Saturday, 9 October 2010


MORE QUESTIONABLE TIME

>> SATURDAY, OCTOBER 09, 2010


So as not to clog up the Open Thread, the comments field below contains some figures on this week's edition ofQuestion Time from Birmingham, where Baroness Warsi (pictured, for Bupendra!) faced a jeering David Dimbleby - oh, and a jeering audience too.

HALF THE PICTURE, ALL OF THE TIME

>> FRIDAY, OCTOBER 08, 2010

Biased BBC Clameur de Hero writes...

"Could anyone fail but hear Naughtie giving virtually uninterrupted air-time on the Today prog this morning to the whingeing bleat from David Walker, the (thankfully soon to be ex) spinner-in-chief of the Audit Commission?

Walker clearly felt that his politically-charged rant last month in the journal Public Finance against the wise decision of Eric Pickles to scrap Walker’s non-job hadn’t resonated enough, hence the second go this morning, courtesy of the ever-sympathetic Beeboids. He seemed so distressed at what he thought was the exaggerated misrepresentation of the number of press officers at the Commission, and appeared particularly troubled at the odium heaped upon him for the Commission’s staff away day at the races. In the private sector, he said, events like this happened all the time.

But did Naughtie think to ask him why on earth it was that a body like the Audit Commission even needed 48 communications wonks in the first place? Nope.

Did Naughtie point out to him that if private sector organisations have away days, they’re not paid for by the taxpayer? Nope.

Strange. But then of course, in his day job, Walker is none other than Mr Polly Toynbee, isn’t he, so not much chance this side of Hell that the Beeboids would ask him any awkward questions.

THE REAL MCCOY....

Did anyone else have the misfortune to listen to this on Today this morning? Nice and balanced, so long as you hate the Coalition.

WORST DISASTER - AGAIN AND AGAIN.

Further to Robin's post earlier today, I received this very interesting follow up from a Biased BBC contributor which exposes further deadly bias.

As you state the usual bias is there and quite clear, I do however feel the need to point out the grotesque inaccuracy of the graphic which is embedded in the story (titled "chemical breakdown of sludge"). As someone who carries out chemical research and has a degree in chemistry I was outraged by the misinformation in this graphic.
"Red Mud" is very nasty, it is caustic and like drain cleaner, you don't want to be in contact with it. However this graphic clearly tries to link it with cancer using misleading statements. It states aluminium oxide (alumina) "caused cancer when tested on animals". This is news to me as I use it all the time so I did a search of scholarly articles which brought up one that states clearly they found no link! It's also the stuff you get on wet and dry paper, so I think that might have been banned by now if there was a risk.
It then states that silicon dioxide "silica" can cause cancer and lung disease if inhaled. Yes it can, if it is very finely milled in a factory for a particular use, not in it's natural form where it is harmless, it is what sand is made of. It is the particle size that is important and silica (as silicate) in red mud is not going to have the same danger. Lastly it states "Titanium dioxide caused cancer when tested on animals". Again, it may be a risk if inhaled over a long period as a fine dust, otherwise it is not a problem, that is why it is also found in skin cream and toothpaste!
The graphic makes inaccurate and scaremongering statements which would give to the lay public the impression that there is a direct risk of cancer from the red mud. So the question is where has the information come from, the journalist's eco friends at all? I am going to contact the BBC to try and find the source of this information, especially about alumina which appears to be complete nonsense. I imagine I will be stonewalled as usual. However I was so appalled by the misinformation I felt I had to point it out to a wider audience if possible.