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
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: @ur momisugly 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.