Biased BBC - The Forum for BBC Bias
« Search Results »
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register. Dec 23, 2009, 3:24am
The BBC’s Charter and its Producers Guidelines state:...“Due impartiality lies at the heart of the BBC. All programs and services should be open minded, fair and show a respect for truth… [BBC reports should] contain comprehensive, authoritative and impartial coverage of news and current affairs in the United Kingdom and throughout the world…”
How does the BBC measure up to its charter?
BBC Focus on Gay Execution Not Murdered Christians « Result #1 on Dec 17, 2009, 10:52pm »
The BBC was under fire last night for opening a debate on whether gays should be executed. This was in response to what the BBC claim is a Anti-Homosexuality Bill being debated on Friday by the Ugandan parliament which would see some homosexual offences punishable by death. In fact there would only be a death penalty imposed where the offender has HiV, is a "serial offender" or the other person is under 18.
The BBC justified the debate thus Its editor David Stead last night insisted he had thought long and hard about posing the question. 'We agree it is a stark and challenging question, but think that it accurately focuses on and illustrates the real issue at stake,' he added. 'If Uganda's MPs vote to proceed with the Anti-Homosexuality Bill, they will bring legislation that could condemn people to death for some homosexual activities.'
Contrast this with the murder of Christian families in Pakistan some months ago. It barely got a mention on the BBC website, and certainly didn't merit any debate about the ideology that could justify this. Here's all that was written on the subject:
Pakistan Christians die in unrest Six Christians have been killed in religious unrest in Pakistan's central Punjab, after days of tension sparked by the rumoured desecration of a Koran.
The four women, a man and a child died as Muslim militants set fire to Christian houses in the town of Gojra, officials said.
Here's a more complete story about what happened in this incident where actually 14 were killed, most burned alive.
According to the writer
"Hamas digs up the bodies of Christians from Christian burial sites in the Gaza Strip claiming that they pollute the earth," said Reverend Majed El Shafie, President of One Free World International. "Every three minutes a Christian is being tortured in the Muslim world, and in 2009 more than 165,000 Christians will have been killed because of their faith, most of them in Muslim countries." Where are the Human Rights groups when we need them?
Considering that there are far more Christians in this country affected by the global persecution by Muslims of others of their faith, of which the above is just one incident, one would think that the BBC would think this topic worthy of debate. Certainly worth more than the few lines given to it. Not only about this persecution, but the lack of attention given to it by the various Human Rights Organisations - or at least that's how they like to think of themselves.
Maybe Robin Stead should think 'long and hard' about this.
« Last Edit: Dec 17, 2009, 11:23pm by Teddy Bear »
By Gerald Warner Climategate is a global household name. No cat has ever emancipated itself more completely from the bag. It is a world-wide scandal – thanks to the internet. Yet, as its ramifications proliferate and dominoes continue to fall, the most repeatedly asked question online is: how can the mainstream media ignore this? Well, we know the answer to that: the MSM are in thrall to the leftist consensus. End of story. But let me pose a follow-up question that may be becoming more imminently relevant.
Are the mainstream media capable of surviving their sidelining of the number one global scoop? Are they finally committing suicide? Are they, in fact, any longer mainstream? Every historian knows that any significant trend in society will show warning symptoms over a long period; but the final catastrophe will usually be triggered by a single event. For the moribund MSM that decisive blunder may well be Climategate.
Another feature of any doomed institution is that it signals its imminent demise by behaving in a manner that is contrary to its nature and purpose. Every city in the developed world contains news rooms in which cringing journalists struggle to satisfy the imperative demands of editors for a scoop. Yet the obvious scoop – the BIG ONE of journalistic mythology – is consigned to the waste basket. This is the journalism of Isvestia and Pravda, with all the commercial viability that attached to that school of news reporting.
The dead-tree press is already on the critical list. In the United States, in the six months to 31 March this year, newspaper circulation slumped by 7 per cent, according to the US Audit Bureau of Circulations. This was a steeper decline than in the two previous recorded periods (you can reasonably attribute that to the vomit-inducing idolatry of Barack Obama that permeated the American press at that time). In the UK the comparable figure was 5 per cent. How many businesses do you know that record such declines, in an unreversed trend, and survive?
The BBC – or, to give the Corporation its proper name, British state television – is on a multi-billion pound life support system, thanks to the licence fee extortion racket by which it acts as gatekeeper to 200 other television channels by charging £142.50 a year to viewers, the majority of whom do not want to watch its programmes. The BBC’s own report to the Department of Culture, Media and Sport in 2005 revealed that, if the licence fee were abolished, 58 per cent of viewers (14 million households) would opt out of all BBC television, leaving the Corporation with a paltry £1.2bn in revenue.
That is the despised organisation that relentlessly inflicts climate alarmist propaganda, fairy tales, “bedtime stories” on the British public, in the style of Radio Moscow, circa 1954 (“Implement the resolutions of the 23rd Congress…” “We have 27 minutes to save the polar bears from melting…”). No intelligent or inquiring individual believes, respects or trusts the BBC. Ditto the print media that is similarly spewing out Al Gore’s trashy superstition.
So, instead of proving its worth, serving truth and debate, arresting the attention of the public by exposing our rulers’ lies, the MSM are rolling over to become a mouthpiece of the consensus, repelling readers and viewers as they go online, just as citizens in Iron Curtain countries once tuned in covertly to Western media. The internet is the new samizdat. All of this may still be a relatively gradual process while all citizens are being deprived of is information and debate. But when the bill is presented to sustain the phoney religion consecrated at Copenhagen, when taxes rocket, when we can barely see by the light of mercury bulbs, when every amenity of life is threatened – will people still be willing to pay money for newspapers and television channels that tell them to submit to this tyranny, when they could be exploding the myth and freeing society?
It seems less than likely. The Mainstream Media are hanging themselves – it is doubtful that they can any longer be described as mainstream. These are turkeys voting for Christmas.
« Last Edit: Dec 15, 2009, 11:55pm by Teddy Bear »
Demonizing Israel on BBC Radio London « Result #7 on Dec 15, 2009, 5:34pm »
Yesterday's BBC Radio London's Breakfast Show apparently ran a story about the recent attack on Italian PM Berlusconi. The presenters invited Guardian Political Editor Michael White to comment, and somehow this became a completely false and baseless attack on IDF forces that went unchallenged.
What does the IDF have to do with the recent assault on Italian PM Sylvio Berlusconi? Absolutely nothing. But that didn't stop The Guardian's Political Editor Michael White from making the following comment during a discussion on BBC Radio London's Breakfast Show concerning the physical vulnerability of political leaders:
In Israel they murder each other a great deal. The Israeli Defense Forces murder people because they don't like their political style and what they've got to say and it only means that people more extreme come in and take their place.
(The full segment from the BBC Radio London Breakfast Show with Joanne Good and Paul Ross, 8am, Monday 14 Dec. can be heard by clicking here (3 mins 30 secs in) or here for a limited time only on the BBC website at approximately 1hr 16 mins in.)
These are extremely serious and baseless accusations and perhaps offer a disturbing insight into the mindsets of The Guardian's senior staff as well as those BBC presenters who simply grunted in agreement.
Does the IDF target terrorists and their leadership in order to defend Israeli citizens from terror attacks? Certainly. Does the IDF engage in deliberate murder in order to silence dissent in the same style as a police state or dictatorship? Certainly not.
Accusing the IDF of murdering people because they disagree with their "political style" is an absolutely outrageous slander. How can the paper's Political Editor represent The Guardian on a public platform, spreading slanderous accusations while expected to produce reliable and credible material in a mainstream newspaper?
Gore's Lie is BBC Inconvenient Truth « Result #8 on Dec 15, 2009, 5:08pm »
It's already been shown that quite a few claims made by ex USA Vice-President Al Gore in his book 'An Inconvenient Truth' are patent nonsense. Speaking this week in Copenhagen at the Climate Change Conference one would hope that he would take care to stick at least to the generally accepted claims of the global warming camp.
However, following Gore's pronouncement that the Artic could be ice-free within 5 years, as based on the findings of climate scientist Dr Maslowski, the scientist himself immediately denied any such thing.
Question is, why hasn't the BBC covered this story? After all what are the 35 staff the BBC have sent over to cover this conference doing? One cannot imagine if it would have been George Bush making a similar gaffe that they would have let this slip by. Is it because it casts further doubt on the integrity of the already disgraced 'global warming camp' that the BBC would prefer you believe?
The former US Vice-President, who became an unlikely figurehead for the green movement after narrating the Oscar-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth, became entangled in a new climate change “spin” row.
Mr Gore, speaking at the Copenhagen climate change summit, stated the latest research showed that the Arctic could be completely ice-free in five years.
In his speech, Mr Gore told the conference: “These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years.”
However, the climatologist whose work Mr Gore was relying upon dropped the former Vice-President in the water with an icy blast.
“It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at,” Dr Maslowski said. “I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this.”
Mr Gore’s office later admitted that the 75 per cent figure was one used by Dr Maslowksi as a “ballpark figure” several years ago in a conversation with Mr Gore.
The embarrassing error cast another shadow over the conference after the controversy over the hacked e-mails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, which appeared to suggest that scientists had manipulated data to strengthen their argument that human activities were causing global warming.
Mr Gore is not the only titan of the world stage finding Copenhagen to be a tricky deal.
World leaders — with Gordon Brown arriving tonight in the vanguard — are facing the humiliating prospect of having little of substance to sign on Friday, when they are supposed to be clinching an historic deal.
Meanwhile, five hours of negotiating time were lost yesterday when developing countries walked out in protest over the lack of progress on their demand for legally binding emissions targets from rich nations. The move underlined the distrust between rich and poor countries over the proposed legal framework for the deal.
Last night key elements of the proposed deal were unravelling. British officials said they were no longer confident that it would contain specific commitments from individual countries on payments to a global fund to help poor nations to adapt to climate change while the draft text on protecting rainforests has also been weakened.
Even the long-term target of ending net deforestation by 2030 has been placed in square brackets, meaning that the date could be deferred. An international monitoring system to identify illegal logging is now described in the text as optional, where before it was compulsory. Negotiators are also unable to agree on a date for a global peak in greenhouse emissions.
Perhaps Mr Gore had felt the need to gild the lily to buttress resolve. But his speech was roundly criticised by members of the climate science community. “This is an exaggeration that opens the science up to criticism from sceptics,” Professor Jim Overland, a leading oceanographer at the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said.
“You really don’t need to exaggerate the changes in the Arctic.”
Others said that, even if quoted correctly, Dr Maslowski’s six-year projection for near-ice-free conditions is at the extreme end of the scale. Most climate scientists agree that a 20 to 30-year timescale is more likely for the near-disappearance of sea ice.
“Maslowski’s work is very well respected, but he’s a bit out on a limb,” said Professor Peter Wadhams, a specialist in ocean physics at the University of Cambridge.
Dr Maslowki, who works at the US Naval Postgraduate School in California, said that his latest results give a six-year projection for the melting of 80 per cent of the ice, but he said he expects some ice to remain beyond 2020.
He added: “I was very explicit that we were talking about near-ice-free conditions and not completely ice-free conditions in the northern ocean. I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this,” he said. “It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at, based on the information I provided to Al Gore’s office.”
Richard Lindzen, a climate scientist at the Massachusets Institute of Technology who does not believe that global warming is largely caused by man, said: “He’s just extrapolated from 2007, when there was a big retreat, and got zero.”
BBC funds climate change 'revolutionaries' « Result #9 on Dec 12, 2009, 6:15pm »
I have wondered why the BBC go outside their mandate in pursuing their 'global warming' bias. Is it to make themselves look 'caring and concerned' about the world around them, to gain trust with the public. So the licence payer will say "okay they're biased, but they mean well".
The fact that the BBC sends 35 staff to cover the climate change conference shows that their 'care and concern' is only a front, and at heart they will pursue anything they think will serve them - without ethics, morals, or scruples. Complete scum!
Damian Thompson at the Telegraph covers how the BBC are clients of a 'green' communications agency. Remember, it's not their business to pursue an agenda, but to give a balanced view of events. They fail miserably at it.
BTW, the Biased BBC website linked to in the article is the original and excellent blog and well worth a visit.
Fanatical about climate change? Then you’ll want to get to know Futerra, “the sustainability communications agency; from green to ethical, climate change to corporate responsibility”. As their website explains: “Sustainability, green, climate change, fair trade, ethical, CSR, eco-chic … be part of the revolution.” Though it will cost you, of course.
Actually, it already does cost you, since Futerra advises DfID and Defra. Likewise if you pay a licence fee, because – as the excellent Biased BBC website points out – the company’s clients also include the BBC. Indeed, Futerra is proud of the connection:
Various BBC teams have enjoyed training sessions on communicating sustainable development. Participants have ranged from producers for EastEnders to researchers on the CBeebies channel. We also developed the creative PR strategy for the launch of the BBC’s online ethical fashion magazine
EastEnders? Blimey. (”Can I have a word? It’s about Peggy. She’s still using those 100 watt lightbulbs.”) But it’s no surprise that the CBeebies are part of the deal: BBC children’s programmes are wall-to-wall green sermons these days. And how exciting to discover that we’re paying for an “online ethical fashion magazine”. Lord Reith would be delighted, because if there was one thing he couldn’t stand it was unethical fashion mags.
Futerra’s website induces that trapped-at-a-party-by-a-halitotic-vegan panic. “Traditional and accepted messages tend to fail on this new issue,” it gushes. “We don’t want to re-invent the wheel, but in an era when car manufacturers have to totally re-think their engineering perhaps even wheels are in question.”
Needless to say, it is full of disdain for anyone who challenges the AGW orthodoxy: its blog deplores “the misrepresentation of selected quotes from the stolen Tyndall Centre emails (nicely and conveniently timed in the run-up to Copenhagen don’t you think?)”. Still, at least Futerra can take comfort from the fact that its clients, the BBC, have done their best to play down Climategate. Auntie is “part of the revolution”, bless her!
£630k Moyles - Foul Mouthed + Bad Taste « Result #10 on Dec 12, 2009, 12:55am »
It's not just Ross and Brand who don't seem to know the bounds of good taste in their so called humour, but Radio 1 presenter Chris Moyles also appears to have a problem. What in the eyes of the BBC hierarchy can make this moron worth an estimated £630k pa is completely beyond me. Moyel is what Jews call somebody who does circumcisions, but this Moyle is just a bit of a prick.
Chris Moyles was at the centre of a bad taste row last night after he mocked Radio 2 DJ Sarah Kennedy in a foul-mouthed speech.
He targeted Miss Kennedy, who was in the audience, as he paid tribute to Sir Terry Wogan at a lunch to mark the veteran broadcaster's retirement from his Radio 2 breakfast show.
Moyles, whose Radio 1 morning show starts an hour before Wogan's and finishes after it, said: 'I am very nervous doing this because this is probably the first time Terry has ever heard me, ever.
'Actually, saying that, Sarah Kennedy is on before him, [so] there's a good chance he might f****** tune in.' Moyles then pulled a face and appeared to do an impression of someone who was drunk.
Miss Kennedy has been criticised for slurring her words during her early-morning broadcasts - something she has put down to a bad cold.
After the ceremony, staged by the Radio Academy, Miss Kennedy, 59, was seen apparently wiping tears from her eyes.
When the Daily Mail approached her later, she claimed not to have heard the comments, adding: 'I am used to it, it is showbusiness.'
Until Moyles's appearance, the ceremony had been an upbeat and warm celebration of Sir Terry's lengthy radio career.He hosts his final show next Friday.
Chris Evans, Noel Edmonds, Tony Blackburn, Chris Tarrant and John Humphrys gave heartfelt and gently humorous tributes to the Radio 2 star, who fought back tears at their words. A tearful Evans, who will take over Sir Terry's Radio 2 breakfast slot, described him as 'bloody brilliant' and added: 'To walk away from something you still love and you're so good at - that's a tough gig.' Radio 4 Today presenter John Humphrys joked that Sir Terry had been broadcasting for 500 years - so long that even his grandfather had referred to him as Old Uncle Terry.
Wogan, 71, was made a fellow of the Academy and given the John Peel award for contributions to radio. He hosted his first Radio 2 show from 1972 to 1984 before starting his current stint in 1993.
But within seconds of taking to the stage for his tribute, Moyles had blurted out 'what a load of s***' before mocking the glass dish that was being awarded to Sir Terry for his services to the industry.
It was the unpleasant comments about Miss Kennedy that drew the most gasps. But Moyles also told the stunned audience: 'The Radio Academy put a tribute together of breakfast DJs who are on at the same time and probably never listen to each other to tell you how amazing Terry is and let's be honest, all they really care about is themselves, their own shows and their own egos.'
Moyles has been embroiled in several controversies during his time at Radio 1.
Earlier this year he was criticised for making a joke about Auschwitz. Last year he was forced to apologise for appearing to suggest on his show that Poles make good prostitutes.
Sir Terry's last programme is on December 18. He will host a new Sunday morning show from February 14.
A spokeswoman for the BBC said: 'This was a celebration for Terry and it was a lively event with lots of light-hearted banter and jokes between presenters throughout the lunch.'
The BBC seem to have no problem using the word 'Muslim' if they can be seen as the victim, or using the word 'Christian' if they can be seen as the perpetrator.
Now this 'Chicago man' is complicit in the murder of 174 people, a little more than 'abuse over a dress', yet nowhere in the article will you find mention of the fact that this Chicago man is a Muslim.
The BBC must protect the 'religion of peace', which is why this headline Baghdad car bombs cause carnage doesn't say Islamic terrorists caused carnage in Baghdad.
Now why I do think the BBC has its head up its arse?
Swiss Minaret Ban is 'Racist' for BBC « Result #12 on Dec 8, 2009, 2:32am »
The BBC has too long demonstrated an attitude of appeasement to Islamification, even at the expense of replacing our traditional and important values , where Islamification would overthrow and replace them. I can only guess that it is for the purpose of the BBC's own hegemonistic desire to reign as the world's media corporation, which involves appeasing 57 Islamic states and the ideology behind them. There is no reason our normally open and multicultural society should tolerate those who would dominate it rather than integrate. Yet the BBC would sacrifice our values for the purpose of its own self-serving ends as has been shown here time and time again. I am quite sure that real moderate life loving Muslims would also agree that limits must be placed on those who use the religion for extremist purposes. Otherwise why should they make the journey to integrate here from so many lands round the world where a hardline version of their religion already exists?
57% of the Swiss public decided this week that 4 minarets in their country was enough, and they didn't want any more. The Turkish Prime Minister has described minarets as the 'Bayonets of Islam', and the Swiss quite rightly don't want any more sticking in their side. Naturally the BBC want to appeal to the powerful and hardline Islamists in trying to present the Swiss as racist instead of simply not wanting to lose their identity.
The Muslim term for the BBC attitude is dhimmitude which is defined thus: Dhimmitude is a neologism first found in French denoting an attitude of concession, surrender and appeasement towards Islamic demands. The BBC are Dhimm! They would dhimminish the values of our society for their own selfish ends.
Ron Liddle writes an excellent article in The Spectator on the subject.
Quote:
It’s not just the Swiss — all Europe is ready to revolt Rod Liddle A ban on minarets may seem racist to the BBC, says Rod Liddle, but in fact we should applaud any small battle won in the people’s war against the growing ‘Islamification’ of Europe
Here’s a very short and simple pre-Christmas quiz to get you into the swing of Christmas quizzes, as they will soon be taking up almost every page of your morning newspapers. A few years ago, Angus Roxburgh — one of the BBC’s chief Europe correspondents, based in Brussels — wrote a book about the rise of right-wing or libertarian parties on the Continent. He was referring to the success of the late and decidedly liberal Pim Fortuyn in Holland, the strength of the Flemish nationalists Vlaams Blok in Flanders, the Front National in France and so on. Now, all you have to do is answer the following simple question, bearing in mind the requirement for Angus, as an important public service broadcaster, to be neutral and objective in all matters. The question is this: did Angus title his book a) A Cool, Detached and Objective Assessment of the Rise of Right-Wing and Libertarian Parties in Europe, or b) Preachers of Hate?
Aww, you got it straightaway, didn’t you? As a supplementary question I might ask if you think the BBC was at all worried about this and thought it a transgression of its public service remit, but I reckon you’d find that question a doddle too. Move forward seven years or so and we have the BBC’s reaction to the referendum in which 57 per cent of Swiss people voted to ban the building of any more minarets in their country. This was, according to someone called Roger Hardy, the corporation’s ‘Islamic Affairs Analyst’ an example of European ‘Islamophobia’ and sent a signal to Switzerland’s Muslims that they simply were not wanted in the country. Swiss People Racist and Wrong, his neutral and objective article could have been entitled. Rog recently contributed towards a blog in which he denied that the almost complete and utter lack of democracy in Islamic states was anything to do with them being, uh, Islamic states. Just coincidence, then.
If anything, the Swiss vote was a riposte not to Switzerland’s Muslim population (which is a ‘small’ 320,000, according to Rog), but a riposte to Rog himself, or the many berks like him. In the last ten years the people of Europe have begun to revolt against what, at one extreme, they see as the ‘Islamification’ of their countries, or else they hold the more moderate position of being disquieted by the high number of Muslim immigrants they have been forced to receive, most of whom are antithetical to the indigenous way of life and have cultural values that do not accord with the resident majority. That they are told to shut up and stop being racist and Islamophobic by the EU, their own leftish politicians and the likes of Rog and Angus, only tends to inflame the rebellion.
The revolts have differed in their temperament, tenor and choice of target. The earliest and most ferocious occurred in Holland, where the talented and popular filmmaker Theo van Gogh, a descendant of the painter, was shot dead by a Muslim nutter who then attempted to decapitate his victim and affixed a note, containing one of those vainglorious adolescent rants with which you will be familiar from pre-suicide videos, to his chest with a knife. The population, already unhappy, decided it had had quite enough and started voting for Pim Fortuyn en masse and, indeed, for the likes of Geert Wilders. It came as a surprise to commentators over here — and presumably Rog and Angus — that Europe’s most liberal country could be the most antithetical to Islam. A fabulous misapprehension: Holland was the most antithetical to Islam because it was the most liberal. Its people looked at the corpse of van Gogh and saw what Islam could be like. ‘Education by death’ is how one liberal Dutch commentator wryly described it to me.
The protests in Denmark coalesced around those now famous cartoons of Mohammed — the furore over which was reported over here, although only two publications in Britain dared to test the Islamists’ medieval limits of freedom of speech with published cartoons of their own (Gair Rhydd, a student paper from Cardiff, and The Spectator. Private Eye? Nah, not a chance.) In France they moved to ban the burka, a concession to public disquiet and antagonism. In Belgium they began to worry about Eurabia, a crescent of towns and cities from Metz and Lille in the south through Zeebrugge and Antwerp to Rotterdam and Aarhus in the north where the Muslim populations had already reached 30 per cent or above. The irritation and sometimes fury spread: Germany, Austria, Italy, Spain and now Switzerland. Across Europe, opposition to Muslim immigration runs at a steady 60 to 65 per cent; the people of the Continent didn’t want the immigration in the first place, are not happy with the way in which the incomers have failed to integrate and do not want any more, regardless of what Rog, Angus and their political leaders might choose to think or how often they, the general public, might be written off as Islamophobic. In his recent study of Islamic immigration into Europe (Reflections on the Revolution in Europe), Christopher Caldwell wrote: ‘If Europe is getting more immigrants than its voters want, then it is a good indication that its democracy is malfunctioning.’ Precisely.
Banning minarets is, on the face of it, a fabulously inept and crude means of expressing disquiet about a growing alien minority within one’s country, rather like the Malaysian fundamentalist Islamists PAS banning McDonald’s and KFC from the state of Kelantan because they do not much care for America. It does not really get to the heart of the problem, any more than does the suggested banning of the burka in France, or Jack Straw moaning about Muslim women attending his surgery while covered from head to toe in hessian sacking. In all of these cases it is of course symbolic, a crie de cœur — and in the case of the Swiss, the only course of action which was allowed to them under the law. Nobody should be remotely surprised at the result of the poll. The Turkish government has whined about it, as you might expect (but then try building a Christian church anywhere east of Istanbul and see how far you get).
Caldwell’s book ended with a warning that Islamic cultural values might one day come to dominate in Europe, because of the lack of vigour and commitment from our own politicians. Maybe — but at least the public know what is happening and are not too cowed to complain about it.
When I read something like this, not to mention the fact that the BBC are sending 35 staff to cover this conference, even if I believed in the AGW theory I would resent what 'those who would control our lives with it' would do. I have absolutely no respect for any of them, or their agenda. I would rather we 'save the world' from these hypocrites first, as we are in greater danger from them.
Naturally you won't find any mention of the CARBON FOOTPRINT excesses by those who apparently believe in it disclosed by the Telegraph on the BBC site. After all, the BBC want in on the action as well. Which is why rather than expose the implications of what those leaked emails revealed, they do their best to dismiss it. Otherwise how can they just print this statement without understanding how ludicrous it is?
Top Swedish climate official Anders Turesson told the BBC that he hoped the issue "will be investigated".
However, Mr Turesson, who will also be leading EU negotiations as Sweden currently holds the rotating EU presidency, added: "But I cannot see it will in any way affect the negotiations here."
All these hypocrites make a very good living off of AGW alarmism, and none of them will find fault with it.
So as a controversial subject the guidelines are particularly clear.
we seek to provide a properly balanced service consisting of a wide range of subject matter and views broadcast over an appropriate time scale across all our output. We take particular care when dealing with political or industrial controversy or major matters relating to current public policy.
So the reporting has to be balanced, in particular climate change since so much of public policy relates to punitave taxation for CO2 production.
we strive to reflect a wide range of opinion and explore a range and conflict of views so that no significant strand of thought is knowingly unreflected or under represented.
So there should be a balance of opinions, for and against in BBC articles
we can explore or report on a specific aspect of an issue or provide an opportunity for a single view to be expressed, but in doing so we do not misrepresent opposing views. They may also require a right of reply.
If you don't give an equal voice, then you will misrepresent opposing views.
we must ensure we avoid bias or an imbalance of views on controversial subjects.
So how does the article stack up against these principles?
Factually, you present no evidence for this statement.
Thousands of emails and documents were stolen from the unit.
It may well have been an inside job.
Professor Jones gets a quote. On the alarmist side. 1:0 for the alarmists in having a say.
Tomas Stocker is also on the alarmist side as part of the IPCC.
2:0 to the alarmists
Ditto Professor Qin Dahe
[Backed by their statement that you quote]
3:0 to the alarmists.
No sign of any balance so far.
Next in is Gordon Brown. [There is an anti-science group, there is a flat Earth group, if I may say so, over the scientific evidence for climate change ]
4:0 to the alarmists. Still waiting for a little balance, in line with your remit.
Professor Jean-Pascal van Ypersele. Another alarmist from the IPCC.
5:0 i sthe score.
Now Ed Milliband. Clearly he hasn't read the emails, but since the government is so desparate for tax, any excuse.
6:0 to the alarmists.
Met office now
7:0 to the alarmists.
So a clear categorial breach of the BBC editorial guidelines.
Are you now going to write a balancing article where 7 skeptics get to make their points without a right of reply?
BBC Ostrich Approach to Climategate « Result #15 on Dec 5, 2009, 5:20pm »
Not surprisingly, mainstream media has picked up on the BBC trying to ignore the impact of the discredited AGW community, and continuing as though nothing of import has happened,
No apologies for revisiting Climategate, for this is the exposé of the can of worms that is the AGW mindset that just keeps giving. Now, what would you say if I were to tell you that the BBC News website is running a story on Professor Michael Mann, of Pennsylvania State University, one of the boys in Phil Jones’s gang hut at CRU East Anglia? “B****r me!” you would probably respond. “Don’t tell me the BBC has finally caught up with Climategate.”
Relax. I’m not telling you that; and it hasn’t. Instead, the BBC “News” site is running a story based on an article in Science magazine. Under the headline “Past climate anomalies explained,” it begins: “Unusually warm and cold periods in Earth’s pre-industrial climate history are linked to how the oceans responded to temperature changes, say scientists.” In this instance, “scientists” turns out to mean primarily Michael Mann, who is generously quoted.
“We reconstructed patterns of [the Earth’s] surface temperatures during those two intervals,” he explains, the two intervals being the “little ice age” and “medieval warm period”. There is much chatter about ice cores, tree rings and coral. There is no reference to the fact that this man is involved, very prominently, in the controversy surrounding the CRU at East Anglia, or to his interesting semantic convolutions in redefining the word “trick”.
Still less is there any acknowledgement that, at the moment, commentators in the United States, in online video reports, are reading increasing chunks of the CRU computer code and bursting into laughter at the incredible manipulations they reveal as, hour by hour, the Climategate scandal unravels. Issues relating to tree rings, not to mention Michael Mann, are central to that deconstruction of what is now being accepted, even by AGW supporters, as the junk science practised at the CRU.
Instead, the BBC – on a website devoted to “News” – thinks it more important to retail material from an article in a scientific journal, as if nothing had happened. Mann is the paleo-climate scientist who helped create the notorious “hockey stick graph” which was the first major element of the man-made global warming scam to be discredited.
Yet the paleo-news outlet that is the BBC pursues business as usual. Turmoil in Australian and New Zealand politics, with climate research in New Zealand now being similarly exposed, Congressional investigations of Climategate in the United States – all that has passed by the BBC. The big news about Michael Mann is his investigations into ocean coral. (“Apart from that, Mrs Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?”)
Hot tip: better tune in promptly to the BBC News tonight, or you may miss the death of Queen Anne.
Why 'Nativity' is Dirty Word for BBC « Result #16 on Dec 3, 2009, 9:37pm »
This mother of a 2 year old son writes about how disappointed she is in the proposed CBBC coverage of Christmas. The BBC doesn't think that British children should have any understanding of our own traditions and culture, but rather those of other faiths.
Our trip to the toy shop on Saturday inspired more gasps of wonder than normal from my two-year-old son, when he clapped eyes on a traditional wooden Nativity scene in the midst of heaving shelves of Christmas goodies. As we travelled home, he was eager to know just who that baby lying in a crib was, why there were cows in his ‘bedroom’ and — inevitably from a clued-up kid who is obsessed with presents — what gifts did he receive? I explained as best as I could about the birth of Jesus in a stable, his parents, Mary and Joseph, and the arrival of the Three Wise Men bearing gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh.
As I watched his attention wander, I knew the best way to bring the story alive for his young mind would be for us to sit and watch it dramatised on television this month. That was how I came to love it at my mother’s knee when I was small. The BBC, I thought, is bound to be showing lots of child-friendly Nativity programmes, which inspire nostalgia and affection in parents of all religious persuasions, and give real meaning to the festival behind today’s blatant consumerism. After all, the BBC has a charter which compels it to provide us with religious programming. But I was in for a shock. Despite a daily 13-hour output on its pre-school channel, CBeebies, the Corporation hardly plans to mention the Nativity during its Christmas coverage. Laughably, the sole programme completely dedicated to the birth of Christ, the Tikkabilla Nativity, will be broadcast on Christmas Day when, for once, toddlers will be too busy opening parcels and spending precious time with family to watch TV. (Tikkabilla — whose name is drawn from the Indian word for a game like hopscotch — features a male and female presenter and .. . a fluffy hand puppet.)
Won’t it be a bit late by December 25 to be explaining one of the most important dates in the Christian and British calendar? It’s like closing the stable door after the donkey has bolted. As the mum of a ‘more, more, more’ two-year-old, I am desperate to teach him there’s ‘more, more, more’ to this time of year than unwrapping toys. My attempts so far have stretched to My First Nativity Book at bedtime, a shepherd-like tea towel on his head which he thought was a game of ‘boo!’, a trip to church, and a glue-and-glitter cardboard star of Bethlehem. But none of those was as engaging as a well-made and informative programme would be to a young mind.
The BBC may claim its website for youngsters will contain references to the Nativity, but how many tots do you know who can log on to the internet, resist the temptation to fiddle with the keyboard and sit still for long enough to take it in? Aside from Tikkabilla, the BBC has proudly informed me that one part of one episode of a programme called the Green Balloon Club will feature the Nativity. That’s slim pickings compared with the channel’s wealth of festive specials and trailers of snow, gifts, and Santa. By failing to adequately include Mary, Joseph and Jesus, the BBC’s message to children is this: ‘It’s a special time of year, but we’re not going to tell you why.’ Perhaps the BBC doesn’t want to be accused of ramming religion down children’s throats.
But if that’s the case, then why is it so keen to boast about its new pre-school series for 2010 called Let’s Celebrate, which will focus on religious and cultural festivals around the UK, including Chinese New Year and Hinduism’s Diwali?
The Punjabi festival of Vaisakhi, Islam’s Eid, the Hindu celebrationof Holi, Buddhism’s Wesak and the Jewish festival of Purim will also be included and — gasp — so will Christianity’s Easter and Christmas. Nice of them to be so inclusive as to include the most profoundly symbolic festivals of this country’s faith. A BBC spokesman said: ‘We try to make religion an all year round part of CBeebies to reflect the lives of the children and their families that are watching us.’ In doing this, the BBC is utterly missing the point. Christmas is not just another example in a religious roll call. It’s our cultural denominator; a part of who we are. I’m all for inclusivity. Every child’s creed should be represented by the nation’s public broadcaster — that’s why Christmas should be linked with Christianity.
Indeed, the Archbishop of Canterbury this year warned the BBC it must not ignore its Christian audience. Sadly, his plea has fallen on deaf ears. A spokesman for the Church of England told me: ‘It’s important for young children to have an understanding of Christmas and its meaning, both culturally and for the message of hope it brings.
'We would look to the BBC to cover Christmas appropriately, and we will be reviewing its programming over the festive period.’
I’m not saying the BBC should bash its young viewers over the head with a Bible; however, there is room in the scheduling, beyond its current tokenistic effort, to explain the inherent connection between Christmas and Christianity. After all, my son has grasped the concept of Father Christmas delivering presents (as long as he behaves himself) so why shouldn’t he be able to understand the simple story of the birth of Jesus?
Instead, the BBC is treading a silly, politically correct path — and, sadly, it’s a well-worn one. Library story-time sessions dare not drop in on Bethlehem any more for fear of excluding non-Christian parents. Councils prefer to flash up illuminated ‘winter wonderland lights’ made up of Christmas stockings and snowmen rather than risk displaying ‘offensive’ images of wise men and angels. But why should the Nativity story offend anyone? It can be told and interpreted by parents to their children depending on their own background and beliefs; as the cornerstone of the Christian story; as an interesting historical saga; as a moving fable — or just as a way for other cultures and religions to understand Christian Britain. As the UK’s most-watched channel for the under-sixes, CBeebies has a responsibility to reach out to the majority who come from a Christian background, and to take part in the telling of this important story.
BBC Worldwide Chief Ignores Trust's Limitations « Result #17 on Dec 2, 2009, 9:33pm »
Bear in mind that the reason for the BBC betrayal of truth and failing to fulfill their mandate is to pursue their own agenda which has nothing to do with serving our interests. (Ab)using the status which the licence fee gives it, the BBC long ago realised it can increase its power by branching out into the private sector with financial interests worldwide. The problem is that any news it has to report will be twisted to support those regimes where it has those financial interests, and those where it still wants to expand.
Despite the BBC Trust insisting that BBC Worldwide curtail its private commercial acquisitions, the managing director of BBC WW has basically thumbed his nose at this instruction. Just to show the arrogance of this prick he insults our intelligence by stating '...'I think we’ve been opportunistic and dynamic, rather than aggressive,' ...
Stop the licence fee and let them manage in the real world.
Its aggressive expansion and creeping commercialisation forced the BBC Trust to place limits on the activities of BBC Worldwide. But, in a move that will infuriate critics, managing director of content and production Wayne Garvie is refusing to change its strategy or rule out further investments in independent production companies.
He is even planning to hire a New York television chief to oversee the development of programmes related to Lonely Planet magazines. The £89million deal to buy a 75 per cent stake in Lonely Planet in 2007 provoked criticism that the BBC had gone well beyond its remit and into areas not linked to content or programmes. BBC Worldwide has also been criticised for gambling money that could be re-invested in programming in investments on start-up independent producers. Just last week the BBC trust imposed new restrictions warning the broadcaster’s commercial arm that it must not buy any more businesses except in 'exceptional circumstances'. In its report, the Trust also said it 'would not expect to consider a commercial deal of the scale and nature of the Lonely Planet acquisition in future'. It had been expected that the stern reaction from the Trust would cause BBC Worldwide to rein in it activities but Garvie insisted his plans have been unaffected.
He added that all the deal made so far – many of which have been heavily questioned and criticised by the public and politicians, fitted the Trust’s new strict criteria. Garvie said: ‘If you look at the indie investments we’ve made, all of them were in exceptional circumstances. So actually, I’m fine. ‘I don’t think there is anything in that report that means we can’t do it. 'We haven’t made any purchases of stakes in existing indies actually [but] if the right circumstances came around we might well do it.' He also laid out plans to hire a new Lonely Planet television chief in New York with a specific remit to develop programme ideas linked to the brand. This could further underline fears BBC Worldwide is distorting the market with this acquisition and anger rivals, who will struggle to compete. Garvie denied he was treating the BBC Trust report as ‘window dressing’ or ignoring what it set out. He explained: ‘I think there is flexibility in the report to allow us to do what we do. Our aim is to bring a substantial return back to the BBC.’ His attitude will fuel concerns about whether the Trust has the powers to adequately regulate and reprimand the BBC. Tony Elliott, founder of Time Out, has repeatedly warned there were severe competitive implications of the Trust’s decision to allow the BBC to keep its stake in Lonely Planet.
In September, the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee said the Lonely Planet deal was 'the most egregious example of the nature of BBC Worldwide's expansion into areas where the BBC has no, or very limited, existing interests'. Garvie rejected accusations that Worldwide was an 'out-of-control juggernaut'. 'I think we’ve been opportunistic and dynamic, rather than aggressive,' he said.
'Some people don’t like the fact that we’ve been as successful as we have been, but in the old days we were called half wits for not being successful enough.'
Re: BBC suspends production firm over 'faked' scen « Result #18 on Nov 30, 2009, 9:12pm »
Hey Van - did you get the feeling that there's something fishy about this story? Whoever the reporter is, they seem to be giving the BBC Trust the opportunity to almost score moral and ethical points. It almost felt like the BBC had purposefully asked Reef productions to do something so that they could 'catch' them as a PR stunt. After all,the BBC can hardly be blamed for what a private production company did. Just how did they find out it was staged? Then they come out with this 'holier than thou' crap.
Faked scenes included production staff being passed off as members of the public while buying items and re-staging events for the cameras. The show was criticised by the BBC Trust for faking some scenes. Production staff also bought items which affected on-screen challenges. 'The BBC takes all breaches of its Editorial Guidelines seriously and regrets that Reef Television failed to meet the high standards that the BBC expects of all programme makers.
Then after the above they say:
'As the report from the Trust's Editorial Standards Committee makes clear, Reef Television co-operated fully throughout the BBC investigation and never deliberately set out to mislead either the audience or the BBC.
If they can see this as not deliberate, their heads must be further up their own arses and thinking this hype will work than I already believe.
BBC suspends production firm over 'faked' scenes. « Result #19 on Nov 30, 2009, 7:10pm »
"Serious breaches of editorial guidelines - including faked scenes - occurred repeatedly across a range of BBC daytime shows, the BBC Trust ruled today.
Programmes such as Sun, Sea And Bargain Spotting and Trash To Cash were among those which the broadcaster's governing body found had misled viewers."
BBC Avoids Report of Christian Girl's 50 Lashes « Result #20 on Nov 28, 2009, 7:56pm »
A 16 year old Christian girl has received 50 lashes in Sudan for wearing a knee length skirt. The judge ordered her sentence to be carried out immediately without even notifying her parents. Sudan law forbids this kind of punishment to under 18's and the government states that there should be more leniency to other faiths from other parts of the country than the strict Sharia law around Khartoum, where the girl and her family were visiting.
The question for us is - why isn't the BBC reporting it? I knew when I saw the article in the Mail that there would be no mention of it on the BBC even before I looked.
Why do the BBC need reporters all around the globe if they don't report the pertinent stories that we need to know about and address?
Silva Kashif was punished without her family being told after she was arrested while walking alone near her home in the Sudanese capital, Khartoum.
Her mother, Jenty Doro, said: ‘I only heard about it after she was lashed. Later we all sat and cried.
‘She is just a young girl but the policeman pulled her along like she was a criminal. It was wrong.’
The Omdurman market in Khartoum (file picture), one of the city's many markets. Silva Kashif was arrested as she walked to a market near her home in the Khartoum suburb of Kalatla last week She said she would sue the police and the judge because her daughter is a Christian and underage.
The law states that under-18s should not be given lashes. Doro said Khashif was taken to Kalatla court where she was convicted and punished by a female police officer in front of the judge. 'I only heard about it after she was lashed. Later we all sat and cried ... People have different religions and that should be taken into account' she said. Khartoum is governed by Islamic sharia law. But although Miss Kashif is living there she is originally from the south of the country, which is not.
The government is supposed to be working to soften the impact of sharia for southerners living in Khartoum.
Her lawyer, Azhari al-Haj, said: ‘She was wearing a normal skirt and blouse, worn by thousands of girls. They didn’t contact a guardian and punished her on the spot.’ The case will add fuel to a debate already raging over Sudan's decency laws after this year's high-profile conviction of Sudanese U.N. official Lubna Hussein, who was briefly jailed for wearing trousers in public. Hussein, a former journalist who used her case to campaign against Sudan's public order and decency regulations, is touring France to publicise her book about the prosecution. She had faced the maximum penalty of 40 lashes but was given a lighter sentence. Arrests for indecency, drunkenness and other public order offences are not uncommon in Khartoum which is governed by Islamic sharia law. Earlier this year Sudanese UN official Lubna Hussein was briefly jailed for wearing trousers in public.
As it is, the BBC is only answerable to itself in deciding its standards and coverage. How does it measure up to what you see as ' good quality, impartial and unbiased?
All TV viewers in the UK are forced by law to pay for this 'service'. Do you believe that what is received for this tax truly 'serves' the society, or merely increases the problems within it?
![[image]](http://i50.tinypic.com/o5rgar.jpg)
![[Home]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/menu/home.gif)
![[Help]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/menu/help.gif)
![[Search]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/menu/search.gif)
![[Login]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/menu/login.gif)
![[Register]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/menu/register.gif)
![[Search This Thread]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/search2.gif)
![[Send Topic To Friend]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/buttons/sendtopic.gif)
![[Print]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/buttons/print.gif)
Author
![[avatar]](http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/efe0d7cea3.jpg)
![[homepage]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/buttons/www_sm.gif)
![[image]](http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/12/16/article-1236465-07A08191000005DC-332_468x286.jpg)
Logged
