A personal and professional impossibility
Sarah Ditum in the Independent on Jenni Murray and the BBC and who gets to say what a woman is:
Jenni Murray has presented the BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour for 30 years, and she’s been a woman for even longer than that. At the weekend, the Sunday Times published an article by her titled “Be trans, be proud — but don’t call yourself a ‘real woman’”. Under that headline, Murray criticised some claims of trans activism (and she was careful to say she was talking about the extreme of the debate): that anyone who identifies as a woman has “always been a woman” no matter the age at which they transition, and that references to the female body should be censored in the interests of inclusion.
Not having an opinion on these issues is presumably a personal and professional impossibility for Murray. After all, it was in a Woman’s Hour interview with Murray that India Willoughby, a former ITV news presenter who transitioned in her 40s, declared that women with unshaved legs are “dirty”. How are we supposed to interpret that – a grossly sexist comment – without acknowledging that Willoughby’s views are shaped by decades of living as a man, and, although she may not have personally felt them, did nevertheless enjoy the structural privileges that came with being male? How is Murray supposed to feel about it, knowing that the BBC and the media in general has a miserable track record of sexism and ageism?
Those are things that I wonder too. I do think decades of living as a man make a difference, and that it’s reasonable to acknowledge that and both unreasonable and unfair not to.
Without any dogs in this particular race, I see no big problem agreeing with you or Sarah D uzw.
It’s International Womens’ Day (or will be when you hit midnight on t’other side of the pond). I wonder which group will be first to hijack it or protest it for not being inclusive enough?
MRA’s, Trump lovers and various non-aligned malcontents in Australia and New Zealand well and truly beat you too it. Living on the edge of the date line as it’s ‘privileges’.
Rob, I clean forgot about Int’l (We’re Not All Called) Sheila’s Day! Apologies for my GMT chauvinism.
Found it at last! I’ve been trying to remember where I saw this for bloody ages.
http://pictoraltheology.blogspot.co.uk/2016/09/unmet-expectations.html?m=1
Trans victimhood trumps any objection to Phyllis Schlafly-esque sentiments?
‘Real woman’ is unfortunate phrasing but I think Murray and Ditum are basically right. What Ditum is wrong about is that there is anything sinister in Murray being upbraided by the BBC for her article. It is a clear infringement of guidelines and contract. The fact she didn’t clear it in advance implies she knew that.
Pinkeen, if you read Ophelia’s previous article on this it should be clear that Murray was censured by the BBC for Willoughby’s dishonest portrayal of what Murray actually wrote. It’s the Beeb at it’s craven, bending-over-backwards-to-not-offend worse; up there with its insistence on prefixing Islamic State with ‘so-called’.
Pinkeen – first of all, “real woman” isn’t Murray’s phrasing, it’s phrasing that keeps being pinned on her by headline writers and sloppy critics. Its unfortunateness is not her fault, nor is it Sarah Ditum’s.
Second, the BBC doesn’t rebuke every presenter who voices opinions. Ever seen Jeremy Paxman in action for instance? So yes, it is somewhat “sinister” (your word) that they felt compelled to rebuke Murray.
BBC – Jeremy Clarkson had to actually get publicly drunk on work time and slug a producer before he got sacked. That was after countless racist and sexist excursions.
The BBC rules are for everyone. Paxman doesn’t work for the beeb any more but when he did he couldn’t comment on politics and didn’t express his political views. Murray must have known she was breaking the rules and expected a rebuke.
Acolyte, the guidelines aren’t there to avoid offence but to guarantee impartiality. It’s the difference between the BBC and Fox News.
But clearly the BBC rules aren’t for everyone. Some of what Jeremy Clarkson got away with:
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/mar/25/top-gear-jeremy-clarkson-biggest-controversies-quotes
You seem to be partly right about Paxman, but only partly.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/668348/Jeremy-paxman-article-brexit-british-sovereignty-eu-european-union-radio-times-binned
That was about a specific programme. As I understand it the Beeb scolded Murray in connection with all of Woman’s Hour, not one particular episode.
Pinkeen, I don’t see how Murray was breaking the rules. Did you read http://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2017/lets-hope-a-similar-extinction-is-coming-for-her/ and any of the links? The BBC are punishing Murray based on blatant misrepresentations of what she actually wrote and said.
If Murray had simply agreed with everything Willoughby said, do you think for one second that the BBC would have rebuked her? I doubt they would have, yet complete agreement is far less impartial than criticism of certain aspects of the issue. In fact, by making those criticisms as well as positive comments Murray was being the very model of impartiality. That is unless the very act of having an opinion is itself impartiality, in which.case her work would consist of nothing more than quoting whomever she interviews with no additional comment. Oh, and she couldn’t ask any questions relating to the issue under discussion because that would be…..well…..questioning it (whatever ‘it’ is being discussed), and questioning something is not being impartial.
Paxman was a master of giving his interviewees a thorough going-over, and was never shy of saying so when he thought somebody was wrong. He was constantly rebuking or disputing whomever or whatever he disagreed with, and was like a dog with a bone when his guests were being evasive.If he thought a politician should be ashamed about something he would make it obvious by his choice of questions; if he thought somebody was crooked or inept or supported bad policies then his questions were geared towards showing just that.
But that was Paxo; opinionated, not afraid to ask the hard questions, got high ratings, a man. If Jenni Murray’s style was anything remotely like Paxman’s she wouldn’t have been at the BBC for 30 minutes, let alone 30 years. Oh, and she’s a woman.
Interesting debate–of the brief TV show segment sort–between Julie Bindel and a transactivist named Jane Fae. They’re discussing Dame Jenni’s article and the BBC’s response.
I had to google “You don’t know you’re born.” :)
https://youtu.be/Lyj0iowVZOI
I don’t know, but they should. The rules are clear and she is supposed to follow them. If she wants to work for the BBC she cannot take a stand on controversial issues that are within her broadcast remit. This is true for everyone and it makes sense to me. Most broadcasters submit their comment pieces for review for this reason, but Murray, on this occasion for some reason didn’t. So she got a slap on the wrist.
Not having one, but expressing it. She is supposed to be neutral.
No, he never said that he thought someone wrong, though he sneered at everyone. He wasn’t allowed to,. His schtick was beating everyone up equally. He is not the only heard hitting interviewer like that at the BBC, there are others including women. Martha Kearney and Kirsty Ward are every bit as tough and combative, but, like Paxman, they don’t say where they personally stand on any of the issues.
I think she was told off about a single article in the Times.
The BBC warned Paxman that his article would compromise a single documentary. It apparently warned Murray that her article would compromise all of Woman’s Hour.
[…] to that discussion of the BBC’s rebuke of Jenni Murray for writing a think piece about whether or not trans women are women in every sense – the BBC […]
Yes, but Paxman was no longer employed by the BBC except as a freelance. They could only warn him about that one show because the danger of compromise was limited to that one show. If he had still been a current affairs presenter it would have been different. I honestly think the BBC has operated strictly within guidelines here. Murray must have known the risks, she is a big beast in the BBC, and taken them anyway. It’s not like she lost much.
But Willoughby is also employed by the BBC, isn’t she? Is the problem that Murray expressed her opinions in print?
Oops, never mind. Sorry, I hadn’t yet looked at today’s new posts. One addresses the very source of my confuzzlement!
Both the BBC and RNZ (our version of the Beeb) have a long and proud tradition of long running shows that cover a wide range of issues that broadly fall within a generic header. The presenters are expected to be expert in this field, to be able to collate years, even decades long shows that maintain interest by being fresh, topical and challenging. Whatever your interpretation of the printed standards and your supposition about what is in an employment contract – let alone the interpretation of that – the practice promoted by both organisations is to expect and encourage the presenters to use their expertise to bring the greatest value possible from an interview.
Every god-damned day I hear presenters express personal views, couched as questions, which are designed to challenge the interviewee and thus draw forth more information. Sometimes these conversations are collaborative, an intellectual dance in which each participant takes inspiration from the other and the interview takes on an organic life of its own, returning to the pre-scripted questions only when an interesting thread is exhausted. other times the interviews become combative, when one side or the other feels a statement or position is bullshit and requires challenging. Sometimes the interviewee gets eaten alive, sometimes it’s the interviewer.
This is what I, and many others I think, expect and want from such shows. Not a pissing match or an exposition of one persons views. A real life discussion that brings in the listener as a silent but active participant who is forced to consider, to really think about, the competing views being argued.
In my opinion Murray has done nothing less than her job and the BBC should be ashamed of its unjustified and downright weasily editorial interference. Murray’s job is to be an expert on things that affect women. She is. She distanced herself, carefully and explicitly from hate speech against trans people, but took to task a specific aspect of the actions and philosophy of a certain class of tran-activism. One which frankly seems to adopt something halfway between pre-feminist thought and the wishy washy choice-feminism that has zero intellectual and political backbone.
[…] a comment by Rob on A personal and professional […]
Pinkeen,
Have you never seen Paxman quietly take someone to pieces? Or Evan Davis, or John Humphrys, or Stephanie Flanders. No personal abuse and no propounding of a particular political theory but they wouldn’t be able to do the job if they did not have a profound knowledge of the subject. That’s what we and NZ – thanks, Rob – expect of our serious broadcasters. (We have non-serious ones, too.)
There was the famous occasion on which Paxman asked one minister, whom he didn’t think was up to much, the same question over and again 14 times. It was live and no editor cut him off. Nor do we expect whole news channels to do a 180 turn when a particular point of view suddenly becomes fashionable.
Yes, I have berated the BBC for an excess of caution but after we made an almighty fuss we have just about stopped them in the interest of so-called balance having in for interview an expert on a complex subject only to see him followed by some head case who believes it is all down to little green men.
No it doesn’t. It is much more likely that she didn’t clear it with whoever because she didn’t think she needed to. Probably because she didn’t think she was saying anything controversial; e.g. she was not saying trans women are fake women, but rather that the concept of ‘real’ sex/gender is a quagmire.
Ah, but THAT is the really toxic quagmire, isn’t it? To touch it is death. … aarrghle qqh …
Note the utter surrealism – a woman officially rebuked for talking about what it is to be a woman. A woman who has been a professional presenter of a show that talks about that for decades. Women don’t get to talk about what it is to be a woman now – you couldn’t make this shit up.