|
→RFC: The Telegraph on trans issues: Moved one extra by mistake
|
|
||
Line 2,535:
*'''Option 1''' (sorry for the lengthy !vote). u:Loki has made 3 main arguments 1) coverage of the student-identifying-as-a-cat story 2) "going beyond simple bias and directly saying false things" and 3) secondary sources criticising their coverage. Re 1) I agree that they could've done a better job covering this story (see my comment 08:36, 12 May 2024) but if it's the worst thing they've done it doesn't justify a downgrade. Re 2) I think that the provided examples indeed show a bias but nothing more than that. Are you suggesting that platforming anti-trans groups makes a source unreliable? Also, they did not say that James Esses was a therapist in the linked article. Re 3), I've reviewed the article by Bailey and Mackenzie and haven't found where they say that the Telegraph is unreliable or give examples of falsehoods (but I may have missed it). The [https://www.ipso.co.uk/rulings-and-resolution-statements/ruling/?id=08884-21 IPSO ruling] is from 2021, and has a bit of hair-splitting feel to it (see item 22 in which the inaccuracy is described). Anyway, all British newspapers have had IPSO rulings against them, so by itself it's not a disqualification. Since the whole thing is voluntary, it's actually a positive sign as they have subjected themselves to an external regulator. [[User:Alaexis|Alaexis]]<sub>[[User_talk:Alaexis|¿question?]]</sub> 21:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 2''' I do not find the defense of the Telegraph's reporting on the cat identifying controversy convincing. From what I've seen it was obvious that the discussion of the students did not involve someone literally identifying as a cat (it involved a student using that as an example to criticize people identifying as another gender), and I don't think any of the quotes from that discussion support that someone literally identified as a cat when those quotes are taken in context. Whereas The Telegraph reported it as if someone was actually identifying as a cat [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/06/18/pupil-teacher-despicable-identifying-cat-transgender/], and other reliable sources reported it in a much more grounded and accurate manner [https://www.theguardian.com/education/2023/jun/23/child-identifying-as-cat-controversy-from-a-tiktok-video-to-media-frenzy]. Taken with other questionable reporting relating to this topic, I think it should be classified under Option 2, as its reporting may sometimes still be useable.--[[User:Tristario|Tristario]] ([[User talk:Tristario|talk]]) 22:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
=== Discussion (Telegraph on trans issues) ===
| |||