The nature-versus-nurture debate was examined in a documentary last night (BBC1, 9pm) when John Barrowman tried to find out what made him gay. The programme summarised almost every theory about the cause of homosexuality. We saw John's delight when scientific tests confirmed that he was gay, and his satisfaction at the conclusion that sexual orientation is probably predetermined before birth and not willfully chosen.

The BBC online magazine includes a piece about John Barrowman's documentary. One reader wrote this comment:

Typical gay man, using his sexuality to boost his career. Lucky for some, my boss is female which means I can't follow suit.

And another wrote:

I am interested in why the BBC seems preoccupied with homosexuality or to be more precise it's promotion. Is it because according to Andrew Marr the BBC is disproportionately overrepresented by gays? And certainly in positions of influence to promote the gay agenda?

Bethanie and her friends enjoyed being treated like film stars when they arrived at their primary school prom in a pink stretch limousine (see yesterday's blog) but the same can't be said for many children living in Hull. The local economy is dominated by low wages and high unemployment. Almost half of the people in Hull live in electoral wards that are amongst the 105 most deprived wards in the country, according to Hull City Council's website.

Newsround covered poverty problems in the award-winning programme called The Wrong Trainers, which went out in December 2006. However, as with Ofcom's discussion paper on the future of children's TV (see blog 11 February 2008), for some reason Newsround chose not to cover the joint UK children's commissioners' report(pdf) to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child.

Speaking live to BBC News on the morning of 9 June 2008, Patricia Lewsley, the Northern Ireland children's commissioner said the commissioners' most striking finding across all their four jurisdictions concerned poverty in its widest sense, including poverty of opportunity for young people. She said kids living in poverty "can't ask their parents for £10 for art materials because that could mean two days without food or a day and a half without electricity."

Just over two weeks ago Sunday Life on BBC1 carried an item about school proms, and a few days before that BBC News also included an item on the topic. Not to be outdone in promoting this American cultural import, Newsround yesterday had press packer Bethanie and her friends extolling the virtues of a primary school prom. Introducing the press pack report, Adam asked "Did you celebrate the end of term in style?" and continued "Well Bethanie in Hull certainly did. Take a look at what she got up to."

We saw Bethanie having her hair done, putting on make-up, and then showing off her dress which had been specially made for her. Bethanie and her friends arrived at the prom in a pink stretch limo and walked along a red carpet to the school hall.

Last week an industrial tribunal found that Islington Council was wrong to require Lillian Ladele, a Christian registrar, to carry out civil partnership registrations. The Daily Mail hailed the ruling as a victory for common sense in our courtrooms. However Suzanne Moore, writing in the same paper was somewhat less impressed with the ruling.

Ladele seems to regard gay partnerships as more objectionable than fornication. But even in cases where religious beliefs are entirely sincere, is it reasonable to excuse employees their duties? What if a Muslim checkout worker at Tesco's insisted on calling in a colleague every time a customer's shopping trolley included a bottle of wine or a packet of pork chops? The disruption and time wasting would cause problems for everyone, not to mention unease caused to customers.

The employment tribunal decision was foolish, and not at all a victory for common sense, as I'm sure The Mail would be the first to say in a case of a similar victory for my hypothetical Tesco employee.

The word 'Gay' was used on Newsround today as part of its Olympic coverage. Sonali reported on who we should be looking out for. First mentioned was Usain Bolt from Jamaica, who Sonali said was the fastest man on the planet. "He can run 100 metres in 9.72 seconds. No wonder his nickname is Lightning Bolt. Next to the United States of America. That's where double world champion sprinter Tyson Gay lives. The clash between him and the Lightning Bolt will definitely be one of the highlights of the Olympics. In fact, last week Gay actually beat Bolt and ran the 100 metres in the fastest time ever. But because there was so much wind behind him it didn't count as an official world record."

The race to which Sonali referred was widely reported around the world. But it wasn't just Tyson's speed which made the news. A conservative Christian website, One News Now, disapproves of the word 'gay' and automatically converted occurrences of 'gay' into 'homosexual,' so that they reported the news as "Homosexual runs wind-aided 9.68 seconds to make Olympics."

CBBC Newsround's ethos is similar. The programme continues to treat 'gay' as an offensive word, but Newsround uses a more 'intelligent' filter.

From Seesaw to Wagon Wheel

It's over a year since the BBC published a report called From Seesaw to Wagon Wheel (see blogs on 18 and 19 June 2007). The report was supposed to be about safeguarding impartiality in the 21st century. The main document includes certain assumptions, such as BBC institutional support for equal rights for women and gay people.

It is self-evident that any study of impartiality should itself be impartial. But the report was commissioned by, and significantly influenced by people working for the BBC, as is clear from the Foreword which states that the author "has been able to draw on the advice, wisdom and experience of a Steering Group, comprising three of the BBC’s most senior executives, two Governors, two Trustees, a former broadcasting regulator and four external consumers of the BBC’s output."

That fact alone calls its worth into question. Then consider, for example, the bias of BBC news report headlines when the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007 was passed last year (blog 21 March 2007).

I've written to some of the people involved in producing the report to ask how they can justify its claims.

Today there was another one of those Newsround stories about how much food people can stuff down themselves - this time it was hot dogs. The report on the 2.55pm programme lasted 1 minute 30 seconds, including the lede. Ironically, unhealthy food can't be advertised during children's programmes. So an advert for hot dogs wouldn't be allowed on the commercial channels.

Former Newsround editor, Tim Levell, considered some of the issues surrounding eating competitions in his blog last year. Heinz (see blog 26 June 2008) was a sponsor of the hot dog eating competition, and the Heinz logo could be seen several times throughout the report. A Heinz press release last year said:

“Heinz Ketchup and Nathan’s Famous Hot Dogs go hand-in-hand and represent an American food tradition that is worth celebrating, especially on the Fourth of July,” said Dave Ciesinski, VP of Heinz Ketchup. “By sponsoring the Nathan’s Famous Hot Dog Eating Contest, we’re able to reach an international audience and celebrate the love of hot dogs with people around the world.”

The story was controversial because it publicised bad eating habits and made light of the dangers of overeating. A more appropriate news report for a British audience, and more in conformity with PSB Purposes 3 & 4 (see blog 10 April 2008), would have been the Pride event in London today. The BBC needs to prove in practice that it is committed to reflecting the diversity of the United Kingdom.

Biddy Baxter

Although some people found former editor of Blue Peter, Biddy Baxter quite charming, it seems Ms Baxter could also be disparaging to colleagues. In a TV interview with her on BBC FOUR last year, Mark Lawson said he had been discussing, on the radio, a Blue Peter presenter, Christopher Trace, who he had said was sacked by the BBC because of his moral behaviour. Biddy Baxter, however, strenuously denied that this was the case.

Mark Lawson: .. you rang me up and you shouted at me after I said it on the radio.
Biddy Baxter: I didn't shout, did I.
Mark Lawson: You did. But it's erm....
Biddy Baxter: I'm sorry.
Mark Lawson: No, no ..it's alright ..

Valerie Singleton had a few things to say recently about how condescending Biddy Baxter could be. Valerie told Peter Robertson in the Daily Mail that Ms Baxter treated presenters like children; they feared their contracts might not be renewed if they caused any problems. Presenters were always being told: ‘You’d be nothing without us.’ John Noakes, however, stood up to Biddy and was quite capable of slamming the phone down in an argument.

Ms Singleton said that one day in the Blue Peter office there was a letter lying on Biddy Baxter's desk. Biddy picked up the letter and said in front of everybody: ‘Oh, what’s this?’ She then proceeded to read it out loud, causing embarrassment because the letter was from someone who thought Ms Singleton, in real life, hadn't lived up to expectations. Valerie was shocked. The letter was obviously not relevant to Blue Peter, and was a private matter.

Some of my earlier blogs, including one on 10 August 2007, go into some detail about the way gay presenter Michael Sundin was treated by Biddy Baxter at the BBC.

CBBC message boards (continued)

A short while after my blog last Monday, the moderators allowed a post to get through from someone who fancies both genders. Is the discrimination policy about to be ditched? I'm keeping a tally of posts on hetero, LGBT and other issues, and so far the statistical evidence still points to a discriminatory policy which includes, of course, the matter of language and self-identity.

The BBC has largely ignored the controversy about the Heinz Deli Mayo advert, but on Thursday the 'BBC News Magazine' published a piece by Tom Geoghegan - It started with a kiss. The article looks, amongst other things, at the history of same-sex relationships on British television.

Tom Geoghegan's article claims that, twenty-one years after Britain's first gay kiss on primetime TV, a show of intimacy between two men clearly still has the capacity to shock television audiences. This assertion is presumably based on the 200 or so complaints received by the Advertising Standards Authority during the five days period that the ad was screened. But there are around 60 million people in Britain. So 200 out of 60 million represents about 0.000003% and within a few days of Heinz announcing that the ad had been pulled loads more people called for it to be reinstated, including some MPs.

Yesterday leader of the Lib-Dems, Nick Clegg, wrote to the Director of UK Corporate Affairs at Heinz urging him to reconsider. Mr Clegg acknowledged that some people in Britain today are uncomfortable with same-sex relationships, but he says that "such prejudice should not be condoned" by an organisation of Heinz's size and stature. He goes on to say:-

The sight of two men kissing affectionately should not be considered offensive or controversial. This is particularly the case in an advertisement which was so rich in irony and double-meaning.

The decision to withdraw it has not only offended many gay, lesbian, transgender - and straight - people, it also represents a backward step in attempts to combat homophobia in Britain today, not to mention a collective loss of humour.

Tom's e-zine article refers to a gay kiss in Byker Grove in 1994. But even before that, Grange Hill's staff included Mr Brisley, a gay teacher. He managed to overcome homophobia from the kids at the school, and eventually got accepted like the other staff. Mr Brisley left Grange Hill in 1999, and since about 2002 the programme has been unwilling to deal with LGBT issues. Byker Grove included a gay storyline in 2004/5 shortly before being axed in 2006.

Just as Heinz was catering to the prejudice of a small number of parents when it withdrew its Mayo commercial, so the BBC caters, more so than in the past, to the prejudices of narrow-minded parents in the way it runs public service broadcasting for children.

Heinz Meanz Homophobz

Heinz said "It is our policy to listen to consumers. We recognise that some consumers raised concerns over the content of the ad and this prompted our decision to withdraw it."

That was their first excuse for withdrawing a TV advertisement which included a kiss between two men. Heinz withdrew the ad after less than a week. Recently they've come up with other reasons, none of which actually goes as far as to say "Heinz is a homophobic company."

A small number of bigoted consumers didn't like the advert. But most people seem to approve of it, including members of a UK parents' forum.

So why is Heinz only listening to the bigots? Whatever happened to the company's Diversity Policy? It looks like Heinz is not a trustworthy company.

There's been a lot of fuss about a TV ad for Heinz Deli Mayo. Apparently the advert, which included a kiss between two men, received about 200 complaints.

Some parents, according to reports, were angry that they had been forced to explain same-sex relationships to their youngsters. They had every right to be angry ... after all isn't the BBC supposed to enrich people's lives with programmes and services that inform, educate and entertain. If the BBC had been doing its job properly, children would be informed by Newsround and other CBBC programmes. There would be no need for embarrassed parents to explain.

Last summer BBC Director of Vision, Jana Bennett was telling everyone at Showcomotion in her keynote speech: "We help children understand themselves and their relationships in all their rich complexity and in particular, understand their world – begin to fathom their navigation of relationships, their situation, through the experience of others whom they can relate to."

Was Jana Bennett telling the truth (see, for instance, my previous blog entry.)

CBBC message boards

About a year ago it looked like the BBC was becoming more inclusive (see my blog on 26 June 2007). Messages from kids who had feelings for others of the same gender were sometimes passed through moderation and some even used words like 'lesbian' or 'gay'

Some messages were answered by Aaron, CBBC's agony uncle:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbcbbc/F2697950?thread=4180595
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbcbbc/F2697950?thread=4281232
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbcbbc/F2697950?thread=4250361

But by the end of summer 2007 BBC discrimination against LGBT kids was fully back in place.

So when this message was posted recently no-one could read what it said, but only see the BBC's reply:

Message 365 - posted by CBBC (U11500666)
Hi,
Having feelings for your friends isn't something you should be ashamed of, it's a lot more common than you might think. But it's important to get support, so find someone who can give you that. You could talk to a family member, a friend, a teacher. If there is no one you feel you can speak to it may help to talk to Childline (0800 1111). Talking to someone who helps you feel ok about who you are is a great help, so try to speak to someone soon.

CBBC Helper


My guess is the original post was something to do with having feelings for a friend.

But if having feelings for your friends isn't something you should be ashamed of, and if it's a lot more common than you might think, why did the BBC remove the original message?

Could it be that the post was about same-sex feelings, and the BBC doesn't want to be more specific by telling kids that having same-sex (lesbian or gay) feelings is okay? In fact, doesn't this type of censorship really send out exactly the opposite message.

Last night Newsround reported the story of Sarika Singh, a Sikh girl, who has gone to the High Court. The court will have to decide whether Sarika can wear a religious bracelet or whether the school's uniform rules must be adhered to.

Sonali: First to a huge row that's costing loads of money and involving lots of important people - and it's all about a bangle. A 14 year-old girl in South Wales has been excluded from school for wearing a bracelet which she says is important for her religion. But the school disagrees. And today the row ended up in one of the country's highest courts. Laura's got more.

Laura: (video showing Kara on a girl's arm) This is a Kara. It's a bangle worn by Sikh people to remind them of their religion and to prompt them to do good with their hands. Sarika says that hers is very important to her and that she wants to wear it all the time. But her school, Aberdare Girls' in South Wales says she can't. They have a uniform policy that says that no-one can wear any jewellery apart from stud earrings and a watch. They asked Sarika to remove her bangle. She refused, and so in November last year she was excluded.

Laura: (reporting from outside the High Court) Because they can't agree amongst themselves, today Sarika and her mum and the school came here to the High Court in London to battle it out. Inside there, Sarika and her mum will be arguing that this is all totally unfair, and that it's all damaging Sarika's education. The school, though, argues that its jewellery policy is fair for everyone.

Laura: (archive video of Shabina Begum outside court) Sarika's story is not that unusual. In the past we've reported about Muslim girls, and even a teacher who went to court because they wanted to wear veils to school. We've also reported about some Christians who've been told they can't wear special rings or crosses to class either. It's difficult because, on the whole, schools make up their own rules about uniforms, so there are bound to be disagreements. (video of Sarika arriving at court) But it's hoped that by clearing up this row in the High Court it might give everyone else a better idea of what's okay to wear to school and what's not.

This evening Laura read out some of the feedback Newsround had received:

Laura: ...This is about being able to wear any kind of religious jewellery or clothes to school. And there's been a pretty mixed reaction to this from you lot. First up Emily from Dorset reckons that kids should be allowed religious jewellery at school because it's not to look nice, it's to do with their religion. Rachel from The Wirral says she wears her crucifix all the time. "If you believe that it means something then you should be allowed to wear it," she says. But Matthew disagrees. He says he thinks the school is right because uniform is a school rule and shouldn't be broken. And Chloe says that no jewellery is allowed at her school at all. She says Sarika must have known the school rules before she started there, so why complain now.

Age banding

In her literature review (pdf), used in Ofcom's October 2007 discussion paper on children's television, Professor Messenger Davies refers to some research for one of her earlier publications. Professor Messenger Davies had asked kids aged 6-12 to play the role of children's TV programme controllers and choose what programmes other kids should watch. They came up with lists such as the following: Top of the Pops, Rugrats, Home and Away, Blue Peter, Slot Meithrin, EastEnders, Live and Kicking and Ren and Stimpy. This list, from a group of Welsh 12-year-olds, represents both range of genre and plurality of provenance.

My blog on 8 May 2008 referred to comments by educationalist, Professor David Hargreaves. He has said that pigeonholing children by age is "an extremely crude measure". Recently he told me that age banding in broadcasting for young people is arbitrary, since maturity and age among the young are not strongly correlated, and are becoming less so.

Now, it seems, book publishers are thinking of age banding in books, and that many authors including Philip Pullman, JK Rowling^* and Jacqueline Wilson are opposed to the proposal and have signed the No to Age Banding petition. This age banding story was the main item on Newsround this morning.

Newspapers have covered this story in quite a lot of detail. The Times asks at what age are children old enough to be exposed to a terrifying story of child abuse, murder and gingerbread architecture? Five? Ten? Sixteen? Never? That story is, of course, Hansel and Gretel. Mark Lawson, in The Guardian, considers both sides of the argument, but wonders who will set the standards and concludes that the existing system without banding might sensibly be left in place.

The Daily Telegraph quotes Philip Pullman. He says "I have had letters from children of seven who say they have read all the way through His Dark Materials and they have an astonishing knowledge of it. But not every child is the same. A child of nine might be tentative and unsure about reading, and to give them a book that says 9+ will reinforce their sense of failure. The book should be suited to the individual child."

*Edit note (7 June 2008): Although Mark Lawson indicates the campaign has JK Rowling's support, it seems that her name is not at present listed on the 'No to Age Banding' petition website.

*Edit note 2 - (20 September 2008): I checked again and found that JK Rowling's name is now on the petition.

BBC Statements of Programme Policy 2008/2009

The BBC has finally released its latest Statements of Programme Policy. Gone is last year's promise that the BBC must be inclusive.

The Statements begin with a message from the BBC's Director-General, Mark Thompson. In it he says that last year was a challenging one for the BBC with editorial issues around competition voting and controversy around programmes featuring the Queen and children’s content. He goes on to say that the BBC responded strongly with new guidance and approval procedures and an extensive training programme, Safeguarding Trust, for all staff involved in editorial decisions. He leaves out the fact that certain BBC staff have continued to deceive the public, that he is aware of instances of deception and that he's turning a blind eye. Also he has ignored Will Wyatt's recommendation regarding deception:

When anyone in the BBC becomes aware that the corporation has put something misleading or untrue into the public domain a correction must be issued at the earliest opportunity. It must be understood that the BBC’s honesty with the public has to be the first concern.

The 'Accountability' section is still in the SoPP. Like last year it begins:

The BBC, as an open and transparent organisation which is trusted by the public it serves, seeks to engage its audiences in dialogue, to learn from them and to respond honestly to what they have to say.

But the way the BBC is going, I doubt that statement will remain in place much longer.

Occasionally comments are posted to the more dated entries of my blog. That's what happened yesterday. A comment posted to the 27 March 2006 blog was about the problems of using 'gay' on CBBC message boards. For a short period early last summer some LGBT messages were allowed through on the CBBC 'Your Life' board, and some were even answered by CBBC's agony uncle, for example:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbcbbc/F2697950?thread=4281232

But by late summer it seemed that the previous discrimination policy had been reinstated, and new messages using words like 'lesbian' or 'gay' were no longer to be seen. I informed BBC management about the discrimination last September but there was no improvement, so I raised the issue again today with the BBC and the Trust.
---
Last year Sir Michael Lyons was highly critical of salaries paid to people like Jonathan Ross. Today Sir Michael was seen posing for the cameras outside Broadcasting House as he and Jana Bennett shook hands, perhaps in a symbolic gesture to indicate that the BBC Trust and the BBC Executive Board are now working as one.

Sadly Lizo has left Newsround after ten years on the programme. Sonali spoke to him on Friday and told him that he'll be missed by everyone there. He said he'd had a wonderful time on Newsround - been to some amazing places, met some amazing people and can look back on some fantastic memories. Sonali then surprised him with a compilation video of some of his best moments on the programme.

Lizo told Sonali that it was hard to pick out a highlight but he mentioned his reports on Doctor Who and Harry Potter, which he'd loved over the years. And also the big serious stories like reporting on how children's lives in Iraq were being affected by the fighting. He said in future he'll be working for the main BBC News channel, reporting on entertainment stories which he enjoys.

It's Tackling Homophobia Week on Teachers' TV (Freeview channel 88), and one of the programmes is about gay teachers. Several teachers talk about their experiences of homophobia and how they deal with it.

David expected to find London a diverse-friendly place to work, but reality was somewhat different. His school head was hostile to the idea of challenging homophobia in anti-bullying week, and criticised him. He eventually took action against the school for discrimination, and received a full apology.

A lesbian teacher, Elly, believes that diversity should not just be tolerated, we should instead celebrate it. Her school in Hackney started celebrating LGBT History Month three years ago and has succeeded in completely turning around attitudes. Elly believes that homophobia should be tackled as early as possible.

John, the deputy head of an East London primary school is using materials suggested by the No Outsiders project to help kids understand that it's okay to be different. John said that there has been the odd negative reaction from one or two parents, but nothing like the reaction he had feared.

School Matters - Gay Teachers

The semi-finals of Britain's Got Talent began last night on ITV, presented by Ant & Dec. After all the concern about honesty with TV audiences, it was surprising to see that they don't quite seem to have got the message yet.

You decide who goes through to the final on Saturday night, they said, but didn't make it clear to viewers that two acts would go through. So fine if you had voted for the act which got most votes - your vote would have counted.

But suppose you had voted for another act. Well what happened was that after the voting had finished the audience were told which act had won, and then the judges decided which of the two runner-up acts would also go through. This was potentially unfair because if the judges' choice was not the same as the audience second choice, then it was not true to tell the audience that YOU decide who goes through.