The BBC style guide directs journalists to use preferred pronouns. This is systematic bias. It is reporting so-called “gender identity”, a contested and misleading concept, instead of sex, knowing that the audience will believe it means sex. Thus we get “Woman kills husband with samurai sword” and “Scarlet Blake confessed murder to her ex, court hears”. The details of both brutal killings suggest they were highly unlikely that they could have been committed by women. In fact both killers are men.

But the harm goes much deeper than misleading the audience. The BBC has promoted social and medical transition to children as a positive step, and represented puberty blockers as benign, a “pause button”. It has largely ignored evidence of harm, reporting on the Cass Review as if its main finding was that there were not enough gender clinics, and ignoring the scandal of the leaked WPATH files completely.

Sex Matters has written to senior BBC executives four times about this in the past two years, most recently since the leaked Prescott report which revealed that the board had been told of the problems months ago. With other concerned groups, we have met with senior BBC executives on several occasions. We have all contributed to style-guide reviews, made endless complaints and offered solutions. The BBC has so far failed to accept the severity of its failings, and has made only the slightest of changes to its reporting.

The Culture, Media and Sport committee had a chance to question BBC board members about this on 24th November when it met to discuss the Prescott report. Sex Matters sent a briefing to all committee members, asking that they explore this issue. Disappointingly, the committee did not do so.

The last time senior BBC executives appeared before this committee, in March 2024, Damian Green MP accused the BBC of institutional bias. He pointed to the BBC’s reprimand of Justin Webb for explaining that transwomen were “in other words, male” as a clear sign of bias. The director-general, Tim Davie, dismissed the issue as a culture war, saying people should just “be nice”. 

This time, the BBC’s representatives were not even asked about the misleading reporting of sex and the promotion of transgender identities.

The BBC must stop pretending that men can become women and that boys can become girls, or girls boys. It must start telling the full, unvarnished truth about how institutional responses to gender identity and transgenderism are affecting our society. 

This means rebalancing away from the endless diet of celebratory stories about people who identify as transgender. The BBC has a responsibility to report the truth about the impact of this on other people, and the challenges facing those who have realised “transition” was a mistake. It must change its style guide too, so that we can believe what we are reading. That seems the most basic requirement of an impartial news organisation. Is there the will at the BBC to do any of this?

The post Institutional bias at the BBC appeared first on Sex Matters.

Both Tim Davie, the BBC’s director-general, and Deborah Turness, chief executive of BBC News, resigned almost a week later – but BBC news teams reporting on the resignations have so far glossed over the role that transgender issues played. And the reply that Shah wrote to the committee does not acknowledge either the harm the BBC has done to its own reputation or the wider damage caused to its audiences by its long-term failures in reporting on sex and gender issues.

In the letter, Shah addresses in detail concerns about the broadcaster’s coverage of Trump and Gaza, but dismisses the disturbing findings and evidence reported by Prescott on the BBC’s coverage of trans issues, claiming that “much of the coverage met the BBC’s standards of impartiality and accuracy”. That defence ignores the stories that the BBC chose not to report on, and dismisses the damage done by years of misinformation about puberty blockers and medical transition.

The letter seems to show that the BBC is still in denial about the extent of its failures. Is the transactivist mindset so baked into the institution now that it is impossible for senior leadership, let alone journalists, to think objectively? Or is it too much to admit that the BBC has been complicit in promoting an ideology that has irreparably harmed vulnerable children, and set women’s and gay rights back decades?

Sex Matters wrote to the BBC’s board last week after the dossier was leaked, calling on its members to return the national broadcaster to its commitment to “pursuing the truth with no agenda”. 

The revelation that the BBC has been suppressing news about the dark side of gender ideology and instead serving up a diet of sunny promotional stories had come as no surprise. The alleged role of the “LGBTQ desk” as the graveyard for critical coverage of trans ideology, and of BBC internal staff networks as minders of other journalists’ stories, was well known. 

The dossier quoted David Grossman, the editorial guidelines and standards committee’s senior editorial adviser, who had warned that the BBC’s approach suggested that “the concept of gender identity is an established fact rather than contested”.

The culture and expectations at the BBC have been made clear by the proliferation of Progress Pride lanyards, management allowing trans-identifying males to use the women’s toilets, and a one-sided approach to complaints.

The dossier highlighted:

• stories raising concerns about the quality or safety of care given to gender-questioning children and adults receiving “little or no coverage”
• reporting that failed to reflect the experience of detransitioners
• more stories about the waiting times for people to receive care than examination of the quality of that care 
• a surprisingly high number of stories about drag queens 
• no coverage of the WPATH files leak which raised concerns about the quality of care given to gender-distressed children. 
• scant coverage of campaigning by, and the concerns of, gender-critical women
• failure to to cover the story of the Darlington nurses 
• no coverage on the issue of male police and prison officers being allowed to conduct strip searches on women and girls.

A significant reset is needed, which will take bravery and seriousness from the top. In our letter – as reported in The Telegraph today – we call on the BBC board to do five things: 

1. Root out the oppressive influence of transgender ideology in the organisation.
2. Replace activist language with normal language.
3. Stop normalising transgender ideology in BBC output.
4. Ensure that all BBC journalists can tell the unvarnished truth without fear. 
5. Retrain staff on core facts.

The post When will the BBC face up to the truth? appeared first on Sex Matters.

The post Letter to the BBC board appeared first on Sex Matters.

But when it comes to reporting on issues of sex and gender, the BBC is neither accurate nor impartial. There is a strong tendency to present gender identities as if they were sex. References to trans identities are omitted, except where the trans person is a victim, where it becomes the story. When questioned about this, the Director General’s response was that we should all “be nice”.

There’s endless coverage of drag and Pride, which wouldn’t matter if the serious stories were also being covered alongside the froth. But it seems that a breathless celebration of gender-bending has supplanted any serious coverage. This pattern of reporting and non-reporting goes back a long way, but here are some recent examples.

An unreported healthcare scandal

The most serious omission is the failure to cover properly the scandal of how gender-distressed children and vulnerable adults are being treated. The Cass Review reported on the weak evidence for puberty blockers and misguided “diagnostic overshadowing” – ignoring all other problems and diagnoses when gender distress was a factor. The BBC reported Cass’s findings largely as a problem of under-capacity in NHS gender clinics and the report itself as inadequate. The NHS in both England and Scotland largely ended access to puberty blockers for gender distress; the BBC reported this neutrally but with little context. It could have said, for example, that NHS England’s specialist children’s Gender Identity Development Service at the Tavistock had evidence from its own study, which it had delayed publishing, that such treatment could harm more children than it helped. In any other area of medicine, this would surely have been worthy of the attention of the BBC.

In July 2024 a legal challenge was brought at the High Court against NHS England’s ban on puberty blockers for gender-related treatment. The BBC found it more important to report on how the cost of living crisis was affecting drag queens – in BBC Newsbeat, which is aimed at children.

Then there are the various revelations around the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), the self-regulating and self-declared leader in “transgender health”. The BBC did not report on the “WPATH files” – leaked recordings and internal chats from WPATH which showed a casual disregard for patient wellbeing, together with open admissions from some clinicians that they had no idea what they were doing. Given the BBC’s great interest in access to transgender healthcare in the UK, such as in this recent piece about older male transitioners waiting for hormone treatment, it seems odd to have ignored this. A different “leaked emails” story was covered, one which aligned with the BBC narrative about children needing more access to gender clinics.

The latest WPATH scandal spans healthcare and politics. It emerged that a senior official in the Biden administration, himself trans-identifying, had leaned on WPATH to remove minimum ages for “gender-affirming” surgery. Rachel Levine, a late-transitioning man and father who advocates for children to be medically transitioned (which will usually render them sterile and asexual), is Assistant Secretary for Health in the US Department of Health and Human Services. Anyone interested in developments in trans healthcare, as the BBC had appeared to be, should be covering this story. But the BBC simply ignored it.

Meanwhile, on Saturday Kitchen, a programme watched by children, guests celebrated a young woman’s double mastectomy done on the basis of her identity as non-binary. There was nothing about the pain or risk, just a joke about how some people hadn’t noticed. If her distress was so great that she had to have her breasts removed, that seems worth a mention, perhaps along with the downsides, like not being able to feed a baby. But no. She was congratulated as a role model. 

Now you’re trans, now you’re not

A trans victim is always trans, a trans perpetrator rarely.

Murderer Scarlet Blake’s trans identity was not mentioned for months: his claimed sex was reported as if it were his actual sex. 

A “woman” in Brighton was charged with killing her husband with a Samurai sword; there was no mention of the accused “woman” being male despite his high profile as a trans-rights campaigner. In fact both the “woman” and the male victim had identified as women for years, but it seems that the victim had desisted. None of this was mentioned by the BBC.

Thus we have women flashers, rapists and murderers. These would be “man bites dog” stories – newsworthy because unusual – except that they are not. They are just more reports of male violence, but wrongly attributed to women. This is a compound problem, because it hides the fact that trans identification does not affect male offending patterns. 

When a trans-identifying person is a victim, though, their trans status is the whole focus. The BBC frequently reports stories of trans people, sometimes conflated with being drag, and generally with a narrative suggesting intolerance as the central issue. Here’s an example from sport: a sympathy piece for one player who can’t play in some women’s events because of not being female. There is no context, no objective information, as to why this is the case. 

The UK Sports Councils Equality Group’s 2021 guidance on transgender inclusion said that excluding men from women’s sports is both necessary and lawful for fairness in gender-affected sports. This is not even mentioned. Female darts players have spoken about this issue, including British former world champion Deta Hedman, who was of interest to the BBC in the past, but there is no mention of this or any attempt at balance in this piece. There are four separate references to abuse and harassment faced by the player, starting with the headline, but not one example is given. This is not informative or impartial. 

Tensions between trans demands and women’s rights

The BBC reports low-level anti-trans activity, such as damage to a Pride flag, objections to a Pride display in a bookshop, and vandalism of a rainbow pedestrian crossing. But actual violence against women speaking about their rights doesn’t seem to catch the eye of BBC reporters. A Let Women Speak rally in Brighton ended with women taking refuge from an angry pro-trans mob by hiding in a shop; they had to be escorted out by police van. There was ample video footage but it was not mentioned on the BBC. This was only the latest of several such incidents, including street protests at the launch of the Lesbian Project (reported by Pink News as a pro-trans protest); and smoke bombs used in a pro-trans protest against a medical conference called First Do No Harm as well as, some time ago, at a women’s rights meeting held near Grenfell Tower in west London. None of this was reported by the BBC. 

Legal battles

The BBC reported at least five times on the Elan-Cane case, in which a “non-binary” person wanted a passport with an X rather than M or F. But stories in which women win legal battles to protect their sex-based rights, or to oppose the imposition of transgender ideology in their workplace, are so rarely covered that when the judgment in the case of Roz Adams v Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre was reported, albeit on the Scotland page, it prompted an outpouring on Mumsnet. 

A glimmer of progress?

In June the BBC reported “Transgender woman guilty of rape after night out”. The BBC may well think this is progress. But many people will not know that a transgender woman means a man who claims to be a woman, and not the other way round, so those who see the headline may be misled. Those who read on will have found that “Lexi Secker” was “living as a man when she attacked a woman”. But it is still not clear whether this was a woman temporarily “living as a man”, or a man who later decided to “live as a woman”. The convicted rapist is reported as if he is now a woman, using female pronouns. Which is the real Lexi? It’s impossible for the reader to know.

The BBC needs to put accuracy ahead of ideology and propaganda

Our national broadcaster, which we all fund, should be setting the standard for impartial media reporting in the UK. Instead, it appears to be promoting an ideology, confusing readers, misleading the public, and hiding the truth. 

There’s a simple choice to be made at the BBC. Will it report honestly and clearly, ensuring that when it uses words like “woman” and “she”, these are accurate, carrying the normal meaning of sex, the one that readers will understand? Is it willing to report accurately, even if that may cast a trans-identifying person in a bad light? So far, it seems not. 

What can you do?

If you see something you feel is misleading or wrong, complain to the BBC. If you are a journalist or you are writing to complain you might want to use our media handbook.

The post Does sex matter at the BBC? appeared first on Sex Matters.

This is part of a pattern where the BBC gets things wrong on the topic of sex and gender and does not cover gender-critical voices or stories. The week before, Woman’s Hour allowed misleading remarks by athlete Caster Semenya to pass unchallenged. During the interview, Semenya self-described as “female” and as having a medical condition that causes “abnormally high testosterone”, when it is a matter of scientific fact that Semenya has a disorder of sex development that affects only males, and has normal testosterone levels for a male.

On the morning of Richards’ interview on 15th November, 15 organisations that campaign for sex-based rights, including Sex Matters, wrote to BBC director-general Tim Davie and a group of senior BBC executives to urge them to reconsider platforming Richards on the BBC’s flagship programme for women, given his repeated harassment of women.

We warned them that Richards had coordinated a protest against FiLiA – Europe’s largest feminist conference – in Portsmouth in 2021, where placards read “Suck my d**k you transphobic c**ts” and a session discussing the mass rape experienced by women and girls during the genocide in Tigray, Ethopia was drowned out by protesters shouting “Transwomen are women!” and “Blow jobs are real jobs!”. Protesters at the event also disrupted a candlelight vigil commemorating the lives of women and girls killed by men. 

We told Davie and senior executives that Richards believes that “men”, “women” and “children” are social constructs, that he told a survivor of child sexual assault to “grow up” and said “no one groomed you”, and that he has written a series of inflammatory and offensive blogs about women who campaign for women’s rights.

The BBC acknowledged receipt of our intervention but the interview went ahead, and Richards was joined by his colleague Jodie Hughes. Presenter Emma Barnett was robust in handling the interview, but, as we predicted, Richards’ public and self-documented history of insulting, demeaning and threatening women was barely touched upon. The only mention of this behaviour was that he has called campaigners for sex-based rights “TERFs” (trans-exclusionary radical feminists).

On 29th November, Sex Matters chair Naomi Cunningham wrote to Tim Davie to posit that Richards’ interview illustrated a wider pattern of misinformation, obfuscation and misjudgement in the treatment of sex and gender by the BBC. She proposed a process of strategic engagement for Davie and fellow executives with experts and campaigners who could provide mainstream and legally sound perspectives on sex and gender.

Naomi suggested that if a man who did not identify as a woman and had exhibited similar behaviour to Richards had appeared on Woman’s Hour, his pattern of harassment and intimidation towards women would likely have been a key focus of the interview.

She also pointed out that although Emma’s questions were well-informed, the platforming of ideologues predictably led to misinformation being aired on a flagship BBC programme – in this case that endometriosis isn’t a sex-based condition. It is a sex-based condition that affects millions of women. Only around 20 cases have ever been recorded of men experiencing similar symptoms, but they were not because of endometriosis.

Naomi also wrote that sexologists have known for over a century that men who identify as women often do so for erotic reasons. She explained that among these men’s motivations is the desire to seek validation as women, and that they gain this validation when accepted and presented as “women” – especially when women who demur are overruled, sidelined or silenced. Naomi highlighted that the implications of this for the safeguarding and wellbeing of women and children are poorly understood within the media. 

Following years of investment in and engagement with transactivist organisations, the BBC’s corporate position appears to be that people are men or women, male or female, according to what they say they are, not their immutable biology. She pointed out that:

• this is contrary to UK law: the Gender Recognition Act cannot change people’s sex in material reality, and does not impose any obligations on private individuals or on journalistic coverage to pretend that it can)
• this is contrary to material reality: humans are mammals, and mammals can’t change sex
• this contrary to human rights – gender ideology is harmful to the rights of women (sexism is based on women’s sex, not our avowed “gender identities”), gay people (if sex isn’t real, then neither is sexual orientation) and children (thousands of whom are being subjected to harmful experimental medical treatments).

Naomi wrote that the dominant culture at the BBC appears to define acknowledging the reality and immutability of binary sex as bigotry, both within the workforce and when engaging with external parties, and that this is entirely incompatible with the BBC’s status as the national, taxpayer-funded broadcaster, with a statutory duty to be impartial.

She also said that the BBC’s position is a fringe one held by only a small minority of Britons: polling consistently shows broad rejection of the assertion that “transwomen are women” and of the claim that men who identify as women should have a right of access to female-only spaces, services or sports. 

The embedding of a problematic ideological approach to sex and gender has affected the BBC’s output across the organisation, including news and current affairs, sport, entertainment and children’s programming. 

She proposed that Tim and fellow BBC executives initially meet with five women who could speak to different aspects of sex and gender as part of a strategic engagement process. She suggested the involvement of Nicola Williams and Fiona McAnena of Fair Play For Women, who are experts on physiological differences between the sexes, especially male sporting advantage; Joan Smith, author of Misogynies and former adviser to London Mayor Sadiq Khan on violence against women and girls, who could speak to the way obfuscation about the two sexes harms the fight to end male violence against women; and Maya Forstater and Helen Joyce of Sex Matters, who could explain the legal position on sex and gender identity, and more generally the need for clarity on sex in law and everyday life. Naomi also offered to meet with Tim herself.

Tim replied to Naomi on 19th December. He shared the BBC’s public response to Richards’ Woman’s Hour interview and directed her to the BBC Complaints form if she wished to follow up on any specific points relating to the interview.

He also said: “Please be reassured that BBC teams in News, Content, Editorial Policy and across the organisation are very engaged with this topic, giving production and editorial decisions a great deal of thought and reflection. I will pass your offer of meeting onto them in the first instance, and they will be in touch should they wish to follow up with you further.”

As of March 2024, Sex Matters has not heard from anyone at the BBC regarding our offer to meet or the proposal for a broader process of strategic engagement.

The post Why does the BBC keep getting sex and gender wrong? appeared first on Sex Matters.

Davie denied any institutional bias in this area. He said:

“It is an area of controversy. Fact. It’s also an area where we need to have the confidence of our journalists to be able to ask, talk, discuss these areas, and we don’t have no-go areas in the BBC. To do that, we do demand of our journalists to keep within the editorial guidelines… [which] are clear in this area, not overly restrictive – they’re not one side of the fence.” 

He then said: “We have to be kind and caring in this and listen to people, and be nice!” – this last with emphasis. Watch it on parliamentlive.tv from 10:16:28 onwards.

Saying “transwomen are male” is not allowed at the BBC

David Jordan, the BBC’s director of editorial policy and standards, pointed out that the BBC has ceased to have a corporate relationship with Stonewall (prompting some BBC staff to claim that the broadcaster is “institutionally transphobic”). He says that the Beeb is “very keen to report both sites of this debate which can become quite difficult at times in as fair a way possible”. It was “unfortunate” that Justin Webb “didn’t define his terms a bit more”:

“Had he said ‘biological male’ or ‘born male’ then it wouldn’t have been a problem. As you know it’s a very sensitive subject for trans women to be called male rather than female.”

This seems to be the crux of the matter. His argument is not that it is untrue but that certain male people don’t want to hear it. 

He went on:

“That’s part of the debate and we need to steer very carefully through that difficult debate, make sure we are not offending either side of it or using terms that are clearly offensive to either side or seem to them to be taking sides in it. Had he talked about ‘biological male’ it would have been fine, it wouldn’t have been an issue. Just asserting that all trans women are male is not what the BBC’s style is on this. We did produce in December of last year a long note on reporting sex and gender in which all of this is made clear and all our journalists should have been aware of it.”

So Webb’s error was to offend some trans-identifying people, when the BBC’s style guide has been carefully crafted to save their feelings.

On the reporting of the murderer Scarlet Blake, Jordan claimed that the BBC used the terminology of the court report but should have used its own, and should have been clearer about “her status” as a “trans woman”. 

“Deeply deeply damaging to civilised debate”

Davie seems to see this as part of a culture war.

“Let’s get real here. This is being whipped up around us in a way that’s deeply deeply damaging to civilised debate about these topics. Having said that, there are also people who care very deeply on either side of this debate and we need to hear that. To do that we’re holding the centre of the ring here and that is not much fun at times, I can tell you. That’s why I’m not in X [Twitter]. And I think our journalists are doing a very good job of it, if I may. A really good job.”

He called Webb’s clarifying statement a “foot fault”, saying “it was just a sentence that wasn’t quite right”. As if requiring our national broadcaster, for which we all pay, to adopt and promote a falsehood is no big deal. Remember, more than a third of the public are confused about whether a “trans woman” was born male or female. It matters. 

Why this matters

The BBC’s director-general claims he wants to foster debate. He told the committee:

“This is important, we need to fight for this. What I’m interested in is preserving from a societal point of view an ability to bring together people to talk about these things… I’m quite animated about it as you can hear because I worry about it.”

We worry about it too, Tim. And if we can’t say who is male, we can’t have that debate. Anyone born male is still male, whether they like it or not, and although most of the time we don’t need to draw attention to that, sometimes we have to be able to say so. This is not two sides of a debate in which you can hold the centre ground. There is no centre ground on reality. 

Jordan’s statement that trans-identifying males are offended by being called male not female is revealing. Davie says: “We’re a fiercely independent broadcaster.” He claims that the BBC can’t be leant on, and that it reports “without fear or favour”. Maybe it’s the organisation’s own staff he’s afraid of. BBC staff surveys report that more than 10% of staff are “LGBTQ+” and the staff LGBT network seems to have considerable influence. 

Let Tim Davie know what you think

Tim Davie says he’s had just a handful of emails on this issue. We all know that accurate reporting of sex matters. Perhaps Tim should be reminded of the BBC Charter obligations: they say nothing about being kind, caring or nice. But they do require impartiality and accuracy (see section 6.1 of the charter document). Let’s hope the new chair of the BBC, Samir Shah, agrees.

I’ve emailed the BBC’s director-general to say that I want the BBC to be impartial and accurate, not kind, caring and nice.
Share on X

The post “Be nice!” says the BBC’s director-general  appeared first on Sex Matters.

The BBC’s director of complaints has ruled that the presenter Justin Webb broke the BBC’s rules on impartiality when he commented, in a discussion about a women’s chess tournament on Radio 4’s Today programme, that “trans women” are male.

This is shocking behaviour from the BBC: the national broadcaster, funded by public money and obliged by its charter to be accurate and without bias.

The BBC ruling said that Webb “gave the impression of endorsing one viewpoint in a highly controversial area”. This is extraordinary. Some people think the earth is flat, but to say that it is round is not an endorsement of one viewpoint – it’s a statement of fact. “Trans women” by definition are people born male who now identify as women. Since sex cannot change, they remain male. Polling has shown that a third of people are confused about what “trans woman” means, so it was helpful and appropriate of Webb to explain. If this is not allowed, people will be confused and potentially misled by BBC news stories. 

This isn’t the first time Webb has been criticised for pointing out that sex is not the same as gender identity. Last summer he asked Liberal Democrat leader Ed Davey if there should “be spaces where biological males cannot go” in reference to trans-identifying males. He also got into trouble for saying that Professor Kathleen Stock had been “falsely” accused of transphobia by students at Sussex University.

It’s not just the BBC

Almost without exception, media reports in the past fortnight of the conviction and then sentencing of murderer Scarlet Blake referred to Blake as a woman, mostly without pointing out that he was male or even that he was transgender. (The Daily Telegraph was a notable exception.) The standard media excuse for calling male perpetrators women is that the court referred to them as such. In the Blake case, the judge in court referred to Blake’s sex at birth and transgender identity. 

The media regulator IPSO has recently revised its guidance on reporting sex and gender, but it seems that nothing much has changed in reporting. Male crimes are still being described (and recorded by the police and the criminal justice system) as committed by women. 

What happens next?

Until there is a policy change, or BBC senior executives find the moral courage to allow honest reporting about this issue, nothing will change. Webb has had a telling-off and now has to be careful what he says on the radio. 

There is pressure from both sides on this because we all know how important it is for news – especially crime reporting – to be reported accurately, and in clear factual language that everyone can understand. Forcing presenters to use the language of gender ideology means that some people won’t be able to decode the story. It hides the facts. 

Sex Matters and other campaign groups have been working on this for a while. We won’t stop until we get honest, accurate reporting on this issue. 

What you can do

Complaints are taken seriously, if only because they create work for the organisation receiving them. The BBC compiles a daily report of complaints received by number and nature. Bias is considered one of the most serious failures, so it registers when a lot of complaints are received about any one report.

1. Complain to the BBC when you see a BBC story you think is biased or inaccurate. Start with the Scarlet Blake story and Richard Garside’s thread on Twitter. Don’t give up if you’re fobbed off at stage one. Push on to stage two and then the Executive Complaints Unit.
2. Complain to IPSO if you see reporting in newspapers or news websites that is biased or inaccurate. You may have to complain to the publication directly first; it’s usually easy to find an email address on its website where you can send a complaint.
3. Send your local newspaper, radio station or news website a copy of our media guide, which is explained here. 
4. Complain to the other broadcasters too (here are the contacts for Sky News, ITV and Channel 4). 

Use our bad media watch reporting tool to let us know when you see biased reports and find out more about making a complaint.

The post Bias at the BBC appeared first on Sex Matters.