How dare the BBC run a debate on whether murdering homosexuals is acceptable?
The headline above was just one from hundreds of blogs and newspaper articles about a BBC online debate last Wednesday.
Be angry with Uganda, not the BBC, said Lance Price. It seems he, as a gay man, wasn't offended by the question. But could it possibly be that, like those close to the BBC, Lance is not entirely impartial? When Jan Moir wrote her infamous piece in the Daily Mail, famous names including Stephen Fry were lining up to make their views known on Twitter and in their blogs.
According to a Guardian piece, BBC Pride had lobbied the World Service to change the headline and end the discussion "to minimise negative reflection on the BBC."
As for the BBC Editorial Guidelines which require the Corporation to be impartial about itself - interesting to note that, once again, the BBC has buried an item touching on its own anti-gay sensibilities.
Under the heading Gay execution 'debate' is a disgrace Balaji Ravichandran says the BBC is not being impartial by letting a homophobic Ugandan regime set its online agenda – it's providing a platform for hatred.
Ben Summerskill said "Given the near invisibility of so many gay issues from BBC news and current affairs - including recent murders of gay people - it does seem odd that the BBC should invite people to contribute to their web forum asking if gay people should face execution. It is becoming increasingly difficult to sustain the idea that the BBC should receive £230 million from lesbian and gay licence fee payers every year."