Bigmouth Strikes Again: Carrie Marshall's blog

Carrie’s books | Carrie’s band

Category: Media

Journalism, radio and stuff like that

  • The only Kirk piece you need to read

    I’ve been saddened but not surprised by the rush to canonise Charlie Kirk, the murdered bigot, in so much of the UK press: reading pieces like yesterday’s utterly deranged column by Kevin McKenna in The Herald would leave you with the impression that Kirk was some kind of Debate Jesus crucified by trans women rather than what he was: a man who pushed hatred, advocated violence and profited handsomely from defaming marginalised people, a man who was murdered not by “the tolerant left” or the “trans lobby” but by a white man from a Republican family.

    Part of it, of course, is that many of the people writing about him share many of his views – maybe not all of them, but enough of them that admitting Kirk was a bigot would mean admitting that they’re bigoted towards certain groups too. Hence the whitewash.

    In that context, Ta-Nehisi Coates’s piece on the Kirk coverage is a must-read. It’s damning in part because it simply shows you what Kirk believed in and how he expressed it. But it’s also a pretty savage indictment of the people writing about him.

    Before he was killed last week, Charlie Kirk left a helpful compendium of words—ones that would greatly aid those who sought to understand his legacy and import. It is somewhat difficult to match these words with the manner in which Kirk is presently being memorialized in mainstream discourse… Kirk subscribed to some of the most disreputable and harmful beliefs that this country has ever known.

  • Doing their sacred duty

    Yesterday, three UK newspapers said that the killer of hatemonger Charlie Kirk was pro-trans on their front pages. The Daily Telegraph had the headline “Charlie Kirk suspect ‘left gun with trans message’”. The Sun front page said that “Ammo ‘carried pro-trans message’”. The Times front page headline was “Trump ally’s killer left ‘transgender ammunition’”. Other papers carried the same story inside their print versions and online.

    None of those reports were true.

    There was no trans message, pro- or otherwise.

    And crucially, all of the newspapers knew that, because long before they had gone to print the Wall Street Journal, which first reported the wrong information, had started walking it back.

    The messages on the ammunition were memes from far-right internet culture and shitposting; the one supposedly relating to trans people was the code to call in a bomb in the video game Helldivers 2, which is a popular meme in the alleged killer’s online world.

    We know that many people don’t read beyond headlines, and on the rare occasions that newspapers retract stories they do so in very small boxes buried deep inside the papers. So three of the UK’s biggest papers told everyone passing newsstands yesterday that trans people were connected to a brutal murder. And that lie will now be repeated endlessly as yet another reason to fear and hate trans people.

    Trans people have no comeback for this, because the code of practice newspapers pretend to follow doesn’t allow groups of people to complain: you can only make an actionable complaint about hate if it names a specific person. So if The Times says that Trans Person X did a thing, and that isn’t true, Trans Person X can complain. But if The Times says trans *people* did a thing, and that’s a lie, there’s no comeback. And of course there’s no legal redress either.

    The Onion has a famous headline: It is journalism’s sacred duty to endanger the lives of as many trans people as possible. And that’s exactly what the press is doing here.

  • Shut it down

    I can barely read this NYT piece about the generative AI chatbot that helped a teen kill himself because it’s so upsetting. Content warning doesn’t begin to cover it.

    Without ChatGPT, Adam would still be with them, his parents think, full of angst and in need of help, but still here.

    This isn’t your typical “new tech is scary” story. God knows I’ve read enough of those since I started in tech writing in the 1990s. There is something uniquely dangerous about generative AI chatbots, and the industry knows it.

  • Whose voices matter

    You may have seen coverage of the Polari Prize protest, in which almost all of the first book prize nominees and many of the main prize nominees have withdrawn in protest at the inclusion of the anti-trans writer John Boyne.

    Boyne, a self-proclaimed “TERF” who just happened to sanitise his social media a few days before his inclusion was announced, is well known for being anti-trans (and anti-other parts of the LGBTQ+ community and their supporters). Just days ago in a newspaper interview he compared women supportive of trans rights to the character from The Handmaid’s Tale who is “ready to pin a handmaiden down as her husband rapes her.”

    This is the same Boyne who had a very public fight with the Auschwitz-Birkenau Holocaust memorial museum, which said that his book The Boy In The Striped Pyjamas “should be avoided by anyone who studies or teaches the history of the Holocaust” because the book is based on “historical inaccuracies and stereotypical portrayals of major characters that help to perpetuate dangerous myths about the Holocaust”. He brought the same rigour to his more recent book about a trans child, a book whose message could best be described as “trans bad. Don’t be trans.” The criticism of that book sent him down the anti-trans rabbit hole he was already leaning into.

    Including him in a prize supposedly celebrating the entire LGBTQ+ community is rather like nominating Andrew Tate for a feminist award – and his response to the protest makes that clear. His response uses the tactic favoured by abusers, DARVO – deny, attack, reverse victim and offender – to try and paint himself as an innocent little boy besieged by sinister forces, and he doubles down by saying that if a minority’s human rights are perceived to conflict with those of the majority, the minority’s rights don’t matter. For anyone to say that is incredible. For a gay man to say it is indefensible.

    In all the coverage of the protests not one of the authors or judges who withdrew, or the hundreds of writers and publishing workers who have signed a letter protesting Boyne’s inclusion, has been given the opportunity to comment. Instead, Boyne and his beloved JK Rowling are getting all the column inches with lurid claims of what the Telegraph describes as being “cancelled” by “trans zealots”.

    The people who are protesting are doing so because they’re principled, and pulling out of the prize means sacrificing a potentially significant boost in sales. They are not bigots or bullies and they are not cancelling anyone. They are the ones whose voices are being silenced.

  • Lying by omission

    Journalism pretends to be fair and independent, but much of it isn’t: you can easily shape a story by choosing to include some things and exclude others. And there’s an excellent example of that in today’s newspapers, or rather there isn’t an excellent example of that in today’s newspapers.

    The ongoing employment tribunal of the deeply unpleasant Fife nurse Sandie Peggie has been the subject of intense daily coverage in all of the UK and Scottish press. Peggie was abusive to a trans doctor, Beth Upton, and was disciplined for that. But most of the newspapers’ coverage attempts to paint Upton as an aggressor and Peggie as her victim. Peggie is being represented by a director of the papers’ favourite anti-trans hate group Sex Matters and the case is widely believed to be funded by a very famous millionaire.

    The judge has effectively allowed the tribunal to become a show trial of Peggie’s victim; in addition to allowing misgendering and deadnaming by Sex Matters’ lawyer, the tribunal refused to grant the doctor anonymity to protect her from exactly the co-ordinated media and social media abuse she’s been subjected to.

    The papers clearly believe that this story is so important that it justifies blanket coverage including live blogs from the tribunal. And yet there are no headlines in the major newspapers today of the most explosive testimony yet, which came from Peggie herself yesterday. During an absolutely astonishing session she revealed herself to be bigoted against all kinds of people. She used multiple racist slurs, admitted to Islamaphobia, and generally revealed herself to be bigoted against multiple marginalised groups. This follows on from other witnesses producing evidence of her posting sick, racist jokes about dead Pakistanis and saying that she wanted to post bacon through the doors of a mosque.

    This is very inconvenient for the newspapers that have lionised Peggie as a feminist Jesus; The Scotsman and The Herald have repeatedly hailed her as a pure, innocent victim of the evil trans mafia. And as a result, they have looked at the most newsworthy testimony from the entire tribunal and simply ignored it.

    It’s not just the Scots press. The Daily Mail and the Telegraph have been equally obsessed, and yet there’s nothing about the racist comments in either print edition today.

    This is what newspapers do when the truth gets in the way. They bury it. And if that means burying people too, so be it.

  • A tsunami of scaremongering

    There’s a good piece in Assigned Media: “A Shameful Chapter”: How Anti-Trans Disinformation Drowned Out Science and Gripped the Mainstream. It’s about the US but relevant to the UK too: our media is just as captured, and their reporting is helping the right-wing attacks on trans people’s human rights and healthcare.

    It takes one pseudoscience peddler and uses their activities to show:

    “the reach and coordination of right-wing lobbying groups, their determination to spread medical disinformation to promote political goals, and their success in getting that message adopted in mainstream media — not simply in friendly outlets like Fox but in emerging power centers like the Free Press, and even traditional media like The New York Times.

    This pipeline of disinformation, which has elevated extremist views and undercut medical science, has had devastating effects on hundreds of thousands of trans Americans, most acutely young people, and their families.”

  • Doing the devils’ work

    During her appearance in front of the Women and Equalities Committee last month, EHRC head Baroness Falkner told MPs that the EHRC had an 81% approval rate; the implication, which Falkner did not correct or clarify, was that this figure represented public polling.

    Thanks to another freedom of information request, we now know that it doesn’t: the figure comes from the EHRC’s own “media sentiment analysis” which “measures the tone and favourability of media coverage about EHRC, not public polling”.

    In other words: the newspapers that hate trans people are pleased that the EHRC is actively helping their war on trans people.

    “Positive media sentiment has improved from 35.2% in 2021-22 to 80.6% in 2024-25”. When that media is waging war on a marginalised group that the EHRC is supposed to protect, that should be cause for resignation, not celebration.

  • The bungle Telegraph

    It’s hard to imagine now, but the Daily Telegraph was once envied for its news reporting. Now it’s a comic for angry old people who want to be lied to – and it can’t even be bothered to do that very well.

    Today’s front page trails a big news report on the revelation that the NHS gives surgery to some trans people. Leaving aside the transparently bigoted framing (the implication, as ever, is that you can just walk in and get surgery; it took me seven years, and that was when waiting lists were a fraction of what they are now) and the involvement of the usual anti-trans activists, the article tells its readers that of the people getting surgery on the NHS, “a large proportion of those going under the knife are under 18.”

    No they aren’t.

    The proportion of under-18s going “under the knife” is exactly zero.

    The Telegraph’s reporter, “special correspondent” Hayley Dixon, would have known that if she’d read her own fucking article, as two paragraphs later it notes that the youngest surgical patient was 18.

  • A feeding frenzy

    The trans advocacy group TACC has been counting the (overwhelmingly anti-) trans stories published by many UK newspaper websites. Over the last 30 days the Times has run 38 stories; the Daily Express, 91; The Sun, 123; The Daily Telegraph, 147; and the Daily Mail, 228.

    In the case of the Mail that’s an average of over 7 anti-trans stories per day, but it’s even worse than that: on just one day, the day of the Supreme Court ruling, the Daily Mail published over 35 stories about trans people while The Telegraph and The Express published more than 25 each.

    That isn’t journalism. It’s a feeding frenzy.

  • How it happened

    Juliet Jaques has written a terrific feature detailing exactly how the anti-trans takeover of the press and politics happened in the UK. And it’s been going on longer than you might think: while it really kicked into gear in 2017, the foundations were laid long before.

    The article details how trans writers were pushed out of media, how trans people’s voices were excluded from stories about them, and how fake grassroots groups were able to do so much damage to established LGBTQ+ advocacy organisations. But while the piece is detailed and evidenced, the gist of it is this:

    Our enemies didn’t look at publications that were platforming trans people or parties that were supporting trans rights and then vacate the battlefield – they drove us out and made our sympathisers afraid to speak up.