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
“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!