Morning all en route to Brighton. Seems @thetimes has no facts to mash up today on its anti—trans crusade, so it’s left to the opinion piece – in this case @hadleyfree. From this article, I can only assume that opinion writers have an even looser association with the truth (1/16) than the Times’ so called journalists.

In short, Hadley (well, even freelancers have to eat) has padded out 1 fact to an entire piece, allowing her to parrot the trope that people who don’t like trans women are somehow victims, and to earn her fee (see above parenthesis). (2/16)

Sorry – a long one but this time it’s the Times leader…

Imagine a time when @thetimes was a newspaper of note, its editorials read the world over. Not for them the screeching “what about the children?” tone of the Sun or the Daily Mail.

Those days are gone, and today’s (1/15) editorial demonstrates why – misrepresenting law, public policy, employment rights, parliamentary procedure and even how journalism works. If we were playing bullshit bingo, this editorial would have guaranteed you ‘house’.

From the title (this is not a Hit Job) to the (2/15)

This is the more detail promised earlier on this, frankly, madeup piece from @oliver_wright at @thetimes. The summary is this – if the entire senior management team of an organisation, and sub boards noted serious bullying and harassment claims against the chair of a board (1/10) surely it merits a serious view? Or as the Times thinks, is it some kind of woke plot?

Baroness Falkner has form – it’s noted she’s a ‘former’ LibDem (a politician friend called her a nightmare). Seriously, if everyone complains about your behaviour at the top of an (2/10)

So as I wrote earlier, I’m struggling with this piece from @thetimes and @hadleyfreeman, as it simply isn’t very good. If I were the editor, I’d worry about the fanfare when Hadley came over from the Guardian as the new voice of common sense. This is anything but. (1/13) Let’s look at a few of the logical errors here.

Firstly, the claim that women are being told to shut up by men who are (all?) too cowardly or too sexist. That’s a big assumption – in short, no men can critique an argument from a woman, or if they do it’s misogyny. (2/13)

Some Saturday fun - it gets boring making the same points every day...

So I did say that I would comment on this piece in @thetimes by @VictoriaPeckham as a law piece but there is something first that does bother me.

Why can’t men comment on a piece by a women? Janice .. (1/17) doesn’t think trans women are women, so am I not allowed to comment on women wrongly attacking other minorities – can I if she is racist? What are the ground rules for when men are allowed to point out poor arguments? Only when other men do it, but smile and nod when (2/17)

Another weekend/more satirical piece this time – if even possible in this day and age – from today’s @thetimes, @Steven_Swinford and @oliver_wright.

Imagine being @KemiBadenoch. You have succeeded as a woman of colour. You have faced discrimination and come through – (1/11) you get it. That has set you up in the Tory party as a ‘frank speaker/no BS/shoots from the hip’ kinda person. But you have to keep that up with fresh areas to disrupt. So – ignoring your history – you choose to punch down on a minority even more oppressed, trans women. (2/11)

Okay here we go - sorry again re length but every now and then the detail is worth it...

Read on

(1/19) Right – not sure where to start with this. Let’s go back to basics for @Jake_Kanter at @thetimes.

In a quality paper, the headline is supposed to inform, not scare. Imagine having to tell a media correspondent that. But let’s summarise the story with the real headline: (2/19)

I feel I repeat myself a lot about factual issues in @thesundaytimes and it’s been a while since I’ve commented on a piece by @siangriffiths6, a journalist who is to accuracy what Jeffrey Epstein was to boundaries.

So today I want to look at something different in this (1/16) article. Is it a searing piece of fact-laden journalism? No. It’s a Barbara Cartland style piece of romantic fiction. Let’s start (please have your optional box of soft centred chocolates ready). And remember that this is supposed to be about girlguiding and trans issues. (2/16)

So the first of an occasional series. Let's start with the headline below. Let me help. I think the following headline is better:

"@thetimes highlights something scary & makes it sound very common so that you choke on your cornflakes and with LGBT+ people would go away" (1/x) This is the famous - all trans women are actually truckers in dresses who are out to rape women. The issue for this lord, a little like Rosie Duffield on TV yesterday, is that they refuse to take the law as it is - that trans women are women. That's just wrong (2/x)

Okay so this time let’s start with some journalistic basics, in case @siangriffiths6 and @thesundaytime are listening. Spoiler - they aren't.

With a sensitive subject, it’s poor form to start with a quote and no outline of the story. In this case, it’s more of....(1/14) an issue as the quote is NOT in the story itself. Did the sub-editors or Sian just make it up?

As for the quote “School rushed to help our boy become a girl”? A few things:

1 – try this one instead – “School complied with its safeguarding policy for a pupil...(2/14)

Okay, final #mailonsunday piece before I have a bloody mary at this rate.

Right – this piece is trope number 3 – just lie in the headline. So, the headline sounds shocking – LGBT people demand right to have LGBT representation on LGBT stories!! Actually, it doesn't...(1/9) sound that bad when you say it like that, so it’s been misrepresented and twisted into our old false friend – the secret all powerful trans lobby that is silencing dissent (remember again – the gay lobby in the 80s what was silencing dissent. It’s a well-trodden path ...(2/9)

Moving swiftly onto the #mailonsunday piece on @stonewalluk . Some context first (without belittling anyone’s genuine belief). Sainsburys has nearly 190,000 employees. This seems to be a complaint from a single employee as a reference source.

Now some technical edits...(1/9) for Sanchez Manning. The definition of a whistleblower is someone who is in a protected position when informing about their employer’s breach of the law here (usually something underhand or hidden). So this person is not a whistleblower. Yet the word is used repeatedly...(2/9)

Okay, so now #mailonsunday. TBH I struggle a little with members of the LGBT+ community now quoting anti-trans or anti-Stonewall pieces from this newspaper, forgetting the vitriol they have previously had for us. Change of editorial policy or way to divide us? I think we...(1/10) need to be more aware.
I’m splitting today's media check into 3 to make it easier. Firstly is this piece on pupils being brainwashed. So, this is a great example of making a very small thing seem like a tsunami about to drown us in wokeness. It follows a standard template: (2/10)

Sorry - it's a long one today - and tomorrow I will have the @thesundaytimes and the Mail on Sunday to deal with.

But today it's @thetimes .So there’s a lot going on here. Today’s lesson is on ‘thematic distortion’ where you create an idea in someone’s mind by the tone.. (1/12) of a piece, rather than facts. What we see here is various ‘forcing’ words such as ‘bully’ ‘coerce’ ‘force’, giving the impression that Stonewall is forcing public bodies (again, underlying subtext – it’s your money) to change. Here's the thing - it's just not true... (2/12)

Apologies in advance – this is quite a hefty read. This article from @thetimes is a dramatic shift in the battlefield folks. We’ve gone from a handful of GC loons such as Fair Cop and A Woman’s Place to the UK’s equalities watchdog also now taking the gencrit side. (1/6) The point about the EHRC is it has a tricky job – to negotiate the tricky ground between competing freedoms. The new head as simply apparently thrown that out. If women are allowed to question trans identity – importantly HOWEVER they choose to do it, even abusively - (2/6)

Okay - @thetimes article 1.

The heading is already clickbait. ‘‘FEMALE student faces expulsion…” not just “Student faces…’. So by the 1st word you know that this story is not transphobic but about alleged oppression of women. You rarely see ‘WHITE student in racism row’ (1/8) Asides from that this one is the usual story – a ‘real’ woman has her views silenced by an overly woke uni - as ever no context – was it a genuine argument? Was she being offensive? Also what is the sanction here? Is is really expulsion?