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.
BBC Radio 4 reported the withdrawal of US forces from Iraq quite extensively, almost sarcastically emphasising that no Iraqi politicians attended the departing ceremony, and that the departure to Kuwait was under cover of darkness, and that Obama would not be declaring “mission accomplished”. They also reported the subsequent bombings in Baghdad, and they could hardly fail to connect the two events.
It is not true that it’s compulsory to own a television licence in the UK. You only need it legally to watch live TV as it’s being broadcast. I haven’t owned a licence for more several years. After an initial amount of hassle I haven’t been bothered by the authorities.
It wasn’t because of anti-American bias that I gave up buying the BBC’s licence, though. It was because of apparent BBC bias towards a war-mongering foreign policy by an earlier US Democrat administration that I really began to dislike the BBC.
Brent Hargreaves says:
December 27, 2011 at 1:31 pm
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.
He also peddles the Malthusian myth; he is a patron of the Optimum Population
TrussTrust.Still no reply to my request to the BBC for clarification of the £15000 paid to Harrabin by CRU, not even a denial that payment was made. The longer silence continues the stronger the evidence that monies changed hands.
RockyRoad says:
December 27, 2011 at 9:10 pm
Brian H says:
December 27, 2011 at 4:07 pm
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.
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.
=============================
Hmm, Fox news fully supported all the Bush trashing of the US constitution, how intelligent do you think the audience who agrees with that?
Clever media playing mind games is all you’re seeing here.
I have a suggestion – do some properly-researched effing journalism – you know, what you are (or were) actually paid to do…
@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?
———————————————————————————————————————–
yes @bbc.co.uk
The name was roger.harrabin, right?
So, the term “climate scientists” really means “media/propaganda officers” (analogs of the “political officers” of the old Soviet Union or Mao China). That explains alot — official audits of the US gooberment funding for “climate-science” showed ~80% went to “media services”.
That’s our hard-earned tax money at work there, folks.
From 3846.txt
from: Mike Hulme
subject: what is Tyndall Centre?
to: harrabin_roger
Thank you for your contribution to the Advisory Board yesterday – challenging the way we
see ourselves and others perceive us is very important…….. Our stated vision…
……….”To become an internationally recognised source of high quality and integrated
climate-change research, and to exert a seminal influence on the design and achievability
of the long-term strategic objectives of UK and international climate policy.”……..
….”Global climate change – enabling solutions through research and dialogue”….
…Our research goes beyond the question, “Is it happening?”, to ask “What can we do about it?”
Myrrh says:
December 28, 2011 at 4:42 am
Hmm, Fox news fully supported all the Bush trashing of the US constitution, how intelligent do you think the audience who agrees with that?
Clever media playing mind games is all you’re seeing here.”
Fox news is centrist really they’re “hard news” is center left. The US Constitution is the most right wing document pretty much any government has ever written… hmmm doesn’t take a genius to figure out that fox news want some scaling back toward the center. Bush II was of course center left so also not surprising Fox news supported him.
It’s sustainable until it doesn’t sustain, until then sustainability is conjecture.
son of mulder says:
December 28, 2011 at 1:59 pm
I like it…but I did have to read it twice…and then my snarky side took over…
“A flute without holes, is not a flute. A donut without a hole, is a Danish.” – T. Webb
temp says:
December 28, 2011 at 1:09 pm
The US Constitution is the most right wing document pretty much any government has ever written…
I strongly reject your assertion my friend. The US Constitution, was an attempt by the Framers to limit the role of the central government. Building off of the Declaration of Independence in which the Founding Fathers had acknowledged:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
The Framers said:
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Nothing left or right about that! Ironically if you look into the entire concept of the left/right political spectrum you will find it to be rather bogus. Stalin and Hitler were both Socialists and also bitter enemies…the spectrum was an artificial creation to accommodate two totalitarian dictators.
Andrew
Andrew says:
December 28, 2011 at 2:31 pm
“Nothing left or right about that! Ironically if you look into the entire concept of the left/right political spectrum you will find it to be rather bogus. Stalin and Hitler were both Socialists and also bitter enemies…the spectrum was an artificial creation to accommodate two totalitarian dictators.”
Your confusing the propaganda version with the science version.
All socialists are leftwing period. Both hitler and stalin where leftwing just a matter of how leftwing.
To sum up the propaganda version we can use the old quote when dealing with it.
“Stalin is a moderate, hitler’s rightwing.
This quote sums up how the commies view the world… because they see the “center” being communist. Thus in turn hitler who was not a pure socialist(aka commie) was to the right along with everyone else on the planet.
Most ppl use this socialist scale when talking about right/left as they believe the only thing that can exist are collectivists. Others use this scale because they know nothing but propaganda.
In the true scale you have left/right as they should be… opposites because they are.
The scale is leftwing collectivists/ rightwing individualists.
The leftwing collectivists break down into the type of government and economic scale of totalitarianism or 100% government and socialism 100% government control of the economy.
ALL socialists are collectivists which are totalitarians which are socialists.
On the other side you have the rightwing individualists which break down into anarchy and capitalism. Anarchy being of course no government and capitalism being no government in the economy.
ALL anarchists are individualists which are capitalists which are anarchists.
It is impossible for someone to be say an anarchist and a socialist. Socialists demand 100% government control of the economy while anarchists believe no government should exist.
Ppl often confuse socialists/totalitarian for anarchists… the easy way to tell them apart is that socialists oppose the “current” government(because each collective/socialist/totalitarian group sees itself as the one that should be on top) and thus simply want to replace the “current” government with there “better” collective/socialist/totalitarian government vs anarchists who oppose government and simply want it gone.
The US Constitution is very clearly about the most rightwing document any government can ever write. It was intend to heavily limit government power in every aspect. This means that its just short of anarchy in the way it restricts government. Thus in turn it is rightwing.
@ur momisugly temp…
If I appear to be “confusing” the issue it must be either my failure to communicate or the limits we find ourselves dealing with via this communication medium.
Your point about the propaganda version and the science version is excellent. Since I spent most of my academic career in the company of political science profs rather than the chem/bio profs, I am a bit more familiar with this particular subject. (my copy of The Federalist Papers gets pulled off the shelf often, while my chem and bio books were sold back to the bookstore)
Anyway…based upon the context in which you have subsequently provided; regarding your statement…touche!
…and thank you, that was some good stuff you wrote, and I agree.
Andrew
@Andrew
Didn’t mean for it to come off as somehow heavy handed in it its just that the line about “Nothing left or right about that!” is what i see the “new” propaganda line being. AKA repubs and democrats are the same party there is no right or left and a bunch of other arguments along that line. Slight differences does not make polar opposites and while I agree for the most part their is no major difference between the two party that just means they are the same aka either both left or both right or both something.
The old communist style is starting to be looked down on as it is clearly retarded on its face with hitler and stalin at opposing sides when they are almost exactly the same.
The new line being “everyones the same” is just continuing this propaganda in another type of word play but still holding true to the “we see the world as everyone being collectivists/socialists” ideology.
Other things that drive me up the wall for stuff like that is that some being moderate, centrists, “we should compromise”.
Nothing drives me up the wall more then “we should compromise” and “a compromise where no one is happy is a good compromise”.
O which i always love o respond “well the jews want to be free and treated like humans… and the hitlers wants them all rounded up and killed… so a great compromise is the jews all being locked up because neither the jews nor hitlier will be happy with the “great” compromise…
Much the same where any action to avoid war is seen as somehow a good action… much as in the run up to WW2.
I want to cut off the “its not left/right issue” before it takes hold because everything is a left/right(at least some much so in that polar opposites do exist) issue in reality… at least if their is a difference. The problem always is no one know what left or right or even the center is because they don’t really time about what the terms mean or even
Whenever you see the propaganda phrase “Sustainable Development” it is a direct line to the “Agenda 21” garbage (of which the IPCC and Carbon Cap and Tax is only one manifestation).
That the BBC is hooking for guidance on how to spin it says they are clearly “on board” with that anti-economic development-hostile agency. Just another propaganda organ looking for taxpayer funded ideas to sell.