Paging Roger Harrabin…
Bishop Hill writes:
Hat tip to several readers who have pointed out Michael Buerk’s comments on the BBC Radio 4 show, the Moral Maze:
“not long ago, to question multiculturalism…risked being branded racist and pushed into the loathesome corner with paedophiles and climate change deniers“
I will not respond in kind to this kind of thing. It looks to me like a calculated attempt to provoke a violent reaction. What it really does is to show that Buerk and the BBC are devoid of any integrity. They condemn themselves out of their own mouths.
I hope they continue with this kind of thing. It makes the BBC look like it is staffed by zealots and nutters. It will win them no friends.
…
and in another piece…
Archbishop Cranmer has picked up on Michael Buerk’s contribution to the climate debate.
By equating anthropogenic climate change deniers and those who question the doctrine and policy of state multiculturalism with paedophiles – whom society, rationally or not, now ranks as the lowest form of life and quite beyond redemption – the BBC has shown itself to be intellectually deficient and morally bankrupt.
But His Grace has a question: If a qualified doctor and government adviser (unpaid) can be humiliatingly dismissed for having co-authored a paper in which a reasoned correlation was drawn between homosexuality and paedophilia, why should a BBC presenter (paid by the taxpayer) not be dismissed for purposely inciting hatred against climate change deniers and multiculuralist sceptics by juxtaposing their reasoned beliefs with the perversion of paedophilia?
UPDATE: Bishop Hill reports: His Grace has reconsidered, and a new post is now here. This follows the line of several commentators here, namely that Buerk was criticising the BBC not comparing sceptics to paedophiles.
Initially, His Grace was persuaded by Bishop Hill’s indignation at the inflammatory juxtaposition of multiculturalist sceptics and anthropogenic climate-change deniers with paedophiles. But, having reflected (and having read some of Mr Buerk’s other pronouncements on the BBC), it is evident that he is actually criticising those who propagate absolutist dogma and hold to an unquestionable creed.
…
Michael Buerk is not himself equating anthropogenic climate change deniers and those who question the doctrine and policy of state multiculturalism with paedophiles: he is lampooning those of his BBC colleagues who do so habitually. He chose paedophiles – whom society, rationally or not, now ranks as the lowest form of life and quite beyond redemption – but, were in not for Godwin’s law, he could equally have chosen Nazis.
===========================================================
Luboš Motl reports and comments on the content, plus provides a link to the audio:
Last night at 9 p.m., the BBC Radio 4 broadcast another 30-minute program about the psychology of deniers:
In denial: climate on the couch (audio, HTML)
============================================================
Where’s BBC’s voice to climate change, Roger Harrabin on this I wonder?
Right that’s it I’ve heard enough from these political parasites.
“Pushed into the loathesome corner”
BBC?
Bigoted British Climalarmists
Since he started it, feel free to call Mr. Buerk names.
Buffoon is the appellation that immediately comes to mind.
I would perhaps also question his parentage.
Before ye all go banannas….a lot of us think Michael Buerk was actually taking a poke at the BBC himself…it was sarcasm. A few of us have commented over at Bishop Hill that, considering Buerks many disparing views about the BBC, he was actually implying that it was a ‘misplaced but corporate BBC viewpoint’ – not necessarily his own.
Whilst there is no doubt that such a viewpoint does kinda exist in the BBC, I think Buerk is not one of them…he was just making a point – it was regarding how questioning multicultrism at the BBC was a similar taboo until recently……now that dam is broken the BBC has re-positioned itself corporatly to ‘well of course we all knew that’.
The point is the BBC is stil in denial about how they picked the wrong side on climate change, just like multiculturism, but that too will come to pass.
The Archbishop may have a point (in his revised post), that Buerk may be highlighting the religious zealotry of the BBC rather than participating in it.
Before launching into criticism of Buerk – who it may transpire is friend, not foe – it is important to determine what Buerk intended by his precise phrasing.
Only recently at Keith Kloor’s site, I jokingly mused that the ‘climate change denier’/paedophile link would somehow one day be invoked, at the time there was a discussion going about equating the ‘deniers’ with people against the abolition of slavery.
Funny how you can push things to such ridiculous extremes and then someone will actually come along and prove you right.
The BBC has lost it.
20 mail sacks of people who want OUT of the EU, were delivered reently.(300+K forms)
surely the sane sceptics could supply that many signed decs ?
theyd have NO problem if they added a Q re multicultural UK either.
I’m with mikef2. He was being ironic.
The attempt to medicalise CAGW sceptics is far more ugly in my view
Cross-posting from Bishop Hill’s blog:
“I’m sorry – much as I like reading Archbishop Cranmer’s blog, I cannot agree with him, nor with others here and elsewhere in the blogosphere, that Michael Buerk should be given a pass because he’s only highlighting the extreme mindset prevalent at Al Beeb.
Don’t forget the fact that this was a radio programme, something which usually is in one ear – out the other. Unlike on TV, we cannot see from his face what he really meant.
If he indeed meant to show up the hidebound Al Beeb AGW attitude, then it was very clumsy and not well done at all.
Far too many people will have only taken in that racists, paedophiles and climate ‘deniers’ belong in the same corner.
No amount of backtracking, no amount of analysing, giving him the benefit of doubt, of what he really meant, will make this go away.
There simply are a few things on does not use even as an ironic aside, and one of them is comparing one group of people with paedophiles.”
mikef2 says:
February 12, 2011 at 4:54 am
“Before ye all go bananas….a lot of us think Michael Buerk was actually taking a poke at the BBC himself…it was sarcasm. A few of us have commented over at Bishop Hill that, considering Buerks many disparaging views about the BBC, he was actually implying that it was a ‘misplaced but corporate BBC viewpoint’ – not necessarily his own.”
Even still! two wrongs do not make a right! the suggestion still stands whether or not it’s Michael Buerks view or the “corporate BBC viewpoint”, therefore public outrage of this vile association is understandable.
And in the Loathsome Corner ….. the Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation.
The original buffoon was ‘Buff’ Huhne.
I’m going to check this one pronto out as mikef2 implies because it doesn’t sound like the Michael Buerk I remember, could be despairing sarcasm. Let’s see.
Our ABC here in Australia is not far behind.
Scumbags all of them, utter filthy scumbags.
I’ll like to say in Michael Buerks defense to be fair, while debating on so-called “controversial issues” sometimes be it football, climate change or even multiculturalism whatever the topic! sometimes, being human is to err! we all make mistakes ans sometimes say the wrong thing, (not me tho /sarc) I can forgive Michael Buerk for that and laugh it off, take it with a pinch of salt so to speak, but as I’ve been following the events around the “climate change” circus and the bbc’s treatment of apposing views, It really has got on my last nerve!
“Before ye all go bananas…”
You’ll find that most people round these parts are very sensible with cool heads!
Burke is correct, the media, influenced by NGO’s, does place some groups in ‘loathesome corners’ and does do the moral equivalency of ‘paedophiles’ = ‘climate change deniers’.
He is pointing out the hypocrisy of the media/NGO’s, not condoning it.
Wow. Is the appropriately named* Michael Buerk really that stupid? Is that really what he thinks of his sceptical former-colleague Peter Sissons? Or was he being ironical?
* In case non-British readers are unaware, berk is a piece of Cockney rhyming slang dating back to the 1930s, derived from the term Berkley Hunt.
Anthony,
I can’t believe you did this, mate. Honestly. Just chill out a little bit. Did you even read Bishop Hill’s comments thread?
You are one of the few bloggers with a real sense of humour. You should know this better than anyone else. The program was meant to criticise the mindset of the CAGW dogmatists and their mindset, not ‘climate change deniers’. It is a piece of satire and irony. Just listen to it from that perspective for a change.
This will be like accidentally burning a climate change skeptic.
Just chill out! This will cause some embarrassment if we all don’t cool down a little bit. Let’s think about this rationally.
While Buerk was obviously being ironic, that does not in itself mean that his remarks were not ill-judged and offensive.
On the previous week’s programme Buerk described religion as superstition when he introduced a debate about the value of religion to society with, “Are we now to base our moral and legal code on rationality rather than superstition?” While many will be familiar with the BBC’s unbalanced attitude to climate change some from overseas might be surprised that The Moral Maze, a weekly programme about moral issues usually has three atheists on the panel of four.
I have complained through the BBC’s not too easy procedure. The reply will take 10 weeks if it comes at all. Unfortunately Buerk’s email address is hidden by the BBC. I have also complained about a report last night on the local Look North news which stated that since 1953 sea levels were 1.5m higher today so flooding was more likely. Such blatant alarmism must stop but the BBC seems to be a law unto themselves so ignore all requests to get more reasonable.
It is the usual format of his show to state the extreme positions purposely to bring them into collision, usually in a reasonably well-managed and productive way. I am inclined to think he, personally, would vigorously disagree that AGW dissent and child-molestation are morally equivalent. I am inclined to think this is a rare example of the BBC being as balanced as it likes to pretend it is all the time.
As long as there is no agreed upon “global warming” doctrine i.e. a comprehensive set of thesis that can be right or wrong, it is not possible to confirm or deny anything. What on earth is this “global warming” to be believed or denied? To deny “anthropogenic global warming” is a meaningless as to believe in “anthropognic global warming”. There is just good science and bad science, integrity and politics. Anyway, if you want some common sense commentary on “global warming” from the BBC just watch Top Gear and warm yourself in the the philosophy of Jeremy Clackson.
Didn’t catch the programme but I tend to agree with mikef2 above. Michael Buerk is an old school journalist in the mould of Peter Sissons [who has been giving the BBC a hard time recently] and I just imagine him saying that sarcastically. The audience for the morale maze would have a large contingent of sceptics that he wouldn’t want to alienate.
cheers David
mikef2 says :’The point is the BBC is stil in denial about how they picked the wrong side on climate change, just like multiculturism, but that too will come to pass.’
I dont think this interpretation works – I doubt if he was saying (even if he hoped?) that the BBC was likely to shift its stance on paedophilia!
mikef2 is right. Buerk was only highlighting the Beeb’s corporate bigotries.
I think it’s quite rational to rate paedophiles as the lowest form of life.It’s a crime sometimes treated lightly thanks to the do-gooders and religious people who tell us there is good in everybody.
I am sure that if climate “denial” was declared a crime,not many do-gooders would be preaching about rehabilitation.They would want the ring leaders jailed,made an example of.