THE SIXTH STEP..

THE SIXTH STEP..

Writing over in the FT, Philip Stephens has an interesting article on the BBC and he makes five suggestions as to how he thinks the BBC could be saved. I think each of his ideas has individual merit but perhaps where he and I differ is in whether the BBC requires saving in the first place! I am sure that if the BBC implemented the suggestions Philip makes it would be a much improved broadcaster but we would still be paying through the teeth for it. The missing step is the sixth one - axe the license tax and let the BBC fly free....

BLACK BBC MOONSHINE

>> MONDAY, OCTOBER 19, 2009

I have read very carefully Richard Black's defence of the BBC's reporting of the so-called problem of "climate change" (mentioned by David Vance in a previous post). It's an important statement that shockingly reveals the depth of the malais and dishonesty in BBC journalism. He's in that strange cloud cuckoo land that BBC reporters inhabit, and he's deployed all the standard BBC responses to claims of bias, especially the one that if both sides of a particular argument complain about a BBC feature, the corporation must be in the middle somewhere and therefore right.

What he doesn't take into account, of course, is the fanatacism of the warmists who yell "rape" loudly the minute anyone questions their cherished religious beliefs; and what he studiously avoids (the elephant in the room) is the fact that in the years I have been following the BBC's "climate change" coverage, there have been hundreds, if not thousands, of stories where the views of warmists - no matter how ridiculous or untrue (as in Gordon Brown's maniacal codswallop this morning) - are reported unchallenged, while those containing the views of so-called "sceptics" can be counted on a few hands.

What he also doesn't say is that the BBC Director general recently told a meeting of the Parliamentary media group that in his view, there is a "consensus" of scientific opinion that supports global warming, and therefore the BBC's responsibility in reporting such "science" is to give prominence and precedence to the warmists. Thus there is deliberate, systematic under-reporting of "scepticism" sanctioned at the highest level of the corporation.

A test of Richard Black's assertion that the BBC is getting it right could not be simpler. Take for example, the stunt a couple of days ago when the (Muslim, western-hating) cabinet of the Maldives met underwater to protest about "climate change". Their views were given wall-to-wall Beeb coverage, not only on the website, but in BBC1 bulletins. What was conspicuously absent from the BBC's reports were the views of the many scientists who have surveyed the Maldives and found that sea levels there are actually falling. The Watts Up With That website has shown persuasively that the government of the Maldives not only know that this is the case, but that also, they have actively censored the evidence.

When Richard Black and the rest of his BBC chums start publishing such information, I will be open to the idea that they might be changing. Until then, they remain climate change fanatics, bent on spreading scientific hocus-pocus of a type not seen this seen of the Enlightenment.

Non Report

In 2004 the BBC’s former middle east editor, Tim Llewellyn, called Israel’s P.R. “Zionist propaganda,” because he said it was ‘too efficient. ’
If Palestinian P.R. was lagging behind in 2004, it certainly isn’t now. P.R. seems to be about the most flourishing industry Palestinians have.
Despite the spectacular efficacy of Pallywood and the like, the BBC’s present middle east editor happily takes it at face value. He doesn’t dismiss it as propaganda.

Whenever Israel is provoked into retaliatory action the BBC bombards us with emotive images, embellished, manufactured or genuine. It is hardly surprising that it has united the audience in a kinship of hostility towards Israel. They hear only that Israel is the cause of all the death and destruction they’ve been shown.

Suitably impassioned, well meaning people are galvanised into half-hearted action. Firstly, ridicule all pro-Israel sentiment and deem anyone who expresses it mad. Keep saying ‘hasbara,’ ‘cabal” and “lobby,” terms which automatically dismiss all pro-Israel sentiment without requiring too much depth of knowledge.

Next, the flip-side, joining or sympathising with the ‘we are all Hezbolla now’ brigade, an allegiance that requires suspension of disbelief on an Alice in Wonderland scale. It begs the question - exactly which side is mad as a hatter.

The BBC is very keen to tell us that the UNHRC passed the resolution against Israel
UN backs Gaza ‘war crimes’ report. “Ah! War Crimes!” it seems to say, eternally hungry in a Homer kind of way, for more ammunition against Israel.

“Twenty-five countries voted for the resolution, while six were against.” 
It tells us.

In the sidebar Jeremy Bowen implies that the UK’s ‘non vote’ was as a result of Israeli pressure. He thinks that the Zionist Lobby has stopped us from joining in the condemnation.

The BBC is much less keen to discuss the Goldstone report, or to explain what it is, how it came about, what is wrong with it, and about the countries that voted for, against - or not at all.

Rather Biased

On this week's episode of Radio 4's Americana the current state of US journalism was discussed with none other than "special guest" Dan Rather. In his introduction Matt Frei described Rather as a legend (twice) and a titan. The pair talked about various problems facing journalism, covering topics such as the chase for ratings, the newspaper industry, and citizen journalists. Rather concluded with the following observation:

"...let's pause and remember what we as journalists are supposed to do when we're at our best, fulfilling the best tradition of American journalism or journalism wherever it is, is play no favourites, pull no punches, and news is what is important for people to know that somebody somewhere in power doesn't want them to know. Most of the rest is just advertising."

At no time in their lofty discussions of journalistic ideals was it mentioned that Dan "play no favourites" Rather used demonstrably false documents in an attempt to smear President Bush in the run-up to the 2004 election, the fallout from which damaged CBS's credibility and hastened Rather's departure from the network. During the programme Frei quoted former Washington Post editor Ben Bradlee's dismissive take on citizen journalists ("What about citizen surgeons?") which was somewhat ironic given that his special guest was a professional journalist brought low by the fact-checking of bloggers.

Rather's bio on the BBC Americana website states: "He retired from CBS in 2005 and is currently the anchor and managing editor of Dan Rather Reports on Hdnet." In fact he only retired as CBS anchor in 2005, but limped on at CBS News until 2006 when his contract was not renewed. Rather filed a lawsuit against CBS for breach of contract but this was tossed out of court last month(another point not brought up by Frei). Clearly Frei didn't want to bother the listeners (or embarrass the legend) by mentioning such inconvenient facts; Rather was, after all, fighting the good fight against President Bush and thus can be forgiven everything.

At the end of the programme Frei paid homage by signing off with Rather's catchphrase "Courage", a quality I then had to call upon myself to prevent my dinner from re-emerging.

Update. In related "play no favourites" news, this morning ex-CBS correspondent Mika Brzezinski gave MSNBC co-host Joe Scarborough her assessment of the political leanings at Dan Rather's former network during the years she was there (via Newsbusters) :

SCARBOROUGH:...can you think seriously of one correspondent, of one producer, of one anchor, that was a George W. Bush fan?
BRZEZINSKI: I can. I can think of one, yes.
SCARBOROUGH: How many did you work for?
BRZEZINSKI: Many more than that.

That's probably one more than the BBC.