Another Twittter Storm: BMW

This morning I've repeatedly seen tweets condemning BMW for their sexism.  The claim, as I first understood it, was that they had given cars as rewards to Team GB male athletes, but not female athletes.   I, like everyone, was:  A) Appalled at the sexism involved in this; B) Thought this was an expensive PR stunt that had gone terribly wrong and would cost them dearly.

Then I started seeing tweets that suggested it might be individual dealers, or an individual dealer who was to blame - not BMW (GB) Limited.  That seemed more understandable in terms of understanding who might commit this type of idiocy, but was obviously just as offensive.  I tried Googling the story (no results) and therefore asked anyone if they had a link, to try to establish the truth.

The story then became a bit more "refined".  I was referred to a BBC Newsnight story, that had been tweeted about by Stephanie Flanders (who has 40,000 followers).  Obviously read from the bottom up:

This is quite different. It seems the only sport affected was rowing, but the story is still that cars were given out as rewards, and blatant sexism was involved.  Common sense then kicks in.  Why would BMW go to all this effort/ expense, but then single out one sport for sexism?

An entry hidden on the Guardian sports blog at 08.58 this morning gives us the answer:

It is quite clear, assuming the BMW spokesperson is telling the truth, what happened.

• Local dealers provided cars as part of an overall BMW sponsorship scheme
• It is not even clear if the cars were lent or this was a permanent gift (I suspect the former)
• This decision was based on training needs, before the games, and clearly was in no way as a reward for obtaining medals.  
• Out of 150 cars "almost 70" were given to women.  
• (This reflects broadly the gender balance of Team GB)
• It just so happens that none of these cars went to women rowers.

I don't blame Anna Watkins for having complained, but I do think Stephanie Flanders could do with looking at this a bit more critically.  Instead, she has just posted this tweet, which continues the allegation that this was part of some deliberate sexism by individual dealers:

No wonder poor Michelle Roberts, the corporate communications manager of BMW Group London 2012 clearly feels under siege.  Do we WANT companies to stop helping our athletes, Stephanie?  This is a complete non-story (unless BMW is blatantly lying, which we have no reason to believe).
 Note the tweet that states in cycling more women were sponsored by BMW than men.  It looks like this scheme was pretty much gender-blind and based on (an assessment of perceived) need, not on anything else.

It is also another lesson to the Twitter Mob to put down their twitchforks until they have bothered to establish the facts, rather than taking everything at face value.  The medium is so powerful and we, presumably, all abhor and want to call out/ condemn sexism.  Our message is obviously diminished when we all get on our high horses over absolutely nothing.




UPDATE: the Telegraph has now put out a story on this [Click for Link]

A quick read of the piece would suggest there is substance to the claims.  It is headed 'Sexism Row "over BMWs for the boys"'.  It repeats the original complaint on Newsnight by Anna Watkins, which  is then modified, if not retracted entirely, by a tweet made later by her:

To be fair to BMW plenty of female athletes got cars, it was just within the rowing team that it ended up wonky.

That seems to me to be Anna's saying there was nothing to this, having looked a bit more closely at the facts.  I don't blame her in any way: she made an off-the-cuff complaint during an interview, because it looked like the women's rowing team was being singled out.  Later, it turned out to be co-incidence this was the case and she had the good grace to admit it.

The story then makes clear that the cars were given on 2 year leases, and were not permanent gifts.  It confirms that the selection of athletes was not related to performance in the games, which was the way many seemed to understand the story - including Stephanie Flanders.  It is accepted that the loans were made before teams were even selected.  These were therefore not "gifts for the boys" for getting medals.  The fact that one woman rower won 3 golds, as tweeted by Stephanie above, has nothing to do with the price of fish.  The piece refers to the Twitter Storm.  Thanks Stephanie and those other "quality" journos who retweeted her. 

All The Telegraph piece actually does is relate that there was a row.  It should make much clearer that the row was over nothing.

There genuinely appears to be little sense of responsibility on the part of the journalists who are still happily retweeting Stephanie's tweets, after the issues with the "story" are pointed out to them.  I was sagely told the following by Paul Lewis of the Financial Times (37,000 followers on Twitter, one of those who RTd Stephanie):

This is truly bizarre, is looking at the issue completely upside down, and runs completely contrary to what I would call natural justice.  You should not, as a journalist, throw out serious allegations like this because they "might" be true.  If they are denied, you should not ignore that denial, and stand by them anyway, because the denial "might" be untrue.  In effect, the target of the story is guilty unless proven innocent.  As a journo, you should mention the denial and bloody well establish the facts.  If common sense tells you it doesn't add up, you retract it.  It's bad journalism not to do so. 

The attitude really seems to be to just chuck it out there: it's a story, it winds people up, who cares if it's likely to be true?  The PR people (and the original complainant, apparently) have said it's wrong, but BMW really aren't going to sue are they?