I addressed the other claims in the report in my original comment. Anyone who writes a report complaining about a ‘trans agenda’ clearly has more of an axe to grind than anyone at the BBC. Your last comment is bordering on a rant (e.g. the far out claim that “it’s literally not worth trusting anything that [the BBC] says”), so I will leave it here.
I think you’re ignoring the problem. Regardless of anyone’s opinion on the matter, the BBC’s strategy of supporting one viewpoint and burying another is unethical. If you want people to trust the media then the media must report the facts even when the individuals within the media dislike them. If they don’t do that they they’re not trustworthy.
The BBC doesn’t have a “strategy” of doing that, but any news service will have a detectable lean towards some viewpoints and away from others. When it comes to Israel/Palestine or trans rights, there is little general agreement as to what the facts are, so you cannot please everyone with some simplistic notion of “purely factual” reporting.
In fact the BBC, following the general transphobic climate in the UK, has given a lot of airtime to people trying to create a moral panic around trans people. They’re using virtually identical tactics to those used to stir up panic about gays in the 80s. This won’t look good with hindsight any more than the 80s and 90s “debate” about homosexuality does now. (Will the Telegraph demand that the BBC give airtime to homophobes in the interests of fairness and balance? No, they have quietly forgotten about that issue, and moved on to the next vulnerable minority group.)
In short, you’re holding the BBC to a standard that you don’t apply to any comparable broadcaster.
