The BBC has told staff they no longer need to invite climate-change skeptics on to its program.
It instructs staff:
“Be aware of ‘false balance’: as climate change is accepted as happening, you do not need a ‘denier’ to balance the debate.”
“There may be occasions to hear from a denier” but only “with appropriate challenge from a knowledgeable interviewer”.
BBC journalists “need to be aware of the guest’s viewpoint and how to challenge it effectively.”
“To achieve impartiality you do not need to include outright deniers of climate change in BBC coverage.”
A section of the new policy entitled ‘What’s the BBC’s position’ asserts that “man-made climate change exists.”
So much for the myth of ‘balanced news.’
https://www.thegwpf.com/bbc-freezes-out-climate-sceptics/
Thanks to Jimmy Walter for this link
“This BBC memo puts in writing what most people have known for the past ten years, which is that anyone sceptical of climate alarmism isn’t allowed on the BBC.” — Benny Peiser
So, is there a clear definition of exactly what a “climate change denier” actually is?
Can a good example of such a person be supplied?
they’re racists!
So, is there a clear definition of exactly what a “climate change denier” actually is?
Can an example of such a person be named?
Anyone who doesn’t believe the world will tomorrow if we don’t stop using fossil fuels is a climate change denier according to the Left.
Fear creates a lie and resistance.
Has the BBC also issued a definition of denier?
The majority of climate sceptics sits within the bandwidth of the IPCC, albeit in the lower parts.
This is sabotage of scientific progress.
Warmunists can’t win the debate, so they silence it.
Pedophiles are welcome though.
It would be fine in theory if they banned, say, both people who claim we’re doooooomed and people who say there’s no warming trend.
But of course in practice they’ll put on any speculative CAGW crank, but ban Judith Curry.
Yup. I’ve never met a person who denies that climate changes, and I bet the BBC haven’t either. But they will use this as a reason for the exclusion who people who accept their views.
To mis-quote the Baron Vladimir Harkonnen again, “The BBC aspires to educate the world, yet they cannot educate themselves.”
If ignorance is truly bliss, then the BBC must be one damn happy network…
Comrade Television
If you want to know who wants the BBC a sa propaganda arm read this. This is the response to a petition to take the BBC off Royal Charter and free money:
Government responded
This response was given on 20 September 2018
The government strongly believes the Royal Charter is the best framework to safeguard the BBC’s independence and ensure the broadcaster effectively serves all audiences.
Read the response in full
The BBC is one of the UK’s most treasured institutions and is part of the social and economic fabric of the country. It is a great source of national pride and no other country in the world has anything quite like it.
The Royal Charter is the constitutional basis of the BBC. It guarantees the BBC’s independence and provides the framework for how the BBC is governed and funded. The Charter allows the BBC to continue to thrive, deliver for all audiences, and be an engine of creativity and growth in the UK. The establishment of the current Charter was an extensive process of consultation and evidence gathering, with 192,000 responses to the public consultation and engagement with over 300 organisations and industry experts.
The BBC is operationally and editorially independent of government and there is no provision for the government to intervene in the BBC’s day-to-day operations. Independence and impartiality are embedded in the Charter and the BBC’s public purposes. The BBC Board is responsible for ensuring the BBC delivers its Charter obligations, including its mission and public purposes. The BBC Board is also responsible for ensuring the BBC adheres to its editorial guidelines. As the external independent regulator of the BBC, it is Ofcom’s responsibility to hold the BBC to account in fulfilling its mission and public purposes. Alongside this, the Ofcom Broadcasting Code requires all broadcasters, including the BBC, to report and present news with due accuracy and impartiality.
We considered the question of funding during the BBC Charter Review process. While no funding model meets all the criteria of an ideal system, the current model provides the BBC with a sustainable core income paid by all households that watch or receive television. This model also has wider public support than any alternative – 60% of consultation responses indicated that no change was needed to the current licence fee model, and only 3% favoured full subscription funding. That is why we have committed to maintain the licence fee funding model for the BBC for the duration of this current 11 year Charter period.
Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport
What a complete pile of crap.
The BBC serves or rather operates at the whim of the Crown. Levying tithes, sorry, license fees, is an ancient perogative. And subjects wonder how global climate became a religion?
may have been linked to before – http://www.bishop-hill.net/conspiracy-in-green/
gives part of the back story to the BBC bias.
That link appears dead. This might be similar: http://www.bishop-hill.net/propagandabureau/
So the BBC has officially become ‘fake’ news! As in useless, biased source of gratification to closed minded people.
Yes, I would encourage everyone here to leave Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp, the mainstream media, the BBC, etc – in fact, get away from anything normal, rational and moderate, and go to your favourite minority, extreme, little sources. Then everybody’s happy and us ordinary people can trust more in what we see and read! Perfect and I thank you in advance for your sacrifice.
…Y SE CUMPLIO LA AMENAZA DE LA “BBC”, QUE TEME LA MAFIA MUNDIAL DEL Cambio-Climatico???
The title of this post is completely misleading, in fact it is a LIE.
When skeptics engage in such reprehensible tactics, why should they expect to get their views heard in the media?
It seems that as well as banning “climate skeptics” and deniers, the BBC also has a policy of blaming every weather related event on “climate change”.
In an item on the Today programme this morning, John Simpson blamed the current shortage of water in the Tigris and Euphrates in Iraq, on “Global Warming” because the rivers are “disturbingly low this year” because of the lack of snow this winter.
I am sure that there will have been a similar lack of snow, and shortage of water in the past, but this year, apparently its due to “global warming”.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0bl6n8s
About 19 minutes into the programme.
The new Inquisition is back …
In the 17th Century all misfortunes, not least the worst phase of the Little ice age and failing crops etc, all was blamed on the witches – also by people who called themselves scientists – except Descartes, the founder of modern Philosophy, of course.
Now, a few imagined witches have been replaced by “climate deniers”. The language used has a relgious connotation – another confirmation of that AGW is a religion, not based on true science. Maybe, a significant driving force behind this phenomenon is the same as back then – existential anxiety in front of ongoing structural changes? Now with the fourth industrial revolution and intensified Globalization causing havoc for many as regards job and income security etc. engenders an urge to find scape goats. Hopefully we will get away from being burned like the “evil witches” back then, but more sophisticated punishments are mobilized instead! No research grants, censorship etc.
The climate is changing, everybody knows that. The BBC also know that the sceptics agree that climate is changing, as it allways has.
What’s the problem then?
That somebody says the changing climate is not due to human activity?
Most of us know that humanity is not powerful enough to rule over climate?
So, what’s the problem BBC?
Is it so that BBC is a true believer and the sceptics are not and therefore must be abolished…?
“There may be occasions to hear from a denier” but only “with appropriate challenge from a knowledgeable interviewer”.
But it’s so hard to find a State Media interviewer with more knowledge than the average ‘denier’ these days.
I foresee a day when all the media is put under some sort of USSR type gag. When the media is so dominated by one side or another, it’s really damaging to everyone. Therefore I see someone totally taking them over and freedom of speech will be eliminated.
The hysteria over “fake news” and “Russian meddling” may at first have been a childish reaction to the defeat of Hillary “most competent candidate ever in all planets in all universes” Clinton.
Now it’s the blueprint to justify taking back control over social media and the Internet. The Union, Emmanuel “En Marche” Macron, Google, M$, Mozilla Foundation are all for it. They ostensibly support an attempt to demonize the free and open Internet. They are pure evil.
I’m proud I voted for (dimwit) Marine Le Pen.