Interestingly done

A pregnant woman was dropped from a BBC television debate on abortion after being told that she might upset others taking part.
Former nurse Sarah Costerton was interviewed as a potential panellist for a new BBC2 programme called Abortion On Trial, hosted by presenter Anne Robinson.
Mrs Costerton said programme-makers had seemed keen for her to participate but after being told her pregnancy might distress other participants or restrict what they felt able to say, she was informed that she would not be required.

The married mother of three said: ‘They were worried it would inhibit people speaking freely or cause upset; that me being pregnant would offend people who opted for a termination. That’s what was said.’
She said the programme-makers had given no explanation for not selecting her, but added: ‘It seemed that me that being pregnant was a stumbling block.’
She said that she did not see how a debate could fully represent all views on abortion if none of the participants was pregnant, and the programme makers had ‘missed an opportunity’ by not inviting her to take part.

We don’t, of course, know all of what happened. But it would be odd to have a discussion by only having those with one set of views, or perhaps by deliberately excluding a certain set of them.

‘If women who had terminations are willing to go on the television and testify to that and explain their reasoning, me sitting there pregnant shouldn’t make any difference or be offensive.’

Well, yes.

23 thoughts on “Interestingly done”

  1. How do such fragile people get through the day, where pregnant women can be seen walking about shamelessly?

    I wonder if any of them had actually complained, or if the producers were suffering from Snowflake by Proxy?

  2. The sooner the BBC is gone the better.

    Indeed how quickly it can be “aborted” needs to be looked at as a competition.

    I had thought one week would do it but now I think one day is the standard that should be aimed for. Here today–gone tomorrow.

    The little people–techs/tea ladies etc –will need their payouts, that strikes me as fair.

    The boss class and leftist luvvies–they go into the night with nothing.

  3. But it would be odd to have a discussion by only having those with one set of views, or perhaps by deliberately excluding a certain set of them.

    Not odd in the least — standard BBC practice. Vide any discussion of a subject which can be seen from a right-wing perspective.

  4. Government interference in TV strikes again.

    You know that if The Sun had a TV station, they would have brought on a glowing mother-to-be a week away from birth, a babykiller in the second trimester just about to abort, and a homicidally postpartum mother. And it would have been great TV.

  5. If you wanted a bunch of racists to reveal their thinking on TV, you wouldn’t have a black person sitting in the studio with them.

    Is it that difficult to understand?

  6. The outcome of a BBC show called “Abortion on Trial” was predictable from the moment the title was written.

  7. The BBC mindset is that those with ‘progressive’ views will be offended by opposing views and must be protected from direct exposure to them.

    The result is that BBC impartiality might as well be be in the hands of its erstwhile employee, Karl-Eduard von Schnitzler.

  8. “If you wanted a bunch of racists to reveal their thinking on TV, you wouldn’t have a black person sitting in the studio with them.

    Is it that difficult to understand?”

    No, not difficult to understand at all, but the disquiet is very revealing. The whole point about a person being uncomfortable about being open about their views when face to face with the person/situation they are disparaging is that it says more about the persons views than anything else. It says that the person is ashamed of their views – an unashamed racist would have no problem being open in front of the subject of their bile. Similarly if abortion is the fine morally acceptable activity that we are all told it is, why would anyone feel ashamed of it or feel they should not discuss it in front of a pregnant woman?

  9. ” If you wanted a bunch of racists to reveal their thinking on TV, you wouldn’t have a black person sitting in the studio with them”
    Yes, Dave, because only whites are racists of course.

  10. If you wanted a bunch of racists to reveal their thinking on TV, you wouldn’t have a black person sitting in the studio with them

    Interesting replacement of supporters of abortion with racists there.

  11. Mr Ecks,

    Since the BBC was ‘born’ in 1922, it cannot be aborted, no matter how much we wish it would be. However, at the age of 95, surely it could be euthanased? It is clearly suffering an incurable mental illness (beyond the knowledge of political science to cure) and costing unacceptable and unaffordable amounts to keep going. Time to die.

  12. Bloke in North Dorset

    “If you wanted a bunch of racists to reveal their thinking on TV, you wouldn’t have a black person sitting in the studio with them.”

    It worked quite well on QT when they sat Nick Griffin next to Bonnie Greer and also had Sayeeda Warsi on the panel. It certainly changed a few minds about Griffin and the BNP.

    Or was that the point, they didn’t want any minds changing?

  13. There are different ways to stimulate the debate.

    Have a bunch of people who disagree and give them a drink, or have a bunch of people who agree and give them enough rope.

    The director is responsible for the casting and it’s his/her job to optimise the panel for the effect or audience that he/she wants. This woman wasn’t cast, why is that an issue?

  14. “Interesting replacement of supporters of abortion with racists there.”

    Extremists of any kind. I’m mostly in favour of abortion, but many are so extreme they can’t even understand why anyone would oppose it. Even to the extent that the father of the child doesn’t have any rights. Let alone the person who ends up in a bucket on the floor.

  15. I’m not anti-abortion, but I have few illusions about the beeb (I hope). They did it to tilt the debate in a pro-abortion direction. Or at least in an anti-anti-abortion direction.

  16. You pitch for a TV programme, you aren’t sure at this stage whether ot will be made or not (but the murmurings are good) so you sell it to the commissioners as.

    ‘Abortion On Trial’

    40 minute documentary
    2 x 12 minute sections for and against with interested parties + 14 minute studio debate.
    12 min segment for to include….
    12 min segment against to include…
    14 min studio debate to include
    Lesbian.
    Terminator.
    Mother of Downs.
    Female with heredical genetic risk to children.
    Expert in favour.
    Expert against.

    To be filmed 6 weeks prior to air date.

    Because the woman in question is already pregnant there is an increased risk that she wil be unavailable at the time of filming so she was dropped in favour of someone deemed to be at lessor risk of disruption to the filming schedule.

    I might have used her in the 12 min segment if she could add something because that can be filmed at convenience but for a studio event I want to limit the no shows (because they are expensive)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *