It’s not just what you report but how you report it.

The same story can be told in very different ways, and you can get a glimpse of what the reporter wants you to think by looking at what they choose to put in a story, what adjectives they use, and of course what little points of interest they choose to leave out of a report.

Last week the BBC inadvertantly proved this fact through its reporting of the sentencing of a man convicted of a pedophilic sex offense. It wound up producing 3 different versions of the same story, each leaving a somewhat different impression based on what they decided to include. It was the same event, ostensibly the exact same report, yet by dropping one and then two facts completely altering the gist for readers.

And, of course, the reason for the changes was what you would expect: catering to the alphabet people.

BBC is still protecting it's pedophiles like it did with Jimmy Savile, after that scandal, you would think they learned their lesson, but pedophiles are going to pedophile and the BBC are pedophiles.https://t.co/vHG90f7KKF

— Extreme Mega Maga Mule (@PatFish62304572) August 26, 2023

The facts were inarguable and easy to report. An older man who is a drag queen and an organizer for a local Pride event was caught trying to arrange a meeting with a child for sex. It was a sting operation, he was caught and convicted, and the story was about his sentencing.

Look how the BBC edited an article to remove the fact that this paedophile was a drag queen and a Pride organiser. This isn't objective journalism – this is Orwellian manipulation of the news to remove facts that don't align with the establishment narrative. pic.twitter.com/mTCPAGhRPN

— Leo Kearse – see me on YouTube & Headliners (@LeoKearse) August 25, 2023

As you can see the first story led with the fact that he was a former drag queen, and included the fact that he was organizing the first-ever Pride event in his community. The second story omitted the fact that he was a former drag queen but continued to report his prominence in the alphabet community and his role as the organizer for a new Pride event.

The third story omits any reference to his sexuality at all and downplays his prominence in the alphabet community altogether.

You and I know exactly why this happened, of course. The alphabet mafia didn’t like the framing of the story and used its clout to completely change the impression people would get when reading the news.

There are a lot of events that get reported where the particular sexuality or practices of the subject might be utterly irrelevant. Were Andrew Wray convicted of shoplifting, for instance, the “drag queen” part of his biography would be irrelevant and could easily be included or left out. The “Pride” event information probably belongs, but only due to his prominence in the community and not due to the nature of the event. If he were the head of the Rotary it would be the same relevance.

But when talking about a pedophilic sex offense his status as a drag queen and alphabet activist matters a lot. There is a huge debate about the relationship between alphabet ideology, drag queens, and pedophilia, and excluding these facts changes not just this story but the public debate as a whole.

“Give me examples” and “it doesn’t happen” are often used to “debunk” claims that draq queen story hours are sexual in nature, and of course, the relationship of alphabet ideology to pedophilia and sexualization of children is a matter of hot debate. The BBC chose to stealth edit its story in order to change its meaning.

When confronted with their editing the BBC put a note acknowledging that the story had been edited. You can judge whether their characterization is accurate:

The article now contains the disclaimer: “An earlier version of this story made reference to details not reported in court and has been updated accordingly.”

Something tells me that the BBC usually doesn’t limit stories it reports only to facts included in the court record. It would be quite odd if it did. Are we to assume that reporters are simply stenographers?

Well yes, yes we are. But stenographers for the Left. They simply report what they are allowed to do by the establishment.

The Telegraph’s reporting was pretty straightforward, to give you a comparison. A center-right publication–more center than right–and a broadsheet was pretty straightforward.

🔴 A drag queen trapped by paedophile hunters has been jailed for 34 months https://t.co/TFIVRBG2YE

— The Telegraph (@Telegraph) August 25, 2023

The drag artist veteran of more than 40 years sent “highly sexualised” messages to the decoy over a chat website, Snapchat and WhatsApp.

Way, of Wrexham, North Wales, suggested meeting up with the fake 14-year-old to “do it”, and sent images of his genitals.

He had been organising the first-ever LGBT Pride event for Welshpool, Powys, before being caught online and had appeared at Pride events in Cardiff.

Way was already subject to a lifelong sexual harm prevention order at the time of the incident after being convicted at a court in Bristol in November 2007.

He admitted to attempting to engage in sexual communications with a child, as well as breaching his existing sexual harm prevention order, at Caernarfon Crown Court.

Here we also learn another key part of the story: he was a known sexual predator, yet he was still the guy chosen to organize the “first ever LGBT Pride event for Welshpool, Powys.”

See how choosing what and how to report things changes things. Once again we see that a sexual predator was actually elevated as representative of the alphabet community before being caught going after children.

The BBC decided that their readers didn’t need to know that.