Roger Harrabin and Joe Smith write to UEA warmist Mike Hulme, ask: “What should the BBC be doing this time in terms of news, current affairs, drama, documentaries, game shows, music etc?”
We are writing to some alumni of the University of Cambridge Media and Environment seminars gathering ideas for the BBC’s coverage of the Rio+10 Earth Summit in a year’s time. Before the Rio summit, the BBC held the One World festival, which included some memorable broadcasting – particularly a feature drama on refugees. Some broadcasting is already in the pipeline that will relate to the themes of Rio+ 10, but this is an open opportunity for you to put forward ideas that will be collated and circulated amongst relevant BBC decision-makers.
* What should the BBC be doing this time in terms of news, current affairs, drama, documentaries, game shows, music etc? * How can the BBC convey the theme of sustainable development to viewers and listeners who have probably seen all the issues raised before? * Is there any scope for a global broadcasting initiative? * What are the strongest themes and specific issues that should appear in the media in the months and years following the conference?
If anyone ever needed any proof the the BBC is biased, then this is the prime example. It is the proverbial “tail wagging the dog”, there’s no journalism here, only obedience.
h/t to Tom Nelson
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I wonder what programmes will come from this?
“Dancing on Melting Ice”?
Re Alex Kirby:
May 12th 2004, his review and comments on “the blockbuster climate disaster movie The Day After Tomorrow”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3707873.stm
…a few direct quotes…
“Sir David King, the government’s chief scientific adviser, said he hoped many ordinary Americans would see the film.”
” US Vice-President Al Gore said the risks the film portrayed were a threat to our common future.”
“Sir David said: “The film brings events together into a highly unlikely or even impossible scenario. It’s very difficult to explain the physics of it.
“But what’s good is that while my colleagues and I have just spent half an hour presenting you with the scientific understanding of climate change, the movie gets the basic message across in a few sentences of dialogue. It’s a beautiful piece of script-writing.”
…my translation…It is untrue, but it is an effective way for to communicate these untrue statements…
Dr Geoff Jenkins, head of climate prediction at the Met Office’s Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research… said: “It’s a movie, and we shouldn’t get too po-faced about it. Hollywood’s not going to make money out of a bunch of scientists discussing uncertainties.”
Dr Jenkins said scientists thought a collapse of the THC was a low-probability but high-impact event. But they did not know how low the probability was, and in principle it could happen.
Dr David Viner, of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, told BBC News Online: “The film got a lot of the detail wrong, and the direction of change as well – cooling of this sort is very unlikely with global warming.
“But the fact that The Day After Tomorrow raises awareness about climate change must be a good thing.”
Images copyright 2004 Twentieth Century Fox.
…hmmm the film was produced by News Corp…so much for that “Rupert Murdoch is out to get us theory”, lol.
Andrew
Jan says:
December 27, 2011 at 10:22 am
I’m surprised to see an email reply address as harrabin1@aol.com. Doesn’t the BBC have it’s own domain name c/w email server?
——
I’m sure the BBC does, but the nice thing about private email addresses is that they aren’t subject to FOIA.
Steve Garcia says:
December 27, 2011 at 10:27 am
If that happens, they won’t even have to pretend they are even-handed. What will that gain? Look at FOX News – one sided in the extreme. Does the UK want that kind of in-your-face bias? Be careful what you ask for…”
Fox news is centrist… yes when fox news came out all the other news networks dropped any pretense of being centrist and went hail stalin left to left.
What really needs to happen is for FBN(fox business news) to go mainstream. They are a center-right network. Every time I turn it on someones calling obama and socialist and AGW pure propaganda. It would be nice if the right had at least one semi-rightwing network to watch and put out capitalist and anarchy view points unlike the current mainstream main including fox which are basically obama’s lapdogs.
The apparent AGW promoting bias at BBC is not entirely due to its natural sycophantic alliance with left wing liberal causes. I believe that it stems from a lack of professional journalism within BBC. In order for anyone to be ‘fair and balanced’, as its charter states, the journalist must have taken the time to investigate the topic for themselves, even to the point of analysing sources which might seem contrary. Therefore, some familiarity with the sceptic viewpoint is necessary before passing judgement. However, not only do they fail to do this with the sceptical case, but it is apparent that BBC merely pass on material that promotes the AGW cause, without introspection.
The organisation does not add value to its sources, nor attempt a knowledge driven comparative analysis. The fundamental problem is that BBC does not know how to deal with issues which are more complex than can be covered by a straight to camera piece. This is in turn a fundamental problem of all one-way legacy media, who stand in poor comparison with Web media, which are the only ones now capable of the extended dialogues and detailed analysis demanded by their tech-savvy participants.
It is not just bias which is being exposed here by the request from a media organisation for material which supports its stated cause, but also a recognition that BBC is floundering in the face of new media and is being superseded by them in coverage of the deeper issues.
Steve Garcia says:
December 27, 2011 at 10:27 am
“@roh234 December 27, 2011 at 9:56 am:
“That’s why the BBC should be shut down or privitised. Same with the CBC here in Canada.”
If that happens, they won’t even have to pretend they are even-handed. What will that gain? Look at FOX News – one sided in the extreme. Does the UK want that kind of in-your-face bias? Be careful what you ask for…”
We have it in the US with NPR (National Public Radio). NPR broadcasts elicit a response of “Lefty BS” from everyone who is not a regular listener. Seems to me that it is fine that it exists but not on the taxpayers’ dime.
“If that happens, they won’t even have to pretend they are even-handed. What will that gain?”
The British people wouldn’t be forced to pay for it, with the threat of fines or imprisonment if they don’t.
Why would anyone care about the BBC’s political stance if they weren’t forced to pay for it? Those who want politically correct TV could continue to watch and pay while the rest of the country could watch whatever they want, or better yet, nothing at all.
The BBC has always been biased, but in the last decade or so it seems to haven risen to absurd levels; before Tony Blair became Prime Minister they were presumably constrained by the need to keep the level of offence low enough that the Tories wouldn’t de-fund them. The level of political correctness in many BBC shows I’ve seen recently was hilarious.
@ur momisugly Theo
In fairness, NPR does get most of its support privately, I think…
However, I am not a big fan of the likes of Bill Moyers and Ken Burns making millions in a quasi-tax payer funded operation. Because our grandchildren will be stuck with the bill…even if it is a tiny amount.
Edward Bancroft says:
December 27, 2011 at 12:36 pm
“The apparent AGW promoting bias at BBC is not entirely due to its natural sycophantic alliance with left wing liberal causes. […]
However, not only do they fail to do this with the sceptical case, but it is apparent that BBC merely pass on material that promotes the AGW cause, without introspection.”
They do have introspection, and use it actively to make their reporters conform; much like in a re-education camp; Richard Black being one of the calfactors keeping the other ones in line.
The re-education camp is called “BBC College of Journalism”; example link:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/journalism/blog/2011/11/video-alejandro-litovsky—rep.shtml
Andrew says:
December 27, 2011 at 12:58 pm
@ur momisugly Theo
In fairness, NPR does get most of its support privately, I think…
However, I am not a big fan of the likes of Bill Moyers and Ken Burns making millions in a quasi-tax payer funded operation. Because our grandchildren will be stuck with the bill…even if it is a tiny amount.”
No one really knows what NPR gets from where… they have closed all info on they’re funding aspects. They also even when “open” used classic “government accounting”. When their funding was threatened they released two competing messages.
On one hand they say they get most of their funding from private sources and thus the “tiny” 300 million+ they get from the government can be easily covered.
Then a week later they start screaming if they lose the government money NPR will shut down forever.
Much like global warming its all PR to fit whatever imagine they want or think they need to give off at the time. I would wager over 50% of NPR’s funding comes from the government directly and more likely a total of 70%+ after everything is included through the round about ways they take in funding.
It pains me to see David Attenborough peddling the Global Warming myth. Reminds me of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle losing his marbles in later life and claiming that there was photographic evidence of the existence of faeries.
Lo, how the mighty have fallen. The BBC should be sold off or shut down The same can be said of the ABC in Australia and the CBC in Canada. The have all turned from News Organisations into Propaganda Outlets for extremist views
Theo Goodwin said
“If that happens, they won’t even have to pretend they are even-handed. What will that gain? ”
What good is there pretending to be objective when you are not, to the public
Getting rid of the BBC would get rid of the Licence fee which in 2008 cost UK people £3.3B – not insubstantial gain
He should stick to asking his boss Jo Abbess.
Just pure effing evil.
Theo Goodwin says:
December 27, 2011 at 12:37 pm
Look at FOX News – one sided in the extreme. Does the UK want that kind of in-your-face bias? Be careful what you ask for…”
I would suggest that the UK already has in your face bias – with the BBC – that every-one HAS pay for.
And I do not believe that privatisation equals Fox News?
In Australia we have the ABC (much the same as the BBC), a group of different commercial national and regional commercial channels and pay satellite TV which as well as SPORT, ENTERTAINMENT, MOVIES etc has NEWS AND DOCUMENTARIES which gives you a selection of international channels (including Fox, CNN, US ABC, BBC and SKY NEWS).
In my opinion the most balanced station by far in Australia is SKY NEWS. You pay for this whereas the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) is paid by the taxpayer and like the BBC is in your face green tinged left wing bias from the way news headlines are subtly compiled, to the one side of the story only given and the especially selected academic “experts” that the ABC brainwash the national audience with from dawn to dusk on TV, radio and now the internet.
On the other hand SKY NEWS is commendably diligent in always presenting all sides of the argument especially in political debate. I believe it does this to reach to the maximum extent of audience not just one section (like Fox News?) and if it is to survive in the future competitive world of electronic media it will have to do that.
I am sure that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation would do the same if rather than being exorbitantly funded by the tax payer it had to fight for an audience and compete for respect, balance and quality. And the same goes for the BBC.
Let us see how the BBC, CBC and ABC would go with a voluntary taxpayer donation rather than a compulsory one.
“Oh, and Phil – can you show me how to do this Excel thingy?”
Appalling. Pathetic.
@ur momisugly temp
…agreed!
I just enjoy stoking the fire sometimes…like when I need to pop some popcorn.
Andrew
Don’t buy Garcia’s BS. Fox News channel has a larger audience than its next 4 competitors combined (including CNN and MSNBC). The reason for this, believe me, is not the stupidity of the American public. Quite the reverse.
Ralph says:
December 27, 2011 at 11:32 am
“Further BBC bias just a couple of days ago, when the BBC refused to report that multiple bombs had gone off in Baghdad AFTER the Americans had left (according to the BBC, only America causes trouble).
This was doubly highlighted on BBC World News, when the presenter led on the Baghdad bombs and then stopped, and apologised, saying he had the wrong headlines! They then started the whole news bulletin again!
It is about time that 50% of the BBCs funding is given to Channel 4 (Channel 4 is actually government owned, but keeps mighty quiet about this odd fact).”
How odd – I get my news from the radio (BBC Radio 4 or World Service) as I have no television and Radio 4 had no problem both reporting that the bombs had gone off and that it was AFTER (sic) the Americans had left – not once but several times.
“What are the strongest themes and specific issues that should appear in the media in the months and years following the conference?”
And this is asked by a journalist? My goodness, what a complete loser.
He does a good job as an ecofascist though. You can almost hear him think: Befehl ist Befehl.
Maybe he should move to North-Korea. He will feel very comfortable being led by their Ruler.
Unbelievable how low the BBC has fallen. It hit rock bottom with this one. Disgusting.
Only in Canada.
As A ex pat and a Canadian I can echo many of the complaints against the BBC. or the ABC in Australia and most definitely the CBC in Canada. But a last we have a new Canadian SUN TV news and opinion network that reports on all things newsworthy and on the Global warming scam, The SUN hates political correctness and all things the MSM won’t touch,. Like any news or reporting I don’t agree with everything they say, but I sure love having a different slant and voice especially the anti political left leaning CBC/BBC/ABC style.The SUNS straight shooting news and editorials are is music to my ears, and drives the socialist elite Eco watermelons crazy, they can’t help but watch it spite of their hatred of the SUN and write furious emails and letters of complaint, which the Sun guys happily read on the air without censuring.
And as a CAGW skeptic something I thoroughly enjoy, I a regular diet of global warning exposure from many skeptical scientists and authors.
Oh the Joy.
BBC output has always been a major organ of propagandist ‘British’ political influence but it was always going to be the case that a supra-national hyper-pontificating broadcasting entity such as Auntie would feel the pinch. Trouble is, they can’t quite bring themselves to believe its happening. Now. Recent contractions in World Service provision, London-centric production externalisation, staff journ-o-list pay-offs measured in 000’s, etc., – this is a bastion of UK arrogance in irreversible suppuration and decline, propped up solely by failing government statute hell-bent on continued media manipulation.
Harrabin is damned by the various CG released content, not only by dint of his clandestine-like activities, his consistent and purposeful insistence on propagating well-recognised scientific fraud, but also because he made sure there was a compliant and receptive unwitting public tax-paying funded audience. No man, in my book, ever gets lower than that.
Brian H says:
December 27, 2011 at 4:07 pm
You are correct. And for the same reason, talk radio in America thrives when it is objective and truthful, and craters when it isn’t . Every attempt at liberal talk radio has failed and I’ll let the reader figure out why.