Now here’s a surprise, the BBC have commissioned a study of the Corporation’s representation of homosexuals etc. The “experts” who conducted the study concluded that the sexual minorities are “relatively invisible” on television and that the BBC should be “more creative and bolder” in how it depicts homosexuals etc. Actually no surprise at all, so far so depressingly normal for the BBC.
We know who paid for them, we did, but who selected and appointed the panel of “experts” who produced this study and who are they?
The chairman of the working group which commissioned the study is the BBC’s present acting director general Tim Davie. He said: “The BBC has a fundamental obligation to serve all its audiences. In fact, it’s one of the BBC’s public purposes to reflect the diversity of UK life. I’m proud to have led this work for three years, and this review underlines our commitment and sets a direction for the work to continue.” The “direction” for the BBC looks like it is going to be yet even more of the same.
Who would have guessed it, a sector of the community amounting to perhaps 1.5% of the population are seemingly under-represented on the BBC. This is the organisation which employs or has employed the “relatively invisible” Clair Balding, Mary Portas, Sandy Tostvig, Kate Perkins, Stephen Fry, Nick Grimshaw, Richard Coles, Graham Norton, Louis Walsh and on and on seemingly ad infinitum. From Eastenders on television to the venerable The Archers on radio we have the positive portrayal of homosexual couplings, such popular programmes as Downton Abbey, Holby City and Doctor Who all feature approving homosexual story lines.
BBC News was particularly taken to task and told that it should be “more nuanced and creative” in its presentation. The tax payer funded news broadcaster is thus not expected to be an objective observer and reporter, but rather is encouraged to be an arm of progressive social engineering providing the nation with supposedly much needed “creative” pro-homosexual news programming.
The really disturbing part of the study, however, is when they recommend that the BBC should use children’s programming to “to familiarise audiences through incidental portrayal from an early age as well as validating children who are going through their formative years and who may be LGB”.
Can we expect Balamory to have a lesbian sub-text? How about homosexual themed Horrible Histories? Adults have an ability to accept or reject the line peddled by the BBC, do primary school children have the intellectual tools to discern the difference between programmes and propaganda?
The state funded broadcaster cannot discern the difference between reflecting the diversity of life in the UK and manipulating vulnerable children to accept the priorities of an elite minority. The BBC got itself into a deep enough hole with its cover up of the programme exposing Jimmy Savile, it seems blindly determined to dig itself into an even deeper hole.