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?
@Robinson says: February 12, 2011 at 7:23 am
Buerk’s job is to be the devil’s avacado
//
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Devil%27s%20Avocado
You WHAT?
I agree with those arguing that this reaction is a little over blown. It doesn’t sound good of course as a “deniar” to be next door to peadophiles in a BBC remark. However in the UK media there is a fashion for extreme or exaggerated verbal metaphors. Perhaps a cultural backswing from traditional English under-statement. M Buerk was in no way whatever implying an association between paedophiles and climate change deniers. Just looking for a metaphor for social-political pariah-status.
“Climate change denier” is an inaccurate label anyway, the issue is WHY climate is changing, as it always is. In reality, it is the CAGW camp who argue (bizzarely) that the current climate warming is unusual and must be man-made, and that the climate norm is temperature stasis (a position eloquently derided by Prof Lindzen). These are the true climate change deniers.
Bigred says: February 12, 2011 at 6:26 pm
Slow down, people. I picked up a subtly ironic tone in Michael Buerk’s voice, so he deserves not to be taken too literally.
————————————————————————-
Oh Year – ever so subtle – in fact so subtle that he could have been talking about anything you choose cloaked in an irony so discrete and sarcasm so obscure that only the enlightened could possibly see it – rather like the clothes he was wearing.
Douglas
No. No pass on this one.
I side with Viv Evans. If this was an innocent lampoon it in no way justifies putting paedophiles and climate change deniers in the same phrase.
This is skeptics = deniers (as in Holocaust deniers) taken to the next level, no matter WHO was being attacked. Remember how freaking offensive that one was?
Paedophiles and Nazis in the same spoken sentence, yes. Paedophiles and skeptics? No. No. NO. NO.
It wasn’t just “paedophiles and climate change deniers,” but “loathesome,” too. No matter the context, this is a million percent past the pale.
This was at the very LEAST a horrible choice of wording, one that demands an immediate retraction and apology by the organization and anything less than a sacking for this is condoning such phrasings and equatings.
It’s so opposite the reality, too, because it is the skeptics who are trying to defend the world from zealots who have hijacked governments’ policies. It would be as if French radio in WWII was lambasting Hitler, by calling the French Resistance murderers and terrorists, and making Hitler’s case against the freedom fighters for him.
Feet2theFire says:
February 14, 2011 at 1:35 am
No. No pass on this one.
It was grossly irresponsible I agree, if not actually intentionally libelous. An apology and retraction would indeed be appropriate.
Feet2theFire,
Mmmm… you seem to have just compared the French Resistance to Hitler, murderers and terrorists, in much the same way as Buerk did. Should we therefore call for an apology and retraction from you?
Buerk was commenting on political correctness and how questioning multiculturalism would once have been condemned as racist, which to the politically correct was once part of the ultimate over-the-top ‘hate’ category of irredeemable despicableness, but has now been realised to be both true and socially acceptable. (So today, for instance, one can mention the age of Mohammad’s wife Aisha at a posh dinner party and not have to leave immediately.) He illustrates the point with another category of extreme social hate group, and then puts climate change deniers in there too as a joke, and to make the serious point that like those who were calling those suspicious of multiculturalism ‘racists’ were wrong, that perhaps those who today do the same to climate sceptics might be wrong too.
He’s actually making an ironic joke in support of climate sceptics, at the expense of those who insult us and call us deniers or worse. It’s subtle and clever, because he’s presenting what is supposed to be a highly intellectual radio program and sophisticated word-play is normally expected and appreciated, and because if you want to score points off the sort of guests they have on the programme, then your verbal barbs had better be good. He makes the point against the politically correct, but in such a way that they can’t get him back for being politically incorrect in doing so. This sort of intellectual one-upmanship is like an intricate game.
And given the efforts he’s gone to in order to insert a bit of support for climate sceptics on a vehemently anti-sceptic radio channel, I’m sure that when he gets this mail bag full of humourless complaints he’s going to wonder why he bothered, and maybe that he was wrong to support us.
Incidentally, (and I know I’ll get in trouble for this), you might like to think about why he used paedophiles as an example. There is an important distinction between a ‘paedophile’ and a ‘child abuser’, which is somewhat akin to the difference between a ‘heterosexual male’ and a ‘rapist’. So far as I know, nobody chooses their sexual preferences – and so long as they never do anything about it, practising total abstinence, it’s hard to see how they can be rightly blamed for it. We went through this same argument with homosexuals, who switched from filthy pariahs to politically double plus correct in a handful of decades, and it might prompt the sufficiently clever listener to wonder what other seemingly absolute and immoveable social fashions might change? Perhaps he might be making an even more outrageous point than you suspect?
phlogiston;
No. Wrong. If anyone is being libelled, it’s the BBC, which is being accused of extreme bias. Do you think he should apologize to the BBC?
hunter says:
The BBC, filled with climate extremists and fanatics, is now experiencing this reduction in thinking ability across its culture. Soon they will not be able to differentiate between, for example, fish and birds: They will all be just animals.
Reminds me of Sea Kittens
I posted this on other forums (including Bishop Hill)
it should be here as well, notice how I do not have anything to say about Michael Buerk but get straight into the real issue at hand.
This whole “climate Change denier” Cr*p invented by the over payed hacks working at the “B*B*C*” has nothing to do with having a healthy skeptical view of the
relatively NEW science of climate sciences, But every thing to do with the political abuse of using a tiny area of science as a dictatorial Ideology for the promotion of certain minority beliefs in catastrophic Malthusian politics.
When I hear of the bbc behaving in this way as disgusting and completely unacceptable as it is, I know the childish name calling, false and completely unfounded associations and labels are the last attempt of a nihilistic propaganda machine grasping at straws in a futile attempt to persuade the public to roll over summit to their masters (I say this with an amused grin on my face) .
The public are becoming more aware of the situation and becoming extremely angry with their messed up climate change ideology, failed predictions and utter disregard for the real facts being discussed by the scientific and wider community of intelligent peoples not just in the UK but all over the globe,
If the “B*B*C*” want’s to hit out, slur and offend a whole community again (Yes I said Again) then it’s up to everyone no mater what side of the fence your views are held to stand up to these self important judge, jury and executioner types and hit back harder.
As far as I’m aware, we are still living in a democracy and not some kind of bureaucratic scientific dictatorship. God forbid!
As you can probably tell I am outraged, offended and perplexed with disbelief by the bbc and their (whats the word I’m looking for “fascist? maybe!) comments, ignorance and their unjust, disgracefully mind numbing ability to yet again dream up more ways to be so offensive to a massive community of people.
Even if their was only one or two people as the bbc believes on the whole planet who are skeptical about anthropogenic (man made) C02 causing catastrophic effects and over powering the colossal natural forces of our planet, including solar, lunar and even cosmic influences, I would still expect the publicly funded bbc to respect that persons view without prejudice or the discriminatory attitude currently being expressed.
Not normally a complainer, but would up feeling mischievous in Saturday and decided to lodge a formal complaint. The response is below:
Thanks for contacting us regarding ‘The Moral Maze’ broadcast on the 9 February.
We’re sorry if you were offended by Michael Buerk’s opening statement:
“Not long ago to question multiculturalism, the precepts or the policies of successive governments, risked being branded racist and pushed into the loathsome corner with paedophiles and climate change deniers.”
Michael was certainly not comparing climate change deniers with paedophiles. He was simply saying that paedophiles and climate change deniers are two such examples of groups of people who are generally viewed as being in a ‘loathsome corner’ albeit that they are completely disconnected in every other way.
Michael was making the wider point that from time to time there are ideas in society, like multiculturalism and climate change, that become orthodoxy and to challenge those ideas is to be seen to be beyond the pale.
However, we’re sorry if this didn’t come across as clearly as was hoped for.
We would like to assure you that we’ve registered your comments on our audience log. This is the internal report of audience feedback which we compile daily for all programme makers and commissioning executives within the BBC, and also their senior management. It ensures that your points, and all other comments we receive, are circulated and considered across the BBC.
Ah the BBC, what a bunch of hypocrites.
A leading story on their website today, is the faint possibility that actors were used in a reality programme The Real Hustle, in which various con tricks are tried out on “the unsuspecting public”. It is just entertainment, and quite educational sometimes as it makes you more aware of some sophisticated scams.
So, shock horror, actors might have been used in the public roles?
The following is their gob-smackingly ironic statement. If only the same thing happened with programmes of some importance, rather than light entertainment….
The BBC said it was “of paramount importance to the BBC that our audiences are not misled by the programmes we broadcast”.
A BBC spokesman said: “We will examine any alleged breaches of our editorial standards relating to The Real Hustle as a matter of urgency and will take appropriate action if required.”