John Horne Tooke posed an interesting - if idealistic - question in his comment on my posting yesterday about Richard Black's slavish continued reporting of climate change sensationalism. He pondered: The BBC have been vigorous in determining that a NO FLY zone is not acceptable; A Biased BBC reader provides further insight; "The No Fly Zone is a no go area for the BBC...they are against it as with all military action however 'justified' Today we are told that a majority of Britains are also against a no fly zone because of our experiences with imposing unwanted (and illegal?) military solutions upon other countries which have been unsuccessful. On Victoria Derbyshire (presented by Rachel Burden today, see link) this was the default BBC position. It was unfortunate that they hadn't briefed their guest, a Libyan doctor, who told us his father, in Libya, had called for a NFZ 2 weeks ago, Libyans are still calling for a NFZ...when asked what do Libyans want he replied they are demanding 'Please can we have a No Fly Zone.' Couldn't be much clearer. To us maybe...not to the BBC whose reporter jumped in to tell us that actually the American defence secretary Robert Gates doesn't believe NFZ's will be successful as it is attack helicopters that are the problem...it's all very technical and can't be rushed....these damned excitable Libyans who just don't understand...surely they can put up with being bombed and shelled whilst we get multi-lateral agreements at the UN and get some decisive paper shuffling done to make clear our anger at unfolding events. Yes I'm sure those underwater helicopters can avoid detection in a no fly zone! I'm not even going to contrast the reactions with those at the time of Israel's assault on Hamas in 2009." A Biased BBC reader informs; What an inspired appointment ! 
>> FRIDAY, MARCH 11, 2011
If only the BBC would employ people with enquiring minds, people who want to search for the truth, then they may be worth the licence fee.
Evidence that it won't actually came my way when I was sent a copy of the latest application form for the BBC graduate producer training scheme. Question 1 for these BBC leaders of tomorrow is this: Scenario: You are working as a researcher on the weekly science programme ‘Bang Goes the Theory’. The series is due to be broadcast in eight weeks. Your producer has asked you to write a brief on the subject of climate change and energy usage based on a recent article he has read by a highly regarded journalist in a leading science magazine. What’s your approach? Please rank the options below in the order you would do them. Please select your 1st task. ( )Contact general experts in the field of climate change and energy usage ( )Contact the BBC producer who made a programme on climate change 6 months ago ( )Contact the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) to secure an invite to their next session in Abu Dhabi ( )Read the original article. ( )Contact the two scientists who wrote the original research on which the article was based ( )Conduct google / web based research for wider background ( )Contact the journalist who wrote the piece. ( )Order tea and coffee for the Bang Goes the Theory presenters. ( )Contact scientists who disagree with the argument presented in the original article
Thus, right at the beginning of the recruitment process, it seems that those who run the BBC are now checking out attitudes to climate change. It's a fascinating insight into how deep the propaganda culture pervades the editorial process and even recruitment. If the BBC had journalistic credibility, the correct answers would be first to read the original article and then pretty rapidly to dig among those who disagree in order to decide whether it genuinely merited a programme. What Richard Black and his cronies actually do is a travesty of such inquiry. They usually a) find scientists who agree with the original piece and use their supportive comments to big-up the propaganda impact to maximum extent; b) worship at the altar of the IPCC and c) don't ever refer to anybody else. I think the purpose of this questionnaire is actually much more sinister and blatant. It's to weed out anyone who disagrees with their worldview at the very first hurdle. It boils down to that they are actively seeking climate change propagandists. How much lower can you get in the deployment of Stasi methodology?NO GO NO FLY ZONE...
CAN YOU TRUST THE BBC TRUST?
" There was a revealing article in "The Villager" on 4th March 2011 (a local free newspaper covering E. Northamptonshire). It was about a speech that Chris "EU" Patten made to sixth form pupils at Oundle School. He spoke on the growing threat of climate change, which he perceived to be "the most urgent of challenges", and said ".. this generation ought to have recognised the problem of climate change much earlier and tackled it with more determination .." Further, he predicted that ".. the 21st century will be dominated not by nation states, but by ideas…" (of course, he meant present states, not the state that is being formed, i.e. the disastrous EUSSR which will completely overwhelm and bankrupt us within a few years). So when he is installed in the place of Michael Lyons, we can be very sure he will not be insisting the BBC is balanced in their reporting of climate change, or of the EU. Indeed, under his chairmanship, we can expect the bias to get worse. "
IMPARTIAL AS ALWAYS
"The BBC is facing fresh concerns about political bias after appointing an outspoken left-winger as the editor of Question Time. The corporation yesterday announced that Glasgow-based Nicolai Gentchev has been handed the role after the previous editor quit over the decision to move the show to the Scottish city. But last night it emerged that the BBC employee had written a series of book reviews and articles for left-wing publications such as Socialist Review and the International Socialism Journalism."
Friday, 11 March 2011
Gosh, do you think that this appointment of Comrade Gentchev might effect the careful balance achieved by Question Time? ;-)
Posts
