Journalists on the BBC 'saving the planet'

[Teddy Bear]

An article from yesterday's Daily Mail

About time...signs of climate change at the Beeb

Three cheers for Newsnight's editor, Peter Barron, who says it is not the BBC's job to save the planet.

Speaking in Edinburgh, he criticised the corporation's plans to screen a special day of programmes, under the working title of Planet Earth to raise awareness of climate change.

Raise awareness? Is there anyone, anywhere in Britain, unaware of so-called global warming?

We're drip fed a constant diet of alarmist propaganda every hour, on the hour, day in, day out.

We don't need Ricky Gervais in a green nose ramming it down our throats.

The existence of global warming is an article of faith at the Beeb.

Anyone who questions it is treated like a heretic.

Recently the BBC spent a small fortune covering the fatuous Live Earth concert.

The audience averaged a paltry 900,000. BBC spokesmen point out that when Madonna was on, the number of viewers rose to 4.5 million - which proves that people are concerned about "climate change".

No it doesn't. It proves they like Madonna. They'd have tuned in if she'd been performing at a Bring Back Hanging rally.

We've now reached a stage where even respected BBC insiders are warning about the political bias and lack of objectivity.

It may not be too late to save the planet, but it might be too late to save the BBC.

[Teddy Bear]

Surprisingly, The Independant today carries an article on the subject:

Terence Blacker: We need a change of climate at the BBC
Published: 29 August 2007
Wearing its title of the nation's public service broadcaster like a badge of virtue and honour, the BBC likes to clear its schedules now and then for an exciting celebrity-strewn day of concern, comedy and music. At first, children in need were the great cause, then Third World poverty. Now climate change is the latest focus of the Corporation's caring attentions.

On the face of it, to object to any of these great on-air festivals of niceness, as the editor of Newsnight, Peter Barron, has just done in Edinburgh, is to take grumpiness to a new extreme. What harm can possibly be done by a Red Nose Day, a Feed the World extravaganza, or an all-day Live Earth concert? Awareness is raised, money made for good causes, the famous have a chance to "give something back" in a gratifyingly public way, politicians are called to account in a gentle and generalised way, and members of the audience are offered the harmless illusion that the very act of laughing at Ricky Gervais, or singing along with Madonna, expresses their concern for the less fortunate. Spreading magical caring dust everywhere, BBC executives doubtless feel they have proved that television has a heart and a conscience.

But in arguing that "it is absolutely not the BBC's job to save the planet", Barron is making an important point. The truth is that, while they may be good for the Corporation's image and even for ratings, these orgies of public conscience are not raising awareness at all. They are raising emotion. Mass expressions of analysis-free caring, they are essentially mass expressions of faith.

In a democracy, it is dangerous when a country's dominant broadcasting institution spends millions of pounds on an all-day revival meeting which takes an issue of political complexity and turns it into an object of mindless religious yearning. When faith replaces thought and T-shirt slogans take the place of discussion, then people quite soon are only prepared to hear the message in which they already believe. Any talk of the more difficult issues is regarded as a disguise for apathy, yet another game that cynical politicians like to play.

Climate change, thanks in part to the BBC's efforts, has become a thought-free zone for many people. Discussing renewable energy with them can be as illuminating as talking about the Day of Judgement with a religious fundamentalist. To take an obvious recent example of self-imposed blindness, there is the question of the huge profits being made in the City by investors in energy companies which, to quote a recent report from Reuters, "are making billions of euros in excess profits", paid for by consumers, under the EU's emissions trading scheme.

The companies are making "free money", according to the Carbon Trust's chief economist Michael Grubb. "It's how you'd expect companies to behave, but politically and morally it is going to be hard to justify making so much money out of a scheme designed to reduce emissions."

This practice, says the report, has caused huge controversy in German and Holland but "barely a ripple" in Britain. To be fair, Radio Four, the one part of the BBC which has not been infected by sentimental populism on the great issues of the day, seems to be taking a cool look at the energy business in this Thursday evening's Costing the Earth, but it is an exception within the corporation. The great Save-the-Earth extravaganzas may play well with audiences and politicians but with them the BBC is exploiting the environment for its own ends as surely and cynically as the so-called "green barons" of the City.

[Teddy Bear]

The relevant stories concerning Peter Barron's comments ( referred to above)

Why saving Earth is not the BBC's job, by Newsnight boss
By PAUL REVOIR

The editor of Newsnight hit out yesterday at the BBC's stance on climate change.

Peter Barron said it was "not the corporation's job to save the planet".

He said the BBC was going beyond its remit by planning an entire day of programmes dedicated to highlighting environmental worries.

In remarks that will embarrass his bosses, Mr Barron said: "If the BBC is thinking about campaigning on climate change, then that is wrong and not our job.

"People are understandably interested in this, but it is absolutely not the BBC's job to save the planet. There are a lot of people who think that, but it must be stopped."

The BBC has already been accused of not being objective on green issues and of handing over the airwaves to people promoting Leftleaning ideas. It came under fire earlier this summer for devoting a whole day of programming to the Live Earth concerts.

The coverage sparked dozens of complaints about bad language from live performers during pre-watershed hours. It attracted an average audience of only 900,000, and peaked at just 4.5million when Madonna sang at Wembley.

The proposed day of programmes will be called Planet Relief and feature stars including Ricky Gervais and Jonathan Ross helping to "raise consciousness" of the issue. It is likely to be broadcast next year.

Despite claims by BBC chiefs that the day will not be about campaigning, news executives are already criticising the moves.

Peter Horrocks, head of television news, warned that the corporation should not be influencing people.

He said: "We should be giving people information, not leading them."

During a discussion of the issue at the Edinburgh TV Festival, the corporation was accused by a filmmaker of being biased in its coverage of climate change.

Martin Durkin, who produced Channel 4's controversial The Great Climate Change Swindle, called the BBC "soft Left" and "soft green" and said it no longer adequately reports challenges to the consensus.

There were also accusations that the corporation had decided not to commission programmes sceptical about climate change.

Mr Durkin said: "The thing that disturbs me most is that the BBC has such a leviathan position in Britain. If it decides that it is going to adopt climate change as a moral purpose, I have got a lot of trouble with that.

"I don't think it is the role of the BBC to spend my money on a moral purpose.

"If a certain idea becomes taboo it is a really unhealthy state of affairs."

He added: "The BBC is run by people who are soft Left and soft green."

Hamish Mykura, the Channel 4 executive who commissioned Mr Durkin's programme, said he was astonished at the suggestion that the BBC was impartial.

But Mr Horrocks denied that the BBC refused airtime to sceptics.

He said: "We have heard sceptics' voices very regularly on our programmes, but I think having this range of voices has made people think there is more doubt about climate change than there actually is.

"We still need to have the voices of sceptics, but in terms of what matters to the viewers >most, now a scientific consensus has emerged the policy choices that will affect people's taxes are more relevant to their concerns."

Only two months ago, the corporation was criticised for promoting single-issue campaigns in an internal report.

It said that while there was no conscious bias, individuals sometimes exercise a largely unconscious self-censorship out of a misguided attempt to be "correct" in their thinking.

The BBC said last night the aim of Planet Relief is to debate the issue and not campaign on a single view.

and this one from the Guardian:

BBC news chiefs attack plans for climate change campaign


Richard Wray and Leigh Holmwood
Monday August 27, 2007
The Guardian


Two of the BBC's most senior news and current affairs executives attacked the corporation's plans yesterday for a Comic Relief-style day of programming on environmental issues, saying it was not the broadcaster's job to preach to viewers.
The event, understood to have been 18 months in development, would see stars such as Ricky Gervais and Jonathan Ross take part in a "consciousness raising" event, provisionally titled Planet Relief, early next year.

But, speaking at the MediaGuardian Edinburgh International Television Festival yesterday, Newsnight's editor, Peter Barron, and the BBC's head of television news, Peter Horrocks, attacked the plan, which also seems to contradict the corporation's guidelines. Asked whether the BBC should campaign on issues such as climate change, Mr Horrocks said: "I absolutely don't think we should do that because it's not impartial. It's not our job to lead people and proselytise about it." Mr Barron said: "It is absolutely not the BBC's job to save the planet. I think there are a lot of people who think that, but it must be stopped."

Planet Relief appears to contradict BBC guidelines on impartiality. In June a BBC-endorsed report set out 12 principles on impartiality, warning that the broadcaster "has many public purposes of both ambition and merit - but joining campaigns to save the planet is not one of them".

A BBC spokeswoman said: "This idea is still in development and the intention would be to debate the issue and in no way campaign on a single point of view."

Meanwhile, in a session at the festival yesterday titled How Green is TV, the documentary producer Martin Durkin attacked the BBC as stifling debate on climate change. Durkin, whose film The Great Global Warming Swindle attracted a large number of complaints when it was shown on Channel 4 this year, said: "The thing that disturbs me most is that the BBC has such a leviathan position ... that if it decides that it is going to adopt climate change as a moral purpose, I have got a lot of trouble with that. I don't think it is the role of the BBC to spend my money on a moral purpose."

[Teddy Bear]

More on the subject today by Keith Waterhouse in the Daily Mail

Comic Relief is bad enough, but plans for an environmental Planet Relief are no joke
22:01pm 29th August 2007
Comments (3)

Just as it takes more than two swallows to make a summer (what swallows - never mind what summer? These days they are as hard to spot on rooftops as the once ubiquitous sparrows), so does it take more than two senior BBC executives to point out the error of Auntie's ways.
But it is a start.

Newsnight editor Peter Barron and the Beeb's head of television news Peter Horrocks have both attacked plans for a Comic Relief- style day of programmes starring the likes of Ricky Gervais and Jonathan Ross, with the idea of 'raising consciousness' on environmental issues.

Mr Barron put the argument against this tomfool idea plainly enough: "It is absolutely not the BBC's job to save the planet. There are a lot of people who think that, but it must be stopped."

But the BBC, like a slightly injured swan with a hurt little smile on its beak, sails blithely on, its spokesperson explaining: "This idea is still in development."

If the idea is still developing, we can only hope it gets lost in the darkroom. Heaven knows Comic Relief is puerile and patronising enough. Can you imagine what Cosmic Relief - in fact, they're toying with calling it Planet Relief, on which note I can only warn readers of a nervous disposition to avoid any enterprise containing the word Planet - is going to be like?

I have on my desk a little book offering 'your sixteen steps to climate cool', supported by a coalition of self-congratulatory outfits such as Airportwatch, Operation Noah and Save Our World, and for some reason given away recently by The Times newspaper, whose parent company must have been responsible in its time for enough carbon pollution to require a new tropical forest the size of Brazil.

in a movement soaked in sanctimoniousness like a jar of pickled walnuts steeped in malt vinegar and brown sugar, I have never come across such an exhibition of headpatting holier-than-thou nauseating chumminess.

Some examples: "It's time to take a quick peek at your habits. You see, though you are in general a deeply appealing kind of person, you still need a little gentle modification."

And on to the next steps: "Give your favourite person a call and invite them to share your next warm bath -or even better, a nice efficient shower. You can tell them all about how much carbon pollution you've avoided as you splash about."

And then, assuming your favourite person hasn't hit you in the mouth with the loofah, there are some cute little labels to cut out and distribute to total strangers:

On the bus: "Hello beautiful bus person. Sitting here stops climate chaos - your trip on a bus creates way less carbon pollution than a car."

On the windscreen: "Oh dear. What a big 4x4 you have. How about a super-efficient hybrid next time?"

In the supermarket: "Have you faced your carbon elephant? Every glass bottle you recycle saves 0.5kg of carbon pollution."

The danger of this kind of impertinent intrusion is that apart from the risk of the ecological gatecrasher getting a well-deserved fat lip, there are adults going around spouting its message like Jehovah's Witnesses.

They pass the gospel on.

Gullible schoolteachers lap it up.

Schoolteachers infect innocent children with it. Children carry it home to their parents. Parents pass on the news of a New Dawn to grandparents. Thus this climate chaos pollution spreads.

A final extract from this greenerthan-green, sillier-than-silly manual:

"Next time you are about to buy something, simply ask yourself if your purchase of that crazy packagedup beef burger is worth planetary chaos, mass starvation and general unpleasantness."

The heading to this section is 'Reject the ridiculous.'

Good advice.

[Teddy Bear]

It appears that the media attention to the way that the BBC has been 'pushing' the 'save the planet' button has forced them to shelve their proposed programme of that theme. Notice the BBC doesn't question their own adherence to this theory, which is just that, but typical of their attitude:
if they believe it, it must be true.

BBC scraps plans for day-long TV special on climate change
(Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP)
Negative reaction to the flop Live Earth concert, promoted by Al Gore, pictured, was cited as a factor in the decision not to go ahead with Planet Relief

Adam Sherwin, Media Correspondent
The BBC is to scrap Planet Relief, a television special about climate change that provoked a revolt from senior executives. Ricky Gervais and Jonathan Ross had been lined up to star in a day of programmes next year, designed to “raise consciousness” about the environment.

The event would have involved viewers in a mass “switch-off” to save energy. But BBC figures gave warning that the concept could be the latest in a series of campaigns, disguised as entertainment, that breached impartiality guidelines.

Advocates of Planet Relief finally relented after viewers said that they wanted intelligent programmes about climate change instead of lectures from hypocritical pop stars and celebrities.

The revolt was led by Peter Barron, editor of the BBC Two Newsnightprogramme. He said that it was “not the corporation’s job to save the planet”. He added: “If the BBC is thinking about campaigning on climate change, then that is wrong and not our job.”

Peter Horrocks, head of BBC television news, added: We should be giving people information, not leading them.” The BBC has now scrapped the concept. Negative reaction to this summer’s flop Live Earth concert, promoted by Al Gore, was cited as a factor. Audience feedback found that viewers wanted serious, informed programmes about the planet’s future.

A BBC spokesman said: “BBC One aims to bring a mass audience to contemporary and relevant issues and this includes the topic of climate change.

“Our audiences tell us they are most receptive to documentary or factual style programming as a means of learning about the issues surrounding this subject, and as part of this learning we have made the decision not to proceed with the Planet Relief event.”

The BBC promised instead to “focus our energies on a range of factual programmes on the important and complex subject of climate change. This decision was not made in light of the recent debate around impartiality.”

A report endorsed by the BBC Trust criticised Jonathan Ross for a serious breach of impartiality when he presented the Live8 concert. Ross directed viewers to the Make Poverty History campaign website. The Vicar of Dibleywas also criticised for screening a poverty campaign film.

“The growing trend towards celebrity-driven, single-issue campaigns presents the BBC with impartiality dilemmas, particularly in entertainment areas dealing with factual material,” the report said. “Programmes that are in league with campaigns have no place on the BBC, because of the inherent loss of editorial control,” it concluded.

The new BBC Trust has taken a tougher line on BBC “campaigns”. Management was ordered to rethink a new BBC charity called Saving Planet Earth, which solicited funds from viewers.

Environmental campaigners criticised the abandonment of Saving Planet Earth. Tony Juniper, Friends of the Earth director, said: “This is a very disappointing decision considering the huge potential for the BBC in helping us more quickly make the shift toward a low-carbon society. The science of climate change is very clear and if approached in the right way taking up this very serious issue would not compromise the BBC’s impartiality.”

Mr Juniper asked why the BBC should treat climate change any differently from recent television campaigns over child welfare, international development and wildlife protection.

The Planet Reliefconcept originated 18 months ago, and was scheduled for broadcast in 2008. It was seen as a logical sequel to Live8 in 2005, which sought to raise awareness of global poverty.

Bias at the Beeb

— Jonathan Ross plugging Make Poverty History at Live8 was criticised as the “most shocking breach of impartiality on the BBC in recent years”

— A senior BBC executive said that impartiality in the 2005 BBC Africa season was “as safe as a blood bank in the hands of Dracula”

— Judge John Deed breached guidelines with an episode that “appeared to side with the argument that the MMR vaccine was dangerous to children”

— The BBC Washington correspondent Justin Webb accused the corporation of treating the US with scorn, derision and “no moral weight”

— New weather graphics in 2005 appeared to suggest that northern Scotland was on the periphery – “a presumption that the bulk of the audience lives in large cities”

— A special BBC “NHS day” risked the appearance of government propaganda, said Adam Boulton, the Sky News political editor

Sources: 2007 Report on BBC impartiality, From Seesaw to Wagon Wheel, Times database