Here's a letter a colleague has just received from the BBC's complaints unit. I reproduce it in all its glory so it can be fully savoured: In Roger Harrabin's latest article about what he calls the "hue and cry" surrounding the Rajendra Pachauri "manhunt" (not betraying your feelings much there, Roger) the BBC's environment analyst says that he's been having difficulty getting in touch with one of the co-chairs of the IPCC working group which oversaw the inclusion of the discredited Himalayan glacier info:
BBC STILL DEFENDS 'CONSENSUS'
>> FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 05, 2010
I understand you're unhappy with the BBC's reporting of climate change as you feel we've been biased towards the AGW's point of view. The BBC is committed to impartial and balanced coverage when it comes to this issue. There is broad scientific agreement on the issue of climate change and we reflect this accordingly; however, we do aim to ensure that we also offer time to the dissenting voices.
Flagship BBC programmes such as Newsnight, Today and our network news bulletins on BBC One have all included contributions from those who challenge the general scientific consensus recently and we will continue to offer time to such views on occasion. You might be interested in the views of former Newsnight editor, Peter Barron, who explored this issue in an online posting at our Editors' Blog and explained some of the editorial issues it throws up.
I can assure you that we're committed to honest, unbiased reporting and are determined to remain free from influence by outside parties, whether political or lobbyists. Our Charter and Agreement allows us independence from political pressure and the licence fee gives us independence from advertising, shareholder or other commercial interests. Impartiality forms the cornerstone of BBC News and Current Affairs and we've nothing to gain by weighting our coverage in political terms or by allowing influence from any other outside body.
I appreciate you may still believe the BBC is biased with regards the climate change argument and so I've registered your comment on our audience log. This is a daily report of audience feedback that's circulated to many BBC staff, including members of the BBC Executive Board, channel controllers and other senior managers. The audience logs are seen as important documents that can help shape decisions about future programming and content. Thanks again for taking the time to contact us.
Regards
Joe O'Brien
BBC Complaints
Thrown up yet? Note that the official line is still that there is a consensus. Laughable, if it wasn't so serious a subject. Meanwhile, the Spectator has a cracking piece which shows how totally cuplable the MSM have been in not reporting 'climate change' - and ends on a note that the BBC should be responding to.Excuses
>> THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 04, 2010
Professor Parry has repeatedly refused to answer my questions about the genesis of the errors, and his out-of-office assistant now says he is travelling for a month.
A lame excuse by Parry, and the fact that Harrabin mentions it suggests he's not convinced.
When Andrew Montford of Bishop Hill fame tried to find out some fairly straightforward information about the BBC's involvement in Harrabin's Cambridge Media and Environment Programme, here's how the BBC explained its tardy response to his FOI request:I am writing to advise that unfortunately we are not in a position to provide you with a response to your requests for information made under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. This is due to the fact that Roger Harrabin has been abroad and then on leave for much of the last six weeks and is now tied up with pressing stories.
Well, it's just so difficult keeping in touch these days isn't it?
UPDATE. It's unrelated to the above post but I can't resist sharing this headline: Hackers Steal Millions in Carbon Credits
The madness of it all in six words.
Friday, 5 February 2010
Posts
