significant way, religious homophobia (clearly there is much, much, more to do and keeping Archbishop Welby to his promise of tackling homophobic bullying in schools would be a start, as would an in-depth television programme about the role of religion in creating and perpetuating homophobia – perhaps with an emphasis on the more recent past).

    1. Jan Bridget 20 Jul 2013, 8:16am

      Over 25 years of being an activist I have observed the news media: from dreadful homophobic headlines, to being personally attacked in local media over several weeks, to watching/reading about the battles to challenge homophobic laws. I have also, over the years, submitted press releases about my work with LGBT young people with little success (unless I, personally, knew the reporter). Similarly, I have made lots of complaints about biased reporting but none have ever been properly dealt with.
      Without question there are some aspects of the media that have changed impressively, I am thinking of soaps, films, coverage in magazines, etc. But the one area where little has changed has been the news – in both television and newspapers; admittedly, the homophobia is not as blatant.

      1. Jan Bridget 20 Jul 2013, 8:18am

        What has happened with the coverage of the same-sex bill has happened many times before with the news media giving lots of cover to opposition (giving homophobes free air time/print) whilst virtual silence when we have won a battle. Or using the argument of giving equal time/coverage to both sides (and in so doing, giving more time to the homophobes). So here comes a suggestion for another television programme – the biased covering of LGBT issues in the media, in particular the news media.
        Again, my thanks to PinkNews for their coverage of this issue: I am hoping PinkNews and significant others will keep up the pressure against homophobic and biased news coverage .

        1. Robert in S. Kensington 20 Jul 2013, 12:42pm

          Hear, hear, Jan, well said. The biased daily right wing rags have earned them a distinguished place in the hall of infamy around the world. They are treated with utter contempt and scorn in the U.S., Canada and elsewhere. The BBC hasn’t fared well either outside of the UK, no longer assumed to be the most eminent news broadcaster as it used to be. The lack of adequate coverage of passage of this major, historic piece of legislation is evidence of that.

          1. Jacob Dugan-Brause 20 Jul 2013, 2:41pm

            Jan and Robert. Good thread here. This is exactly what years in activism brought me to conclude as well — that societal opposition we as LGBT people face are varied and not at all constrained to the devil we see.

            I sense that a comparative country-by-country media analysis of coverage could be quite valuable. What would we learn from such research? Might it bring light to homophobic bias or not?

          2. Jan Bridget 20 Jul 2013, 5:35pm

            It’s fascinating what has come up – did we set a trap to ‘out’ the homophobia of the church and the media?

            Yes, Jacob, an analysis of world coverage would be interesting. What’s with the British media?

            I spoke on BBC Radio Leeds & was verbally attacked by the bisexual interviewer, I was unprepared for this and turned down a 2nd invitation. During the campaign to make homosexuality legal in the forces I went on BBC Radio Leeds being assured there’d be equal people for and against. I was one of a few supporters with a lot of heavyweights against me.

  42. Jock S. Trap 20 Jul 2013, 8:22am

    It seems it was only important when the very idea of equality was being trashed by the bigots.

    All the media is doing by using themselves to promote the hate, the discrimination when it suited and ignore when we should be proud and celebrate, is show themselves up for being completely irrelevant to the 21st Century needs.

    They serve no place in society other than to divide and promote a hateful agenda. How can that serve the interests of the public?

    1. Sorry. I reported you by mistake. Big hands small key syndrome

  43. I think that when it comes to issues of sexuality and also gender the Beeb in particular is still quite an old-fashioned retrogressive organisation. Hence the absence of same-sex dancing couples on Strictly for instance – whilst, ironically, many of the countries that have copied the BBC’s flagship programme have included same-sex couples for a few years now.

    1. Not when it comes to showing breeders shagging they aren’t.

  44. GulliverUK 20 Jul 2013, 8:52am

    BBC and ITV dumb down the news, not sure I’d want them covering it – because they would find a way to trivialise what is for us, and our friends and families, a very serious but joyful occasion.

    Channel 4 News is generally good, but Channel 4 lost its way long ago, pandering to religious groups, provoking reaction, and now completely ignores us – once upon a time, during Pride, they would screen gay-themed short films and magazine / panel shows + discussions, “Queer Street”, “Coming Out on 4″ – all long gone.

    We need our own TV channel – who else is going to broadcast gay-themed films, documentaries, news, etc? Much of this has shifted to YouTube.

    I’m not really that surprised they’ve ignored it, but very disappointed. But then I hardly watch anything on the BBC, ITV or Channel 4.

    1. Jan Bridget 20 Jul 2013, 10:35am

      It would be good to have a minorities news channel.

      1. St Sebastian 20 Jul 2013, 1:26pm

        Whilst the sentiment is good, having a minorities channel will only marginalise minorities further. The mainstream media will then consider they no longer have an obligation to report on minority issues. The media is the Fourth Estate and as such have social responsibilities that have to be integrated, not subjugated to their commercial interests and responsibilities.

        What is needed is an enforceable and transparent code of conduct (with real teeth) for both journalists and proprietors.

        1. GulliverUK 20 Jul 2013, 3:57pm

          You can extend that very same concept to gay bars and clubs, but we have those to create community, to find suitable partners, to have a safe-space. Whilst you can chose to spend all your time in straight pubs, it’s nice to have a safe-space, a community space, a place to call your own, if you want it. Somewhere you can be yourself without having to feel like you have to act a certain way to fit in.

          Besides, now that the BBC and Channel 4 no longer provide any of their previous charter-required LGBT-themed programming, we can all sit at home with LGBT-themed movies, or we can be treated as part of society and given some LGBT programming on the broadcast systems we all pay for. The BBC in particular have a charter requirement to provide programming for minority sections — something it has failed to do for us for more than a decade.

          Who is going to redress the balance – you don’t say. I think this can now only come from having our channels, just like most other minority groups

          1. St Sebastian 21 Jul 2013, 4:08am

            Hi Gulliver

            I agree with you wholeheartedly, i.e. we should have our own social places & spaces where we don’t need to be self-conscious.

            In some ways we do have our own media channels, like PinkNews, Advocate etc. but what I really meant is that we have to be careful that a minority news channel is not an alternative to inclusion in the mainstream media channels which are part of the 4th Estate, unlike special/minority interest media like PinkNews.

            The general community is really only a matrix of minorities & majorities & each individual is just a matrix of concurrent membership to multiple minority & majority groups. No one should not be defined by only one of the minority (or majority groups) of which we are part. Gay people shouldn’t be ghettoised just because they are gay & although being gay is a vital part of our identity, we all have identities and connections outside the gay community. We must therefore demand our news not ignored by the 4th Estate mainstream media

    2. That’s true, but show me a news channel worldwide that isn’t dumbed down.

      Watching American news is hilarious.

  45. Robert Doyle 20 Jul 2013, 10:34am

    We got most of our news about this act from France24 News Channel. Coverage much better than Sky, who were obsessed withGlee actors overdose and a plaque Kate Beckinsale was unveiling for her dad!

    BBC were fairly absent too on this issue! Too busy paying off executives with golden goodbyes!

  46. theycantdothat 20 Jul 2013, 10:56am

    We kept on saying that same-sex marriage was no big deal. Seems like the media have taken us at our word. The government’s response suggests that one of the reasons for introducing same-sex marriage was as a distraction from its problems. Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s great that a Tory PM felt able to back same-sex marriage and it shows how far the Tory party (or at least those currently in charge as I am not sure about the rank and file) have come in only a few years.

    I also think it is fair to emphasise that the third reading of a bill, whilst not exactly rubber stamping, cannot be used to debate issues already debated but only to clarify or tidy up its provisions. The significant reading is the second reading.

    We now have what we wanted and there is no need to shout it from the tree tops.

    1. Jan Bridget 20 Jul 2013, 11:11am

      I disagree. There needs to be some positive balance to counteract all of the negative coverage and the damage this is likely to have done to young people coming to terms with their sexual orientation.

    2. theycantdothat 20 Jul 2013, 4:10pm

      Negative coverage was foreseeable. Stonewall said, in my view rightly, that with the Civil Partnership Act giving gays all they needed (apart admittedly from the dignity of being able to use the word “married”) same-sex marriage could be put on the back burner with campaigning directed at achieving actual equality and addressing the problems of young and small town gays. They were though shouted down and browbeaten into following the line of sophisticated urban gays who do not run the same risks. The case is proved by the uncompromising attitude, previously largely dormant, manifested by those in the anti-gay camp. Gay marriage may be right, but I fear it has been bought at a high price which need not not have been paid if more patience had been shown.

      1. yea keep your head down so maybe you wont get hit by homophobe, avoid certain b&b’s and you wont run the risk of offending a christian and most of all don’t be gay if you don’t want to be executed in iran etc. with apologist attitude like yours we would still be facing the prospect of criminal record instead of marrying other half

  47. GingerlyColors 20 Jul 2013, 11:21am

    It seems ironic that the law to legalize gay marriage in France seems to have had more coverage in the British media than our own Equal (Same Sex) Marriages Bill (England and Wales). But this is no doubt due to the sometimes violent protests against it orchestrated by the Catholic Church/Le Penn brigade.
    Perhaps the media doesn’t enjoy reporting good news.
    They say ‘Don’t shoot the messenger when the news is bad’ but I do make an exception to that rule for when the messenger delights in giving bad news!

  48. Patience. The universe has a way of restoring balance. There may be no news about Gay marriage today, but in 15 years, when the young heir to the throne announces being Gay, then we will have many years delighting in the decades of delicious news as we watch the minds’ of straight folks exploding over the “appropriate” protocol of a Gay spouse to a King/Queen. Patience.

    “The suspense is terrible… I hope it’ll last.” – Willy Wonka (Gene Wilder)

    BTW: Regardless of Harry’s token female dating, his other actions definitely trigger the gaydar. Being a 2nd male, it further increases the likelihood. With the heir being born, do you think Harry will come out, now?

    1. “The universe has a way of restoring balance”?! After WWI for instance? The 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami?

      1. wtf! What a disgustingly awful thing to say.

        1. Really? So you believe in The Restorative Power of The Universe, do you? I suggest you travel to parts of the world where the process of restoration appears to be somewhat behindhand.

  49. Robert in S. Kensington 20 Jul 2013, 12:11pm

    Wait until C4M and the other religious nutters start another rampage, it will be front page news in the Mail and Telegraph and the other ‘hate’ rags and given adequate coverage on the BBC. They’ll even invite some of them on for interviews while ignoring anything decent about the historic vote earlier this week.

    You can bet the arrival of Will’s and Kate’s baby will be the main headline of course, several pages of it as if that affects the lives of any one of us and considered to be of the utmost importance.

  50. I don’t have a TV licence for this reason, you can download TV programmes from the net and bypass the need for a licence.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 20 Jul 2013, 12:33pm

      Good idea, David, spread the word. I’ve no doubt if this ever became a widespread practice, the BBC would be the first to ask the government to clamp down on it and demand a fee.

  51. Well on NewsWatch (the BBCs point of view type program for BBC news) the lead story was the fact that some people are unhappy about the weather reports being over positive about it being sunny (about 5 mins in total on the weather)!

    The Marriage Bill was in ‘Other News’ and had about 1 min worth of time! It would appear even the complaints of the Act of Parliament not getting any coverage dont get much coverage themselves!

  52. Robert in S. Kensington 20 Jul 2013, 12:46pm

    Proof of their blatant homophobia was confirmed when they posited a survey asking if gays should be executed, remember that? Would they have said it about any other group? They wouldn’t have dared. Enough said!

    1. I’m trying to give the BBC the benefit of the doubt on all this. I’m trying to believe the blatent homphobia is down to a few bad apple’s in management and down the heirarchy. A gargantuan collection of mis-guided judgements… but it’s hard! Especially when it’s so blatently biased on every possible level. Surely the BBC will have gay staff members who find it discouraging ?

      1. Jacob Dugan-Brause 20 Jul 2013, 2:48pm

        Well, a good friend who was a gay, professional radio journalist told me that when a LGBT news lead would come along, he wasn’t given the story for fear listeners would claim bias because he was (openly) gay!

        The leads were given to other reporters who couldn’t have cared less. That was in the 1980s. Hope it’s better now, but do we know?

        1. I don’t recall R4’s Evan Davies, who is openly gay, ever being allowed to cover a gay news item on the Today programme.

          But the BBC wouldn’t hesitate to give a story about race relations to a black reporter, in fact they’d probably choose a black interviewer deliberately.

          Similarly, Today’s Sarah Montague always seems to cover the feminist stories.

          Definitely a case of double standards !

      2. Robert in S. Kensington 20 Jul 2013, 3:04pm

        I suspect even if they have gay staff members, none are going to make any noise about it because of their job security. The powers that be might just make the work environment uncomfortable for them as a means to get them to leave. They do it in subtle ways nowadays to avoid potential prosecution.

        Of course, any blowback against the BBC will be met with an iron-clad shield of denial of any such claims by citing its employment practices with several gay people working there as if we’re that gullible, but the hetero public at large might be, especially right wing Tories and other extremists who hang on every mendacious word to suit their agenda.

  53. Benjamin Cohen 20 Jul 2013, 3:47pm

    On some levels, obviously, the lack of coverage has suited us as we’re one of the only places working on it, and when a newspaper has run something it includes a quote that someone like Cameron, Clegg or Miliband has given us. But it’s a bit ridiculous.

    The largest piece in a newspaper was actually written by me, which is great for our side, but hardly balanced!

    1. GulliverUK 20 Jul 2013, 4:09pm

      Pinknews has helped by acting as a focus for what’s going on, but imagine if that had been a national channel, on TV, one which most LGBT people watch a couple times a week, how much more the LGBT community could have been energised, how ours could have been the petition with 2 million signatures on. I’m for the integration of minority groups, because often their minority attribute is only a part of their identity, but culturally we do all need to have an outlet which reflects that culture, than expresses that culture, and an LGBT channel (even if not exclusively, but mainly) is missing when I flick through my TV channels. Where’s my culture on TV?

      So, I buy LGBT-themed movies and watch them at home, but it’s not like 100,000 people watching the same movie at the same time, a shared experience, and no doubt one we’d supplement with on-going twitter commentary as we watched ! PN has been a focus for many, but TV, as a medium, is far more captivating than static text on an LCD.

      1. Maybe that should be Benjamin Cohen’s next venture…

        PinkTV?

        1. gulliveruk 20 Jul 2013, 6:00pm

          I was trying to give a subtle hint :)

    2. @Benjamin…..how about pinknews tv or radio with a strong political focus. Local and international lgbt news. Id listen! X

      1. Seconded. We need to take control of the way we are represented in the mainstream media.

        Plus I’d make a great news anchor ; )

  54. I’d watch channel 5 news rather than the bbc as channel 5 has superior journalists to the bbc’s biased, shoddy, amateur, misleading , self praising journos. The sooner this terrible channel is privatised , the better. I never watch it, but yet have to pay a license fee.

    1. Having chosen a lot of those journalists personally, I thank you. During my time there, I pushed for more LGBT coverage, and it seems to have stuck fast. I’m proud of the guys.

  55. gino meriano 20 Jul 2013, 4:53pm

    who cares they would have only make us look like fools covered it wrong, got some negative angle to it as well – we know this version of same sex marriage is passed job done

  56. it seems not getting “brownie points” is disturbing but doing the long campaign to equality, through the 70s 80s 90s the masses on the Pride marches rarely got a mention and if so was usually factored down, 100,000 was a few hundreds etc.

    I never understood comments that BBC is leftist pink politics. They seemed to fill their ranks with saville-clones.

  57. Tom Cotner 20 Jul 2013, 5:05pm

    Most media give ample coverage to items which bring in revenue. They largely ignore items which do not.
    This is probably an item which they considered gave them no revenue.
    BBC is not alone in this — the media in the US act in very much the same way.
    As long as something is controversial and can be whipped into something that the public will pay for, it is treated as news.
    As soon as the matter (whatever it may be) is resolved, the probability that it will not make them money comes to the fore.
    We do not have a free and honest media, either in the UK or in the US (or anywhere else, for that matter). We have a commercial media whose only concern is its bottom line.

  58. I was surprised that the BBC barely covered this story. And more than a little angry that they didn’t.

    I was interviewed for BBC news about this issue sometime ago, funny how now that it passed, they don’t seem in the slight bit interested.

  59. Terry Eastham 20 Jul 2013, 6:44pm

    For a state broadcaster the BBC’s coverage of the equal marriage legislation was atrocious.

    Centuries of discrimination and inequality done away with and it gets a brief mention on their website.

    Highly unimpressed with the institution that is the Beeb.

  60. Bill Cameron 20 Jul 2013, 6:44pm

    I posted several tweets about the lack of media coverage both on the day the legislation cleared the Lords, its final passage through the Commons and of course the Royal Assent by HM. I think the lack of coverage, with a few half-hearted exceptions admittedly, speaks volumes.

    I also have a rather sick feeling that if it had been a Labour government in power just now and it had succeeded in getting this legislation onto the Statute Book it would have received much greater coverage, particularly on the BBC (think back to the coverage that the Civil Partnership legislation received).

    1. That There Other David 20 Jul 2013, 7:51pm

      The CP Bill was given coverage because the Lords and the Commons clashed repeatedly over it. It allowed the BBC to talk up the position of the anti-LGBT side into being representative of something.

      This time, without that, the reports they were obviously chomping at the bit to write were useless to them. They wanted a big controversy, something to justify the way they’d talked up resistance to the bill when in reality it simply wasn’t there.

      And when that didn’t happen they decided to sulk. Even the report on the Royal Assent gave equal space to Gerald Howarth alone compared to all of the pro-equality peers and MPs that commented on that day.

      Pathetic all in all.

  61. I was surprised at the lack of coverage as well. An alternative explanation (to the charge of media homophobia) is that the media didn’t want to give Cameron the opportunity to use it in his campaign to prove that the Tories are no longer the “nasty party”.

    [For the record: I think there *is* homophobia in the media, and that the Tories are nasty!]

    1. It certainly seems more Fair and Balanced than the BBC !

  62. I was as astonished as everyone else that there was no indepth coverage of the passing of the Act especially as earlier on in the debates TV stations delighted in showing us right wing dinosaurs and religious nutters pulling their hair out. Of course, the first religious ceremonies will be covered with both outrage and delight. Now I will go and buy my TV license for £145.00. Thankyou!

  63. Robert in S. Kensington 21 Jul 2013, 12:29pm

    I think we should all make noise about paying for a licence fee. Why pay it if the BBC refuses to provide balanced programming and often helping promote homophobia by giving broad coverage to the religious loons?

    I’m surprised Ben Summerskill hasn’t chimed in as well as other equality organisations. Something really needs to be done to address this. Perhaps if we knew exactly who the individuals in Whitehall are, we could lobby them to do something? It’s not just about the Marriage Bill but about all LGBT related issues.

    1. is there a legal way or some kind of loophole that would allowed people, without breaking the law, not to pay tv licence, apart from not having tv device?

      i suppose the duke of stonewall ben summerskill, given his public (uncle tom) opposition to the equal marriage is now trying to keep low profile

      1. Yes, there is. Just don’t watch or record TV programmes as they are broadcast. You don’t need a licence to catch up via the internet, play back programmes your friends have recorded for you, play games, watch DVDs etc.

        However, Ben Summerskill certainly isn’t keeping a low profile. He says that pardoning Alan Turing is a pointless exercise, a news story on which PN has yet to report.

        http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/20/alan-turing-posthumous-pardon

        With amazing hypocrisy, he starts by saying

        “Happily, in recent weeks, the House of Lords has put itself convincingly on the right side of history by overwhelmingly supporting gay marriage. So what might a revising chamber that has proved rather unexpectedly – even to itself – that it has become determinedly 21st century do next?”

        Having opposed Equal Marriage, he would do well to become determinedly 21st century himself !

        1. Alan Turning was covered on Friday in great detail on PinkNews

          1. True, but I was referring to PinkNews not yet having covered Saturday’s story about Ben Summerskill opposing a pardon for Alan Turing. That’s surely much more newsworthy than the 1,034th rant by the WBC, is it not?

        2. I want to watch other channels and programmes live, but I boycott the bbc.

    2. ben summerskill was the anti marriage poster boy for the fascist scum who oppose our civil rights, so I don’t expect this self praising hypocrite to do much for LGBT issues.

  64. Robert in S. Kensington 21 Jul 2013, 12:32pm

    I urge everyone to email or tweet their MPs who supported the Marriage Bill as well as the Lords. I’m sure many of them have noticed this blatant ignorance by the media.

    1. Godric Godricson 21 Jul 2013, 5:33pm

      Preparing a letter already and to the lovvies at C4

    2. Robert – 99 per cent of the media reported the progress of the marriage bill and supported it wholeheartedly. Now it’s about to become law there is no conflicting argument to give that can change things and so it’s not really a story.

  65. Taking into account the anti-Gay religious bias the BBC has given its coverage on equal marriage, I imagine they chose not to cover it unless a bishop was willing to come forward and criticise the decision.

  66. Too busy pandering to Muslims.

    1. Apparently apart from given mass public platforms to terrorist suspects. The bbc news is now accused of lies concerning terrorist Michael abebolago “assault” in prison, taking a very sympathetic, biased view towards this murderer, from an interview with his brother. However the shoddy, poor journalists of the bbc were unwilling to investigate his brothers allegations of mistreatment by staff or access to medical treatment , which have been vehemently denied .
      The bbc is a scandal ridden cess pit of inferior, low standard programming. I don’t watch it and am really angry I should pay for an anti british/anti secular values channel.

  67. …maybe because so-called ‘equal marriage’ or same-sex marriage is a contradiction – it’s only pseudo marriage.A contradiction like the ‘vegetarian’ who eats steaks. Marriage being the life long bond between a man and a woman.People have got more important things to think about than the homo-lobby distorting language and meaning .

    1. More important things? Yet you chose to use your time commenting here, ray. Why does equal marriage bother you so much?

      And shouldn’t you be using your time campaigning against divorce, marriage being for life as you believe?

    2. Who says marriage is defined as that between a man and a woman?
      The definition of marriage has changed throughout time. It’s older than all surviving religions, and will most probably outlast the ones still around.
      You don’t get to define what marriage is. Nor does the church. Neither of you own it, nor did either of you create the concept.
      Considering the fact that Hindus have been using marriage far longer than Christians, maybe they should start complaining about how Christians have corrupted marriage to suit a Christian agenda.
      The churches, the rituals, the priests, all change what marriage used to be.

  68. The matter of the fact is: WE CAN NOW GET MARRIED, LIKE IT OR NOT, Stuff BBC, ITV, Daily Homophobic mail. We won, they cannot do anyhting to spoil our happines now, it is time to show them that we are now being recognised for what we are, like it or not.

  69. Oh Pink, darling, do stop flapping! When was Royal Assent to any Bill ever a news story? The story was the House of Lords’ passing the Bill. The Royal Assent was merely a routine administrative consequence. There had ceased to be any great controversy over the Bill (after the church party threw in the towel). No, the BBC got it right as always; very full coverage of the debates, then a note in their online news that it had come into effect. Of course more viewers and listeners were interested in a forthcoming royal sprog. That’s just a fact of life.
    I’ll bet you one thing. If two gay men manage to produce a child it will get more coverage even than Kate and Will’s effort.

  70. What a bizarre and misinformed story. There was blanket coverage of the progress of the same-sex marriage bill from all media and, bar the Telegraph – which was is the only media outlet among 100s to offer a balance of opinions – coverage was in favour of a change to the definition of marriage.

    Criticism of the BBC is misdirected – they went out of their way to give a voice to those supporting the bill and had a blocking and mocking policy to its opponents.

    1. You’re missing the point entirely.

      When it was passed, when it received Royal Assent, it wasn’t covered by the BBC — which I would remind everybody has a charter requirement to cover issues relevant to minority groups, and to present factually correct and unbiased news coverage – I believe I should know as I worked there for almost a decade. They once had magazine programmes covering us, and any suggestion that BBC Radio covers LGBT issues better than TV is absolutely correct, but news coverage is dumbed down to the dumbest level possible to appear to everyone. Now, we’ve had all these BBC funds providing cultural radio stations for other groups, and yet no magazine programmes for more than a decade, and no radio station, and no coverage of one of the most monumental legal changes since 1967. I was there, I know exactly what the BBC is like inside, and despite policies inside, for workers, its news coverage is homophobic and biased — not all news coverage, it depends, like ….

    2. … the Daily Mail and others upon whom is on the Editorial Desk at the time. News bias is often defined by who sits at what desk on any given day. It’s as true for some newspapers as it is for TV. Even a reporters own biased comes through — look at Nick Robinson – he was accused of letting his Tory leanings override his political judgement during the last election, and Kay “nutter” Burley couldn’t hide her hatred of Labour, and Adam Bolton practically exploded on TV.

      Presenters, and the materials they are given by other human beings, present views which are not always going to be unbiased – in fact being unbiased is extremely hard work !

  71. David Cameron and his party weren’t bothered when the LGBT community was largely ignored in the opening ceremony of the Olympics last year.

  72. Dave and his party weren’t bothered when the LGBT community was largely ignored in the opening ceremony of the Olympics last year.

  73. Sorry re above. Thought I hadn’t been printed.

  74. A lot of the ‘opposition’ to marriage equality seems to have been manufactured by the media in the same way that they give airspace to fascists, extremists, climate change deniers and other wingnuts [ BNP, Abu Qatada and Stephen Green spring to mind ]. Maybe this has had a positive outcome as it’s made opponents look ‘completely fruitcake’ as UKIP founder Alan Sked recently called them, but it does seem like something out of Chomsky [ everyone is entitled to have their own opinions but anyone whose opinions aren't right wing enough isn't allowed to express them ]

  75. It saddened me greatly to see nothing about this historic motion. I popped to our shop hoping to find something in the paper. Nothing! Yes it’s wonderful about the baby. But it’s not the first Royal baby and want be the last.

    This is something special for millions of us…but it seems a small child asking the queen about the baby was much more important!

    Yes very sad indeed :(

  76. The reply to my complaint to the BBC: We have covered the issue of same sex marriage in great detail over the past year as the bill was being proposed, then brought forward and its subsequent passage through parliament. The significant moments from a news point of view were when its details were outlined and when it faced key votes that might have halted its progress. We covered all these, did plenty of reaction and viewpoint pieces, a Q&A and a range of features with the issue frequently being the top story on the front page of the BBC website. The actual gaining royal assent is more a formality in a process after the bill passed through parliament, rather than a key news story. That is why we marked the occasion with a news story but did not make it the top story on the BBC’s website on that day.

    Pfft.

  77. This has made me so angry I am literally flabbergasted. The BBC continually sticks the knife in when it comes to gay people: the Steve Green incident; failing to give national coverage to Michael Causer’s murder; and not least the horrendous debate about whether gay people should be executed, which still makes my blood boil to think about even now. An absolute disgrace.

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

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all