BBC Finds Presenter In Violation Of Network Standards For Correcting "Pregnant People" Reference On Air
There is a controversy at the BBC over a correction made by presenter Martine Croxall on air when she changed a reference to “pregnant people” to “women.”
The network later received 20 complaints and agreed that Croxall had violated network policies. (For full disclosure, I previously worked as the legal analyst for BBC).
In the segment, Croxall began by stating, “London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine has released research, which says that nearly 600 heat-related deaths are expected in the U.K.” She then added “Malcolm Mistry, who was involved in the research, says that the aged, pregnant people — women, and those with pre-existing health conditions need to take precautions.”
When she said “women,” she seemed to briefly pause in frustration in making the change.
According to the BBC’s Executive Complaints Unit (ECU), the brief pause and facial expression conveyed bias and a “personal view”:
“The phrase ‘pregnant people’ was followed by a facial expression which has been variously interpreted by complainants as showing disgust, ridicule, contempt or exasperation.
Even accepting this explanation, however, the ECU considered the facial expression which accompanied the change of ‘people’ to ‘women’ laid it open to the interpretation that it indicated a particular viewpoint in the controversies currently surrounding trans identity, and the congratulatory messages Ms Croxall later received on social media, together with the critical views expressed in the complaints to the BBC and elsewhere, tended to confirm that the impression of her having expressed a personal view was widely shared across the spectrum of opinion on the issue.”
I can understand that the network does not want on-air staff to convey their personal views on divisive subjects, particularly controversies that the network is covering.
What I was less clear on was the standard being enforced here.
There is no BBC rule that I know of requiring the use of “pregnant people” as opposed to women.
So, if that is true, the violation was the brief pause and facial expression.
If Croxall had simply made the change without the facial expression, would she be in compliance with network standards?
Croxall clearly disagreed with the nomenclature used by the writers, as many do. The fact that the BBC received 20 complaints is hardly surprising and the reliance on such complaints as proof of meaning is a dangerous practice. It is now common for individuals and groups to file a flurry of complaints against anyone who holds opposing views on issues like transgender rights or identity. The United Kingdom has eviscerated free speech with criminal prosecutions and investigation for years. Flash mobs form quickly to pursue dissenting voices such as J.K. Rowling, who maintain that these policies undermine the progress on women’s rights.
Notably, BBC initially supported Croxall and told complainants that Croxall’s script change was “done for clarity and was in no way meant to be disrespectful. We’re satisfied it was duly accurate and impartial, and in line with the BBC’s editorial guidelines.” As more complaints were filed, the network changed its position.
I understand that BBC does not want presenters to express personal views on such subjects on air, but it has remained uncomfortably vague on how presenters address such issues. Croxall clearly felt that “pregnant persons” was a clumsy and inaccurate expression. Is BBC saying that this is the correct way to speak of pregnant women or can presenters change the language, as did Croxall?
The current position seems the worst of all options for BBC to remain silent on the correct term while finding a presenter in violation for how she corrected it.
Tyler Durden
Sun, 11/09/2025 – 11:40