Lord Monckton is rather upset with the producers of this show, so much that he filed a legal action for a right of reply according to Bishop Hill.
I was interviewed (captured really, they flagged me down in the conference hall foyer with no notice) by this production group at the Heartland conference last year in Chicago, giving well over an hour’s worth of an interview in which they asked the same question several times in different ways, hoping to get the answer they wanted. This is an old news interviewing trick to get that golden sound bite. I knew what they were doing, and kept giving the answers my way.
Then, they showed me the contract they wanted me to sign (no mention at the beginning before the interview) and I spent several minutes reading it, finally deciding that the contract basically amounted to me giving them all rights to my image, words, and opinion, with specific rights to edit them together in “any way they saw fit”. Yes, as I recall, that was exactly the way it was worded in the contract, and basically gave them a license to create their own alternate “Watts interview” reality as they desired. My years in television news have shown me how editing can be brutally unfair in the hands of somebody skilled, and I basically told them to “stuff it” and refused to sign the contract. They spent the next two weeks via email and phone trying to come up with contract variations to get me to sign and I still refused. The entire affair was rushed and unprofessional in my experience.
The “repeated questioning of the same topic” interview technique of these blokes was a tipoff for me that the interview was a setup. I wanted no part of it and refused to allow them legal rights over me by not signing the contract. After watching the trailer below, I’m glad I stood my ground.
Here’s the BBC video and intro text for the program (note: the BBC does not allow people outside of Britain to watch the video; some sort of cranial-rectal problem I’m told, a proxy server in the UK is needed to view it if you live elsewhere):
Filmmaker Rupert Murray takes us on a journey into the heart of climate scepticism to examine the key arguments against man-made global warming and to try to understand the people who are making them.
Do they have the evidence that we are heating up the atmosphere or are they taking a grave risk with our future by dabbling in highly complicated science they don’t fully understand? Where does the truth lie and how are we, the people, supposed to decide?
The film features Britain’s pre-eminent sceptic Lord Christopher Monckton as he tours the world broadcasting his message to the public and politicians alike. Can he convince them and Murray that there is nothing to worry about?
This is the trailer, which everyone can view:
h/t to Bishop Hill
UPDATE: James Delingpole of the Telegraph tells of his experience with this outfit:
Nine months ago, when I was at the Heartland conference in Chicago, I was approached by a louche, affable, dark-haired, public school charmer called Rupert Murray. With his friend Callum he was making a documentary about climate sceptics for the BBC and wondered if I’d like to take part.
“The BBC? Not bloody likely. You’ve come to stitch us up, haven’t you?” I said.
“Not at all,” said Murray. “Look, there’s something you need to realise. I’m an independent filmmaker, I have no big budget for this, so I’m dependent on my work being original and interesting. The very last thing the BBC wants to commission is another hatchet job on sceptics. How boring and predictable would that be?”
Very true, I thought. It really is about time the BBC examined the issue from the other side. They are a public service broadcaster, after all, not a green investment fund. (Ho ho).
Unfortunately, the ending Delingpole paints is worse that my own, be sure to read his take on it.
The BBC have overplayed their hand. They were so desperate to swing people’s emotions, the emotional appeals were clumsy and grossly obvious.
1. Cut to a soaring eagle while Travesty Trenberth is spouting his rot about “scientists have to tell the truth”.
2. A minute or two later, Cut to a nasty looking crow staring into the room through a glass window, as Monckton laughs at a private joke.
3. The first part of Darth Vader’s Star Wars theme song played while showing a pastiche of clips from right wing, skeptical TV channels.
4. Folksy music playing when showing Tea Party activists, to make them all look like a bunch of hicks.
5. When Monckton finally got a short chance to reply, at the end of the show, they filtered his voice, and played music over his words, to make him difficult to follow. And cut a chunk out of the middle of his reply.
I suspect the show will ultimately backfire spectacularly, more so than the 10:10 video. Any educated person who watched it, even people who have never had reason to doubt AGW, will wonder why a settled scientific position needs such grossly obvious appeals to emotion, and crude video propaganda stunts.
Roger Harrabin takes issue with Peter Sissons criticism of the BBC in a letter to the UK “Daily Mail” today:
http://i52.tinypic.com/o6z7ye.jpg
“Filmmaker Rupert Murray takes us on a journey into the heart of climate scepticism to examine the key arguments against man-made global warming and to try to understand the people who are making them.”
“Filmmaker Rupert Murray takes us on a journey into the heart of climate scepticism”. Oh no he didn’t.
“to examine the key arguments against man-made global warming”. Oh no he didn’t.
No wonder this was hidden away on late night BBC 4. It was the worst pile of partisan dingo’s droppings purporting to be a serious documentary that I’ve ever seen.
An hour with Lindzen, an hour with Mckintyre/Mckitrick, an hour with Spencer, an hour with Monckton (not a fly on selected walls), and hour with Watts, might start to get to the heart of the scepticism and examine the key arguments involved.
I want my TV licence fee back. He didn’t even ask Trebnerth where the missing heat had gone. Pathetic.
I watched this program last night thinking at last a program which will bring a bit of balance into the debate. However I turned it off in disgust halfway through. It was obvious right from the start that the objective was to do a demolition job on people who do not buy into the CO2 is evil hypothesis. Also by picking on Christopher Monckton and James Delingpole it was obviously an attempt to portray people who hold an alternative view of the issue of climate change as being eccentric and slightly barmy. I expected better of the BBC.
Did any of you actually watch this programme? The programme clearly mentioned the UK’s last freezing winters.
I’ll ask again:
DOES ANYONE KNOW WHY MONKTON CLAIMED THAT OBAMA CAME FROM KENYA?
“note: the BBC does not allow people outside of Britain to watch the video; some sort of cranial-rectal problem I’m told”
Almost certainly contractual. For shows commissioned from independent producers or for bought-in shows the BBC usually has the rights to show them within the UK only. If the BBC allowed the world to see them via their website they would be sued by the rights-holders. If they spent a fortune buying worldwide rights unnecessarily and getting nothing for foreign sales they would be castigated by license fee payers.
The BBCs stance on CAGW is dreadful but let’s not give easy scoring points to warmists by berating the BBC for a not-unreasonable decision.
What is the bag limit on louches?
I keep telling people this a war.
This is the fightback after 10:10’s own goal. This is the mobilisation of forces for the big push.
Fight.
Rupert Murray’s climate credentials include:
A former art student, professional oyster shucker and International Editor of the Mexico City News, he started his film career by setting up VPTV where he made vox pops for top London advertising agencies.
http://www.endofthelinemovie.co.uk/rupert.htm
Robinson said: UK Sceptic: BBC – time to say goodbye to the money you forcefully extract from my pocket by means of legal menaces.
How do you propose to do that without throwing out your television set?
The law that governs the BBC (TV) licence is contract law (Statute), not Common Law. I’ll simply refuse to enter into a contract with them and then defend my rights not to be so imposed under Common Law by declaring myself to be a Freeman of the Land. I won’t be the first one to take this course and I suspect I won’t be the last.
Mr Artwest it seems is also a contortionist.
Robinson says: February 1, 2011 at 4:23 am
“Oh good gawd Stacey. All complaints to the BBC do is make them come out with a statement justifying what they did. It doesn´t seem to inform what they do in the future one iota.”
Talking of taking donkeys to be castrated! The BBC were howling and eeyoring all the way and you think they wanted to put this program on air!
The only reason we got this donkey castrated was because thousands of people have already lodged complaints to the BBC and despite almost all being summarily dismissed, the sheer volume forced them to the block!
I lodged a complaint at http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints did you?
Anyone who has watched a Michael Moore film has to realize that in the hands of a skillful editor, anybody can be made to say anything. The only exception might be bonafide psychopathic liar like Castro or Ahmadinejad. I have watched them make mincemeat out of Western interviewers, good ones even. Who can forget Saddam Hussein toying with Dan Rather a few months before the Iraq war?
BBC COMPLAINTS
Do you want to complain to the BBC?
Contact the BBC directly –
The BBC Trust
“Your complaint is important to us. The BBC Trust ensures BBC programmes are high quality. If you have a complaint please use this process.” – Sir Michael Lyons, Chairman of the BBC Trust.
Re. AGW bias: Last year, Alison Hastings said this: “The BBC must be inclusive, consider the broad perspective, and ensure that the existence of a range of views is appropriately reflected. In addition, the new guideline extends the definition of “controversial” subjects beyond those of public policy and political or industrial controversy to include controversy within religion, science, finance, culture, ethics and other matters.”
Feel free to throw this back in her face by contacting her directly:
Alison Hastings
BBC Trust Unit
180 Great Portland Street
London
W1W 5QZ
UK
Telephone: 03700 100 222
Textphone: 03700 100 212
Email: Send your complaint https://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/forms/
Also write to the BBC Complaints department:
BBC Complaints
PO Box 1922
Darlington
DL3 0UT
UK
There are three stages to the BBC Complaints process. Within 30 working days of the transmission or event you can either:
make a complaint via this website:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/handle.shtml#code
Call BBC Audience Services on 03700 100 222
(UK-wide rate charged at no more than 01/02 geographic numbers; calls may be recorded for training)
or write (as above) to BBC Complaints, PO Box 1922, Darlington DL3 0UR
There is also the BBC “Feedback” program which will accept complaints online:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/features/feedback/contact/
or write:
Feedback
PO Box number 67234
London
SE1P 4AX
telephone 03 333 444 544
feedback@bbc.co.uk
You can also complain to the broadcasting regulator Ofcom http://www.ofcom.org.uk/ about editorial standards in radio and television broadcasts (but not online items or the World Service). Ofcom takes complaints about BBC issues except impartiality, inaccuracy and some commercial issues which remain the responsibility of the BBC Trust. Visit the Ofcom website to read about its remit and how to complain.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
BBC Statement:
We monitor and report in public on the complaints we receive and learn from them to improve our programmes and services.
Stage 1: What happens first when I make a complaint?
We aim to reply to you within 10 working days depending on the nature of your complaint. We also publish public responses to significant issues of wide audience concern on this website.
If we have made a mistake we will apologise and take action to stop it happening again.
If you are dissatisfied with our first response, please contact the department which replied explaining why and requesting a further response to the complaint. If you made your original complaint through this website, you will need to use our webform again. You should normally do this within 20 working days.
Stage 2: If I’m not satisfied with this second reply, what can I do next?
If you consider that the second response you received still does not address your complaint, we will advise you how to take the matter further to this next stage. You should normally do this within 20 working days
If it is about a specific item which you believe has breached BBC editorial standards and it was broadcast or published by the BBC, it will normally be referred to the Editorial Complaints Unit. The Unit will independently investigate your complaint (normally in writing), decide if it is justified and, if so, ensure that the BBC takes appropriate action in response.
Other complaints at this stage will normally be referred to management in the division responsible. For full details of the BBC’s complaints processes please visit the BBC Trust website http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/contact/complaints_appeals/appeal_trust.shtml
Stage 3: If I still think the BBC has got it wrong what can I do?
The BBC Trust ensures complaints are properly handled by the BBC and that the complaints process reflects best practice and opportunities for learning.
Within 20 working days of your response at Stage 2, you may ask the BBC Trust to consider an appeal against the finding. If the BBC Trust upholds an appeal it expects management to take account of its findings.
You can write to the BBC Trust at 180 Great Portland Street, London W1W 5QZ. Full details of the complaints and appeals processes are on the BBC Trust website.
We aim to treat every complainant with respect and in return expect equal consideration to be shown to our staff who handle complaints.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Email other BBC programs directly:
Storyville
storyville@bbc.co.uk
Broadcasting House
broadcasting.house@bbc.co.uk
Newsnight Investigations
NewsnightInvestigations@bbc.co.uk
Newsnight
newsnight@bbc.co.uk
Horizon
horizon@bbc.co.uk
Today
todaycomplaints@bbc.co.uk
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Commissioning Editors
The British Broadcasting Corporation
BBC White City
201 Wood Lane
London
W12 7TS
UK
http://www.bbc.co.uk/commissioning
Knowledge
George Entwistle
Controller, Knowledge Commissioning & Controller, Editorial standards (BBC Vision)
(Encompasses the new genre areas within the umbrella of Knowledge)
Emma Swain
Head of Knowledge Commissioning
emma.swain@bbc.co.uk
Emma Swain’s role is to provide creative leadership to the team of commissioning editors, supporting the indie and inhouse producers. She will not make individual commissioning decisions, and will report to George Entwistle.
Krishan Arora
Independents Executive
krishan.arora@bbc.co.uk
Krishan doesn’t commission projects, but is the liaison between independent producers and the BBC.
Mary FitzPatrick
Executive Editor Diversity
mary.fitzpatrick@bbc.co.uk
Mary is also not a commissioner, but she works with commissioners and the like, and independent production companies to improve on-screen portrayal and diversity.
Documentaries
Charlotte Moore
Commissioning Editor, Documentaries
Room 6060
BBC TV Centre
Wood Lane
London
W12 7RJ
UK
charlotte.moore@bbc.co.uk
Emma Willis
Commissioning Executive Producer
emma.willis@bbc.co.uk
Maxine Watson
Commissioning Executive Producer
maxine.watson@bbc.co.uk
Bet you are glad you missed the beano with Judith now Anthony! Obviously the Beeb did not bother attending!
The BBC seem pathologically incapable of presenting an unbiased view of global warming. On the other hand, some time ago, an excellent documentary on Channel 4 by Martin Durkin presented the arguments of scientists and commentators who do not believe that CO2 produced by human activity is the main cause of climate change.* He stated subsequently that too many journalists and scientists have built their careers on the global warming alarm. Certain newspapers have staked their reputations on it. The death of the theory will be painful and ugly. But it will die. Because it is wrong.
*This was the only UK programme that I can remember ever doing this.
dave ward says:
February 1, 2011 at 4:32 am
Roger Harrabin takes issue with Peter Sissons criticism of the BBC in a letter to the UK “Daily Mail” today:
http://i52.tinypic.com/o6z7ye.jpg
Interesting Dave! I seem to remember seeing emails from Black to her asking if she now approved! Time for a little digging…again!
@ur momisugly Robinson
“Oh good gawd Stacey. All complaints to the BBC do is make them come out with a statement justifying what they did. It doesn´t seem to inform what they do in the future one iota.”
I know that, but you have to keep trying. I think maybe the route is the BBC Trust and this is because campaigning is a breach of the charter.
dave ward says:
Roger Harrabin takes issue with Peter Sissons criticism of the BBC in a letter to the UK “Daily Mail” today:
http://i52.tinypic.com/o6z7ye.jpg
So harrabin needs new glasses then! D
Do you think that we should make donations so he can get some good ones, not the one sided ones her normally uses?
Only could stomach 2 minutes, but it makes Micheal Moore’s “documentaries” look fair and balanced.
GAS!
GOLF!
EVIL GUN TOTIN REDNECK AMERICANS!
AAAAAAAH!
Didn’t tick my email follow-up box.
LazyTeenager says:
February 1, 2011 at 3:55 am
I found this quote from the article illuminating
——
who can gather huge amounts of material and then edit and assemble the material in a way that they can present a message, the message the producer wishes to convey. This is irrespective of what is actually said, and what interviewees actually intended.
——–
So he does understand Climategate then.
Your usual BS. The Climategate emails were not edited they were published complete with all their evidence intact. Evidence of cheating, lying, manipulation etc. You should read them all and Harry’s notes of course.
If this has not been already mentioned :
“(note: the BBC does not allow people outside of Britain to watch the video; some sort of cranial-rectal problem I’m told, a proxy server in the UK is needed to view it if you live elsewhere)” you have the same thing when trying to watch videos from US channels website with an IP from outside the US. Must be because of some right agreements.
@Boudu
As a professional video editor you can articulate what we can’t about this show. It would be marvellous if you could write to Ofcom laying out the clear bias, or write at greater length here to further our ability to defend against such rubbish. Cheers!
“I expected better of the BBC.”
Why?
I have quite literally lost all faith in the intergrity of any media outlet or public figure. Trust no one, believe nothing, question everything.
Our business leaders are liars, our politicians are liars, ALL of them, practically any scientist you see on TV is a liar, or at least a brain washed grant weasel basking in his 15 minutes of glory.
I’ve been pretty cynical my entire life but I really think the Dan Rather Texas Air National Guard forgery really did it for me. If someone who was as established and respected as him can either A) tell a flat out lie in an attempt to unseat a president he personally dislikes, or B) is so stupid he is fooled by a document so weakly forged a grade schooler could have blown it up, there is no reason to belive anyone or take anything at face value. Even though it was blantanly obvious Rather was very far left, this scandal really seemed beyond the pale of a network anchor, you like to think they are better than the loopy indie filmmakers armed with a consumer grade digital camcorder.