Derek Bateman reports:
Fascinating to see the BBC’s priorities revealed so nakedly tonight when Pacific Quay management contacted the University of the West of Scotland to object to the UWS Bias in Broadcasting report which, as far as I can see, they didn’t have the courage to broadcast.
Instead of doing what any self-confident public service broadcaster should do and producing a news item out of a critical report from one of our own universities, they seem to have hidden it from the licence-fee paying public who bankroll them and then mounted a sabotage operation against the author.
I understand they are demanding to see the raw data such is their fury at being found out misleading viewers. But even without seeing it, they themselves are reaching conclusions saying they doubt the “factual accuracy of a significant number of the contentions contained within the report and with the language used in the report itself.”
…
In a letter from Ian Small, the head of public policy, which came to me via a third party source, they say: “many of the conclusions you draw are, on the evidence you provide, unsubstantiated and/or of questionable legitimacy.” You may detect the irony of this statement given what the report revealed about the BBC’s reporting and presentation of referendum news.
…
Read the whole sordid story here: http://derekbateman1.wordpress.com/2014/01/22/breaking-newsbbc-threatens-academic/
This reminds me of the famous Climategate email:
date: Wed Dec 8 08:25:30 2004
from: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.xx.xx>
subject: RE: something on new online.
to: “Alex Kirby” <alex.kirby@bbc.xxx.xx>
At 17:27 07/12/2004, you wrote:
Yes, glad you stopped this — I was sent it too, and decided to
spike it without more ado as pure stream-of-consciousness rubbish. I can well understand your unhappiness at our running the other piece. But we are constantly being savaged by the loonies for not giving them any coverage at all, especially as you say with the COP in the offing, and being the objective impartial (ho ho) BBC that we are, there is an
expectation in some quarters that we will every now and then let them say something. I hope though that the weight of our coverage makes it clear that we think they are talking through their hats.
—–Original Message—–
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit
The paedophile protecting, anti-scientific, anti-business, and anti-British BBC needs to be shut down. It is not fit for purpose.
Ken Hall says:
January 23, 2014 at 10:35 am
The paedophile protecting, anti-scientific, anti-business, and anti-British BBC needs to be shut down. It is not fit for purpose.
As long as Top Gear is still on television.
Imagine the British Broadcorping Castration requiring the data!!! I think Steve McIntyre could now get a 500,000GBP/yr job with this newly enlightened media giant.
Whatever its faults, the BBC remains head-and-shoulders above any other major TV broadcaster in the English-speaking world. What would you prefer — Fox News??!!!
@frank McDonald
What would you prefer — Fox News??!!!
yes, you got a problem with that?
We have an expression for that kind of behavior. it is called “stompy feet”. Think of a child that is told “no”.
Aaand Doctor Who!
Tony [Abbott] should follow suit with the ABC
typo Abbott
Jezza for D G
Alex Kirby? The best you can expect from him in a weather forecast is “bright early, becoming dark later”.
A blinkered, on-message pawn.
Someone remind me….
What is the BBC’s typical response to any request for information?
Remember 28gate?
Liars, incompetents, agit-prop pushers.
Close ’em down.
Not the BBC’s greatest fan but I’m all for research being explored and reports drilled down to the raw data.
Long may this new vigilance continue.
philjourdan says: @ January 23, 2014 at 10:44 am
We have an expression for that kind of behavior. it is called “stompy feet”….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
We call it a temper tantrum. image
@Gail Combs
Yep! Same thing.
As a non-UK resident, I’m having trouble decoding this story. What exactly happened? Who or what is Pacific Quay? “I understand they are demanding to see the raw data” — who is “they”? “In a letter from Ian Small, the head of public policy…” public policy for whom? “[T]hey say: “many of the conclusions you draw are …” who does “you” refer to?
“. . . .Alright. But apart from Top Gear, Doctor Who, Dancing with the Stars, Fawlty Towers, Only Fools and Horses., and Match of the Day, what has the BBC ever done for us?”
Frank McDonald (@frankmcdonald60) says:
January 23, 2014 at 10:44 am
Whatever its faults, the BBC remains head-and-shoulders above any other major TV broadcaster in the English-speaking world. What would you prefer — Fox News??!!!
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Yes!
Frank McDonald (@frankmcdonald60) says:
January 23, 2014 at 10:44 am
Whatever its faults, the BBC remains head-and-shoulders above any other major TV broadcaster in the English-speaking world. What would you prefer — Fox News??!!!
You are talking of dwarfs, of course. Aren’t you?
Yes, Fox would be preferable
Spillinger says:
January 23, 2014 at 11:09 am
“. . . .Alright. But apart from Top Gear, Doctor Who, Dancing with the Stars, Fawlty Towers, Only Fools and Horses., and Match of the Day, what has the BBC ever done for us?”
You appear to have forgotten that most of BBC programming is done by private companies. Don’t need the BBC
You forgot Monty Python!
Well, he didn’t forget Monty Python; he remembered Monty Python when they weren’t BBC anymore.
Also, can anyone think of a good BBC comedy from this century (except Top Gear)?
@M Courtney
Also, can anyone think of a good BBC comedy from this century (except Top Gear)?
Yes, their newscasts.
Frank McDonald (@frankmcdonald60) says:
January 23, 2014 at 10:44 am
Whatever its faults, the BBC remains head-and-shoulders above any other major TV broadcaster in the English-speaking world. What would you prefer — Fox News??!!!
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Your attempted shot at Fox News, says nothing about them, and much about you.
Frank McDonald (@frankmcdonald60) says:
January 23, 2014 at 10:44 am
Whatever its faults, the BBC remains head-and-shoulders above any other major TV broadcaster in the English-speaking world. What would you prefer — Fox News??!!!
====================
Lol – Yes, Fox News, the guy on the corner, the local gossip busybody, comic books, etc., all do a better job of telling a grain of truth once in awhile.
Frank McDonald (@frankmcdonald60) says:
January 23, 2014 at 10:44 am
Acutally, Fox News is reasonalby fair and balanced.
BBC has some great programs, but none of them are News programs.
“Your attempted shot at Fox News, says nothing about them, and much about you.”
Standard response from any BBC lover. If [cornered] resort to attacking Fox News or the Daily Mail.
“You can have our raw data as soon as you broadcast our report, uncut.”
don’t confuse entertainment with news. BBC news is just terrible. I’d like to keep the entertainment and get rid of the news.
Frank McDonald
The best news and current affairs channel is without question Al Jazeera.
M Courtney says:
January 23, 2014 at 11:24 am
Well, he didn’t forget Monty Python; he remembered Monty Python when they weren’t BBC anymore.
Also, can anyone think of a good BBC comedy from this century (except Top Gear)?
———————————————————————————–
Little Brittan. One of the funniest shows I’ve ever seen.
If you like your raw data, you can keep your raw data.
Just ask Mike Mann.
…”But we are constantly being savaged by the loonies for not giving them any coverage at all,…”
=============
I would think letting the “loonies” speak might increase sales/reach, but what do I know about spreading propaganda 🙂
@frank McDonald 10:44.
A drunken chicken does better NEWS coverage than BBC.
Can’t do propaganda as well though.
Ironic posting,BBC “We demand the raw data.”
Contrast coverage of CRU emails.
Coverage of failure, to date of MET to reconstruct/recompile the “lost” raw data of the official temperature record.
Yet they still shill the claims based on this unsubstantiated claim of unprecedented global warming.
If the data claimed to support scientific speculation is not producable. The speculation is not science.
Pacific Quay in Glasgow is the headquarters of BBC Scotland.
Frank McDonald (@frankmcdonald60) says:
January 23, 2014 at 10:44 am
Whatever its faults, the BBC remains head-and-shoulders above any other major TV broadcaster in the English-speaking world. What would you prefer — Fox News??!!!
—
My translation:
“Yes, we all know the BBC is biased, but they produce some of the best left-wing propaganda in the English-speaking and Other-speaking worlds. What would you prefer – Left-Wing Bias from the BBC, which fits with my own left-wing world-view, or Fox News??!!”
Frank McDonald (@frankmcdonald60) says:
January 23, 2014 at 10:44 am
Whatever its faults, the BBC remains head-and-shoulders above any other major TV broadcaster in the English-speaking world. What would you prefer — Fox News??!!!
Frank,
To answer your question:
For rational discussion of data, issues, pros and cons perspectives, for the closest to a ‘fair and balanced’ presentation of the news that I have been able to find in 45 years of detailed observation, the answer is emphatically “YES!”
Mac
Spillinger says:
January 23, 2014 at 11:09 am
“. . . .Alright. But apart from Top Gear, Doctor Who, Dancing with the Stars, Fawlty Towers, Only Fools and Horses., and Match of the Day, what has the BBC ever done for us?”
_______________________
Benny Hill?
In related news on this side of the pond…
From the Financial Times…
CNN lays off more than 40 journalists
By Matthew Garrahan in Los Angeles
CNN has laid off more than 40 senior journalists in its newsgathering operation – including a pregnant producer who was two weeks away from giving birth to twins – as part of a reorganisation of the business under Jeff Zucker.
The cutting of production and editorial staff at the Time Warner-owned group comes as Mr Zucker tries to re-establish CNN as the dominant force in 24 hour cable news, a crown it lost several years ago to Fox News Channel.
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/465288de-840a-11e3-9903-00144feab7de.html#axzz2rFCVduNq
I’m not buying this. We have the Scottish Nationalists (the majority party in the unicameral Scottish Parliament) openly seeking to dissolve the United Kingdom and demanding the right to secede from the Union on whatever terms Scots Nats want, whether RUK (rest of UK: England, Wales and perhaps some of the Shetland Islands who want to stay with RUK!) like this or not. RUK has said it will accept the referendum result but final terms (such as use of the £ sterling, split of assets and liabilities on the UK balance sheet) must be negotiated when the outcome is known. And there are many other severance issues involving other entities, such as continuing membership of NATO and of the EU.
We then have the BBC (the present broadcaster tasked to serve the entire UK) knowing that its own future and finances may be significantly affected by the outcome; UWS as a Scottish institution with its own views and stake in the outcome and, above all this, the Wee Eck threatening bully-boy tactics against anyone who prevents him getting his way, especially anyone actually located in Scotland.
Whatever one’s opinion might be on BBC bias, I think its task is essentially impossible here – each side to the debate will inevitably call the BBC out for perceived bias whatever it does to seek to stay above the fray. And when UWS (with its academics and students having the vote, many having committed views already and with the Wee Eck breathing down all their necks) purports to conduct research as to bias, I think it is reasonable in this case to ask to see the raw data. And does this not accord with scientific method – why should the BBC be excluded?
The hypocrite BBC, where were the raw data for all the BS CAGW stories? Thanks BBC for confirming for what many people already knew that the BBC are a very biased environmental media group that only support their agenda.
TimC says:
January 23, 2014 at 12:37 pm
“purports to conduct research as to bias, I think it is reasonable in this case to ask to see the raw data. And does this not accord with scientific method – why should the BBC be excluded?”
Why didn’t they inquire as much about CO2AGW?
BBC is statist and will always resist anything that diminishes the power of the state, always favor what increases the power of the state. (Where state = as big as possible state-like entity they can get; UN/NWO trumps EU, EU trumps UK trumps RUK etc.; see Fabian Socialist H.G. Wells’ Shape Of Things To Come for the blueprint)
(Of course, same applies to German public media)
Frank McDonald (@frankmcdonald60) says: “Whatever its faults, the BBC remains head-and-shoulders above any other major TV broadcaster in the English-speaking world. What would you prefer — Fox News??!!!”
Certainly. The BBC has become a propaganda-spouting leftist organ without a speck of fairness or credibility in climate matters, aiding those who would do trillions of dollars of damage to the Western World in pursuit of the pseudoscience of “carbon” reduction. I even prefer http://english.pravda.ru/ to what the BBC has turned into.
Spillinger says:
January 23, 2014 at 11:09 am
“. . . .Alright. But apart from Top Gear, Doctor Who, Dancing with the Stars, Fawlty Towers, Only Fools and Horses., and Match of the Day, what has the BBC ever done for us?”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
So who did “Mr Bean” and “Yes Minister”. The latter was required watching for some of my friends high up in the Saskatchewan Provincial government 25+ years ago. It was so close to reality it was scary … but funny just the same.
At an economic level, the theory goes that public broadcasters were brought into being to fill a gap in the media that could not (at the time) be filled by private enterprise (a “market failure” if you will). It can no longer be argued there is any need for them, given the various technologies/media platforms now in existence, and willingness of private companies and individuals to enter the market. All they do now is to crowd out these potential market participants with their bloated 100% subsidised broadcasting, and their left bent is designed to ensure the subsidies keep increasing via the installation of leftist governments with whom they act in a disgusting parasitic symbiosis. It is time for the lot of them to be privatised. If the BBC and he ABC are such wonderful and valuable organisations, private enterprise can surely make them profitable, since the public values their reporting so much they will surely be willing to voluntarily pay for it directly or through advertising on their platforms.
Frank McDonald (@frankmcdonald60) says: January 23, 2014 at 10:44 am
Whatever its faults, the BBC remains head-and-shoulders above any other major TV broadcaster in the English-speaking world. What would you prefer — Fox News??!!!
________________________________
Frankly, yes.
Not a news item or show passes on the BBC, without a deep liberal bias and incredible factual errors. It is as though the producers are all Uni dropouts. Actually, a producer friend said it was not the producers that were the problem, it was the wet-behind-the-ears policy wonks (gate-keepers) who select and amend the programs.
The Biased broadcasting Corporation is not fit for purpose, and should be closed down. Or perhaps 40% of the licence fee should go to Channel 4 (which is government owned). At least Channel 4 makes probing, cutting-edge programmes like Benefit Street and the infamous Edge of the City series. Channel 4 is likewise hopelessly biased, like the BBC, but at least it goes to places that the BBC would never contemplate.
Ralph
Frank McDonald (@frankmcdonald60) says:
January 23, 2014 at 10:44 am
“Whatever its faults, the BBC remains head-and-shoulders above any other major TV broadcaster in the English-speaking world. What would you prefer — Fox News??!!!”
What would you prefer?
The truth would help!
DirkH says “Why didn’t they [the BBC] inquire as much about CO2AGW?”
What are you saying here – that the BBC should have set up a research department at taxpayers’ expense to replicate (or otherwise) each of the IPCC reports, before it made any comment on them?
We are actually talking here of research data purporting to show that the BBC’s own coverage was biased – coverage of a very sensitive political topic where the research data was produced by an institution I suggest was as likely to suffer bias (even unwitting bias) as the BBC itself.
I’m by no means sold on BBC impartiality, but shouldn’t the BBC have the right to look at the data? It might even learn something useful from the methodology …
Admad…that is very clever! A singing computer perfectly suits the lyrics. Thanks!
And Channel 4 did at least broadcast “The Great Global Warming Swindle”, although in the last few years they have completed caved in and bought the CAGW scam, promoting it just as feverishly as the BBC.
Mr Bean was ITV (Independent TV, advertising funded), as was Benny Hill, most of the time.
Dr Who? Oh please……the BBC’s self-congratulatory-fest seems to be without end….
“. . . .Alright. But apart from Top Gear, Doctor Who, Dancing with the Stars, Fawlty Towers, Only Fools and Horses., and Match of the Day, what has the BBC ever done for us?”
_______________________
Benny Hill?
_______________________
Don’t forget Red Dwarf!
TimC says:
January 23, 2014 at 1:52 pm
“DirkH says “Why didn’t they [the BBC] inquire as much about CO2AGW?”
What are you saying here – that the BBC should have set up a research department at taxpayers’ expense to replicate (or otherwise) each of the IPCC reports, before it made any comment on them? ”
Did I say that? Did I really? No I didn’t; but you seem to have no problem at all with the way BBC handled CO2AGW reporting; meaning, you are perfectly satisfied with being fed a bunch of lies.
A lot of people actually tell me that they prefer to know nothing about reality; that’s no joke. You seem to be one of them so I wish you a convenient half-asleep state.
Sorry, but I don’t see any read-across from this criticism of the television news coverage of the Scottish independence debate (by the BBC and the main independent channel) and its promotion of climate scientology.
Having read the report, all I can say is “Pot, kettle” – it is about as balanced as a Grauniad leader. Which must make it more painful for the Beeb, to be criticised by their own kind.
I rarely watch BBC News myself. It reports the world through the prism of its own opinions and rarely gives facts without telling its audience how they should interpret them. Even Al Jazeera is more reliable.
January 23, 2014 at 1:52 pm | TimC says:
———
You miss the point, the BBC has been supportive of the secrecy of its CAGW cadres’ research data … why should it have the right to demand other’s research data? They take hypocrisy to a new level.
Frank McDonald (@frankmcdonald60) says: “I need to go smoke more crack now…”
Ah, so that is the source of your delusional rant Frank.
Streetcred says: @ January 23, 2014 at 2:43 pm
Yes, Goose Gander sauce.
The dilemma of noble cause corruption, which has afflicted the BBC for at least the last decade, is that it brings cognitive incoherence. As long as that can be handled internally, things remain stable. However, it requires increasing force and tension within the organisation to keep the wraps on. When, inexorably, the dissonances become externalised, as here, the cracks start to appear on the OUTSIDE of the walls.
This is why dictatorships fail later, but more suddenly, than people expect. The Berlin wall came down so suddenly because the whole of society behind it had been decaying from its own internal contradictions for years before. This will eventually happen to the BBC, and when it does happen it will be very sudden and very complete. There is no escape for that organisation – it is just a question of how much damage we must endure before the day comes…
This is the same bbc quite happy to illustrate an agw piece with the marcott hockey stick, and when challenged via a complaint simply dismiss the criticism by saying “its in a peer reviewed paper so we suggest you take it up with the authors”.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24204323
BBC should be cut down to 2 TV channels and 2 radio stations and license fee should be cut to reflect this. All other BBC channels and web sites should be self funding through advertising and not bear the BBC moniker.
Just a few weeks ago for the first time in my life due to a change in television provider, I have had the opportunity to watch some Fox, and I find it a refreshing delight. I even say my hero Joe Bastardi the other day.
I will have nothing to do with any BBC produced productions including my once beloved Dr. Who.
During the election coverage of 2008 when early returns were coming in, the BBC announcers where displaying shock, dismay and distress and some apoplexy when the other guy was in the lead.
Here in Canada during the 2010 election our media explained to us viewers that the republicans won the congress because of the voters greed. Yes that is a true story, the voters had their health care insurance and they didn’t want anyone else to have it. Once again this is how the MSM in Canada reported on those election results to my fellow Canadians.
Well you guys certainly pounded ol’ Frank McDonald into pudding. I am surprised however, that he didn’t have the guts to come back atcha! Maybe Obamacare and all the rest of the world’s problems occasioned by “progressives”, socialists, communists – whatever flavor of mindless leftism one adheres to – have robbed them of their combativeness.
There’s no convincing argument why BBC Scotland should cover the study on its news programmes. And no evidence they didnt for the reasons you suggest.
Secondly, the research is clearly flawed, and quite easy to dissect.
‘Reporting Scotland broadcast 272 news items deemed favourable to the No campaign against only 171 favourable to Yes.’
According to who? To deem some reports favourable to one side or the other is subjective. And how many of these reports were fair and impartial, but just made one of the campiagns look bad because of what the campaigns had done rather than the way it was covered?
‘Statements which made use of academic, scientific or ‘independent’ evidence favoured the No campaign by 22 to 4 on BBC Scotland and by 20 to 7 on STV.’
This would seem to depend on the academic and scientifi evidence wouldnt it?!
‘Personalising independence arguments as being the wishes of Alex Salmond appeared 35 times on BBC and 34 times on ITV with no such personalisation of any of the No campaign’s arguments.’
Again, depends on the facts doesnt it?
‘Broadcasts containing language that was considered insulting to independence campaigners occurred on 18 times on both BBC Scotland and STV but language interpreted as insulting to pro-Union campaigners appeared only 3 times on each broadcaster’s news reports.’
This is the most interesting of all. ‘Insulting’ according to who? What if one if one of the stories was about insulting comments made by pro-Union campaigners about independence campaigners ? That immediately invalidates the point.
‘Finishing a broadcast item with anti-independence claims which were unchallenged happened 28 times on BBC Scotland and 34 times on STV whilst ending items with unchallenged pro-independence claims occurred only 8 times and 17 times respectively.’
So what? A report has to end with one comment or other, how is this bias? Are we all so stupid as viewers that we adopt the position of the last person to speak?
”Commenting on the over representation of anti-independence news items, writing in his report, Dr Robertson said: “One obvious explanation lies in the editorial decision to allow all three anti-independence parties to respond to each SNP statement creating an unavoidable predominance of statements from the former even when these were kept short.”‘
Well there you go Dr, you explain it yourself. Thats the political reality though, and its not biased to reflect that.
‘The report concluded: “So, on the objective evidence presented here, the mainstream TV coverage of the first year of the independence referendum campaigns has not been fair or balanced. ‘
The author has already admitted that its not objective though. As stated earlier in the report: ‘Reporting Scotland broadcast 272 news items deemed favourable to the No campaign against only 171 favourable to Yes. ‘ and ‘Broadcasts containing language that was considered insulting to independence campaigners ‘
Theses are subjective!
Don’t forget they gave us Red Dwarf and Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy and without the former we would not know you can extend the wear time of your under pants to 4 weeks by turning them inside out after a fortnight. Oh what a thought!! It also gave us this wonderful song.
James Bull
Whatever its faults, the BBC remains head-and-shoulders above the Irish times but only because it isn’t also Irish.
M Courtney says:
Also, can anyone think of a good BBC comedy from this century (except Top Gear)?
Dinnerladies
Vicar of Dibley
Jam and Jerusalem
But Are You Being Served will always be my favourite. I have watched it so many times that I have almost memorised the scripts. It’s politically incorrect from beginning to end.
Robert W Turner says:
January 23, 2014 at 10:40 am
Ken Hall says:
January 23, 2014 at 10:35 am
The paedophile protecting, anti-scientific, anti-business, and anti-British BBC needs to be shut down. It is not fit for purpose.
As long as Top Gear is still on television.
—————————————————————-
Top Gear’s tribute to the Jaguar E-type was the best. Especially when the car wouldn’t start after the fly-over at the Cliffs of Dover. As for paedophiles, I thought it meant people who were afraid of owing money. Other than that I have no idea what this post is about. That’s what happens after 3 generations of not being British.
DirkH says “you seem to have no problem at all with the way BBC handled CO2AGW reporting; meaning, you are perfectly satisfied with being fed a bunch of lies”.
Actually no (your assumption and conclusion above are both incorrect): I just reserve the right to form my own judgement on a case-by-case basis. This may of course differ from yours on something as significant as break-up of the UK (in which I, south of the border, appear to have no say).
And Streetcred says “the BBC has been supportive of the secrecy of its CAGW cadres’ research data”. Would you care to share some examples of this (the BBC supporting secrecy of anyone’s research data)? The article itself only says: “You may detect the irony of this statement given what the report revealed about the BBC’s reporting and presentation of referendum news” – which seems to imply that the mere suggestion of bias is sufficient per se to damn the BBC, without the need for any actual justification.
Again, I’m by no means sold on BBC impartiality but IMHO this article is over-hyped (a typical feature of any secession debate – sigh …).
Tomorrow’s World was great as I recall. I recall episodes of a presenter smeering jam on a “new” format for music, the “Compact Disk”, and playing it (80’s). And the best one I saw was of an inventor who developed a sort of “spray” to use on eletrical applianaces, such as a 240V/AC power drill, that can be used under water. As a demonstration and confidence in his invention, he sprayed a drill and promptly plunged the it, while holding on to it, in to a tank of water, powered on (70’s)!!! But sadly, since the mid-80’s the BBC has been “economical with the truth” regarding the theory of AGW.
James Bull says:
January 23, 2014 at 6:01 pm
Don’t forget they gave us Red Dwarf and Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy
James,
You are a man after my own heart! Red Dwarf and the cast of ‘smeg heads’ are what came to mind for me, as missing from the lists of bad British comedies posted above.
Mac
We tossed the BBC out of our country back in 1783. They tried for a comeback in 1812, but their ratings tanked so bad it made even the first Democrat look like a hero for booting them out of steampunk New Orleans.
Duncan says:
January 23, 2014 at 3:41 pm
Yes BBC3 and BBC4 at current level
Radio2 and Radio6
= £10 pa licence and job done.
BBC Comedy from this century:
• Little Britain is too coarse for my taste – but OK
• Benny Hill was ITV
• Mr Bean was ITV
• Yes Minister was last century (but great) and not BBC this century
• Red Dwarf was last century (but great for the first few seasons) and poor this century (and not BBC)
• Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy was last century and better on the radio
• Dinnerladies was 1998 to 2000 so technically last century (I start counting at 1, ahem)
• Vicar of Dibley was 1994 to 2007 – OK (but its best years were behind it)
• Jam and Jerusalem was 2006 to 2009 – OK (never saw it so can’t comment)
• Are You Being Served was last century
• The Fast Show was 1994 to 2001 – OK, just
So is the BBC still as witty as it was?
I argue No.
Because it is too po-faced to dare go against the established orthodoxy.
No risqué references to Molly Sugden’s pet anymore (thankfully).
But no questioning authority either.
Wasn’t Hitchhiker’s Guide originally a book? In which case the only compliment for BBC is not doing a bad job; as M Courtney says it was far better on radio and that is an even easier thing to achieve.
TimC says:
January 23, 2014 at 8:37 pm
“And Streetcred says “the BBC has been supportive of the secrecy of its CAGW cadres’ research data”. Would you care to share some examples of this (the BBC supporting secrecy of anyone’s research data)? ”
You seem to not have noticed that sometime in 2005 or 2007 or so Richard Black dragged all BBC journos to seminars organized by Futerra where they were advised to from now on report about CO2AGW only as fact, not as theory, and were advised to not cite opposing voices. You might remember that they used to cite an opposing voice when reporting about a scientific theory or study or conjecture, in the same article. This vanished in the mid zeros in the climate reporting.
The German word for this is Gleichschaltung, the english one is synchronisation.
So now you know.
Very sad about what the BBC has become. Every now & then they produce some good programmes, sadly many are repeats on their commercial BBC3/4 channels. Yes Minister was superb, with civil servants bossing the guvment around! Such an insite into how the political system in the UK (& I daresay everywhere else) works It is also very sad & poignant that it takes a programme like Top Gear so promote British excellence in design & engineering & manufacturing in its final episode of the last series, which was first class, rather than the wet “Guvment”, although slightly improved upon from the last regime!
Alan the Brit says at January 24, 2014 at 3:27 am
It was good and informative. We often forget that the UK is still a manufacturing centre for advanced engineering. Yet we own motorsport and our car industry is thriving. Our aerospace isn’t terrible either (without our wings Airbus is just bus).
But look at what the BBC did to that episode. They immediately followed it with a hatchet job documentary (Das Auto: The Germans, Their Cars and Us) denigrating the British car industry. It wasn’t current. It wasn’t congruous. And it wasn’t original.
Someone in the BBC really hates Top Gear.
Since the complete dismantling of the BBC engineering dept, then the destruction of BBC foreign language services the BBC ceased to be a broadcaster of anything but hearsay.
You can’t have the words BBC, journalism, & Engineering in the same sentence any more, so no suprise you can’t expect them to have anything else but a partial understanding of the term “news” or “science”.
All those became foreign concepts, just like the ideas of “honour”, “morals” & “standards” roughly simltaneously, which is why the publicly funded body is people by lawyers and jobsworths with magnificent pay-offs to match their flawlessly styled hype.
To suggest a choice between the BBC and Fox is ridiculous, two poor quality broadcasters, the choice should be do you want a good service or a bad one. The BBC is publicly funded and is expected to be unbiased in it reporting, it is not meeting its obligations to the viewers. The only reason it has continued to be funded in this way is that the government see an advantage to having a broadcaster under its control, presumably in order to control what information the public are given. The increasingly public evidence of a premeditated and planned bias in relation to Global Warming is a clear indication of this propaganda potential and must bring the debate on public funding back to the forefront.
Spillinger says: January 23, 2014 at 11:09 am;
“. . . .Alright. But apart from Top Gear, Doctor Who, Dancing with the Stars, Fawlty Towers, Only Fools and Horses., and Match of the Day, what has the BBC ever done for us?”
The aqueduct.
Sorry, couldn’t resist…. 🙂
DirkH says “You seem to not have noticed that sometime in 2005 or 2007 or so Richard Black dragged all BBC journos to seminars organized by Futerra”.
Thanks, but your pea has moved between the thimbles again. Are you not referring to the 2006 BBC “eco-seminar” (of which I was aware of course, and its associated cover-up) reported at:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2537886/BBCs-six-year-cover-secret-green-propaganda-training-executives.html
This was a policy seminar held for BBC execs, not journo training – it had nothing to do with access to (or secrecy of) scientific research data. And I note that Streetcred (to whom my earlier remarks were actually addressed, in reply to his own comment) has not responded yet …
Geordie,
There’s Fox and there’s Fox News. The former produces entertainment programming, some of it very good and some exceedingly awful. The later is a news reporting organization that has the audacity to invite people from both sides of an issue to express their views.The liberals usually hate Fox News because when questioned or subject to a fair debate, the left-wing guests make fools of themselves. The worst sin of Fox News, of course, is questioning Dear Leader and his new order.
What about O’Reilly, Hannity, etc.? Those are opinion and commentary programming. They aren’t news shows. Fox News reporting has been show to be the least unbiased of any network in the USA. BTW, O’Reilly and Hannity give the other side a chance to speak and make their case. O’Reilly, BTW, is neither a conservative nor a Republican, in case you’re curious.
Don’t forget the Fox Business Network, either, which has the audacity to be unabashedly pro-capitalist, pro-property rights and pro-free market.
Curious question here; What is done with the data from hourly or special observation temperature readings at a single site to compute a temperature record such as BEST or HADCRUT3?
Do they add up all of the temps recorded for the day and compute an average? Are there only certain times that they use? Do they throw away any observations?
I only ask because all of the RAW data that I have been able to see, which isn’t all that much, only includes monthly averages.
HADCRUT3 for example.
Number= 037760
Name= LONDON/GATWICK
Country= UNITED KINGDO
Lat= 51.2
Long= 0.2
Height= 59
Start year= 1961
End year= 2007
First Good year= 1961
Source ID= 10
Source file= Jones+Anders
Jones data to= 1998
Normals source= Data
Normals source start year= 1961
Normals source end year= 1990
Normals= 3.8 3.9 5.8 8.0 11.3 14.4 16.5 16.2 13.8 10.8 6.6 4.7
Standard deviations source= Data
Standard deviations source start year= 1961
Standard deviations source end year= 1990
Standard deviations= 2.1 2.0 1.3 0.9 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.0 1.2 1.1 1.7
Obs:
1961 3.9 7.1 7.5 10.3 11.0 14.7 15.9 16.1 15.7 10.9 6.4 2.7
1962 4.1 4.5 2.5 7.6 9.8 13.0 15.1 14.7 12.6 10.5 5.9 1.7
1963 -2.7 -0.8 6.2 8.6 10.3 14.7 15.1 14.5 13.1 10.3 8.5 2.0
Notes:
Number is a station identifier (usually the number assigned by the WMO).
Long is the longitude of the station. Negative values are east.
Height is in metres.
First Good Year – data before that year are suspect.
Source ID is an indicator of the source of the data.
Source File and Jones data to are internal flags relating this file to other systems.
Normals and standard deviations are produced and used as described in the data set papers. One value for each calendar month (Jan-Dec) in Celsius.
Obs (short for Observations) are monthly average temperatures, in Celsius – one row for each year. Each column is a calendar month (Jan-Dec).
A value of -99 indicates missing data.
See specifically Obs.
Can I get hourly data from one specific station over a long period of time?
Thanks
Do you guys have any idea how the way you talk sounds? Imagine how this thread would look to an impartial observer with no stake in the issue. Not a good look, especially when you are accusing someone else of bias.
drumphil says:
January 24, 2014 at 4:18 pm
“Do you guys have any idea how the way you talk sounds? Imagine how this thread would look to an impartial observer with no stake in the issue. Not a good look, especially when you are accusing someone else of bias.”
Where do all you BBC apologists come from? Don’t you have some lies to write during office hours?
TimC says:
January 24, 2014 at 8:25 am
“DirkH says “You seem to not have noticed that sometime in 2005 or 2007 or so Richard Black dragged all BBC journos to seminars organized by Futerra”.
Thanks, but your pea has moved between the thimbles again.”
See, I don’t care. Are you a Brit? Happy with the BBC? Well great for you; what do I care whether the Brits like themselves being lied to; it’s not a country I wish to visit. You want them to take every lie from the IPCC verbatim and without investigation, and probably also every lie from every other UN and NATO department? Great! You must be a happy man because that’s exactly what you get.
DirkH said:
“Where do all you BBC apologists come from? Don’t you have some lies to write during office hours?”
I didn’t say a damn thing about the BBC. Not a word.. And I get that in response.. I think you just made my point for me.
drumphil says: @ January 24, 2014 at 4:18 pm
Do you guys have any idea how the way you talk sounds? Imagine how this thread would look to an impartial observer with no stake in the issue. Not a good look, especially when you are accusing someone else of bias.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You are coming in at the very tail end of a several year long conversation.
At this point most of us are very fed up with the lies told by the MSM. BBC is the worst of them because they take public money have secret meetings and then decide to shut out one side of a debate. Their propaganda aided politicians in killing 30,000 people a year via fuel poverty while stuffing money into their pockets and the pockets of their buddies.
Kinda hard to be an impartial observer with all those dead bodies.
“Kinda hard to be an impartial observer with all those dead bodies.”
Oh, so it’s the BBC’s fault that people can’t help but carry on like this…
So much for personal responsibility.
Hyperbole never serves the cause of truth.
Sounds more like a Hissy Fit.
DirkH says “Are you a Brit? Happy with the BBC? Well great for you; what do I care whether the Brits like themselves being lied to; it’s not a country I wish to visit.”
Ah – glad you cleared that up: it’s all just prejudice about something you have never directly experienced, nor actually know about, nor even want to. Doesn’t it follow that your opinions in this thread should be weighted accordingly?
I don’t really understand this discussion, TimC, you yourself describe it as politically hot. The BBC collects £3.6 billion pounds as a tax but is required to cover controversial subjects accurately and with due impartiality. It has been involved in a number of recent scandals about ignoring the standards which are required by law and have been threatened with a massive loss of funding.Following the meeting in 2006 which the BBC described as informed by some of the best scientific minds (few were actually scientists) they themselves made a statement saying impartial reporting was no longer justified. Even within their own reporters and editorial staff there has been public dissent on their policies. I expect external observers of these posts might recognize it as part of an ongoing public debate about a public body who feels no obligation to the people who pay for it. You also wonder about the FOI request and suggest that the BBC would be a better judge of research data than a University with no axe to grind. Ive no problem with the request but we are talking about an organization which is currently fighting for its very existence because of its arrogant, misleading and incompetent management style. Do you really expect them to use the data in a constructive way, the only public defense for virtually all of the current scandals is mounted by people being paid by them.
Geordie says “we are talking about an organization which is currently fighting for its very existence because of its arrogant, misleading and incompetent management style” (etc – see above).
A bit late (in a busy day): thanks for your comments but can I try to put matters into some perspective, as I see them – and I should perhaps confirm at the outset that I am a UK national, living in the south of England.
First, I would mention that the BBC is no big deal, on a world-wide scale. It is the public sector broadcaster for the UK (England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland) – but the UK’s entire land area is about 93,400 sq miles – less than that of the state of Oregon.
The BBC is ultimately all under political control. Its Charter periodically comes up for review under the control of the then UK government, which also appoints the members of its governing body. Its funding is by a flat-rate “licence fee” on any UK household containing equipment capable of receiving live BBC broadcasts (whether by radio signal or internet streaming of live broadcasts); householders where such equipment is present (for TVs) or used (live streaming) are liable to criminal sanctions if they do not pay the licence fee, so it is truly a tax, again under political control.
It used to be regarded affectionately and was often called “Auntie” (as if to a spinster aunt, burbling away to nobody in particular at the end of the dinner table) but those days are gone – principally its lavish spending habits with licence fee money has recently caused much adverse comment. But this is just an example of the BBC’s public sector ethos: as it is a public body under political control it will never be happy to admit to getting anything wrong, and will follow the political consensus du jour – which in the UK is presently that CAGW is real and not to be questioned. What I am saying is that it will actually take a change in the UK political consensus to effect any change in the BBC’s approach – but life moves on, the pause continues and change will one day happen.
And now the politicians have a larger problem – the Wee Eck looking to bring about a break-up of the UK, with Scotland seceding from the Union.
To get to the point, I think you were suggesting that my earlier comments in this thread implied that the BBC would be a better judge of research data than “a University with no axe to grind”. I was in fact only suggesting that the BBC should have access to the data, to be able to review and comment on it – when we can all get to form a judgment on the arguments as to whether the BBC’s output is actually biased or not.
And I very much doubt that UWS can correctly be described “a University with no axe to grind”: having conducted this research it will have its own reputation to maintain; it will almost certainly have a (corporate) view on the referendum question as will its academic staff and students – and it is a Scottish institution within the Scottish Parliament’s territory. Any of these is enough to give it “an axe”.
For these reasons I believe that UWS should disclose its research data to the BBC – and I think it is rather suspicious that UWS did not do so before publishing its findings, as this seems anyway to connote that the research was politically motivated.
I think it would be fair to say that the BBC ‘used’ to be very good but now it is no more than a left wing organisation that pumps out propaganda to suit its political preferences whilst it is funded by a blanket tax enforced by the threat of court and imprisonment for not paying the fine as well as soft EU loans.
I would like to think that we are past the point of needing a state broadcaster – the BBC loves to ridicule the North Korean state broadcaster but doesn’t have the wit to see the the irony.
Privatise it and it can be as left wing, pro-warming and mad as it wants as I won’t care a bit and if it’s so good Frank McDonald, it will prosper but we both know it will fall on its arse faster than a Greenpeace activist slipping over on a few inches of ‘global warming’ in Winter.
I suppose they can as a hefty licensing fee, and signing an license agreement for this raw data that BBC wants? BBC knows that licensing is not free – after all it lives off paid licenses! So it would be understandable for BBC that they have to pay for the raw data they wish to analyze.