I wrote yesterday that the BBC Trustee's report into science coverage is a travesty. It is worse. Professor Steve Jones says that too much space is given to climate "deniers". Yet at least five years ago the BBC gave up all pretence at balance in climate reporting. It wrote: Here is an interesting question; "Does the BBC DG have knowledge of and take responsibility for the BBC journalist who has been barred from Parliament? 'Gobby (Paul Lambert) has had his Pass withdrawn, reportedly for filming the aftermath of yesterday's attack on Rupert Murdoch. The Rules of the House are simply that you must cut away from any disruption in the Chamber or Committees, and you may not film in Parliament without a Special Permit. The Authorities have kindly issued me with permits in the past, and usually, where they can help, they do.' http://www.lobbysean.com/ Should there be an inquiry and a falling on of swords? On Today we had 'Thought for the Day' presented by Abdal Hakim Murad, a Muslim. He's a regular, unsurprisingly. A reader writes; Some interesting observations here from a B-BBC reader.... Here's one for you: Report: Obama top recipient of News Corp. donations Political donations by News Corp., its employees and their families were evenly split between Democrats and Republicans, with President Obama the all-time leading recipient, according to a report from the Sunlight Foundation. The transparency watchdog noted Tuesday that Democrats received 51 percent of contributions while Republicans received 49 percent, despite the firm's highly publicized links to the GOP, such as a $1 million donation to the Republican Governors Association in August. I say nobody should vote to re-elect the President until He returns all the money from this criminal organization. I have often wondered about the tone to adopt in writing posts here about the BBC's reporting of climate change. Are my thoughts about Richard Black and Roger Harrabin too waspish, and should they be toned down? I need not have worried. So-called "independent scientist" Steve Jones, whose so-called report about BBC science reporting is published today, is a first-class Millwall-terraces-of-old thug in the downright nasty, vindicative and partisan remarks he chooses to hurl at those who dare to challenge his "consensus" views about climate alarmism. On the day that Lord Moncktonshowed vividly - yet again - that when alarmists dare to engage in public debate their arguments are annihilated,the BBC's trustees have given their blessing to an inquiry that is so tendentious, vicious and narrow that it lowers the tone of public debate to unprecedented depths of partisanship and shallowness. How does the BBC choose to report this travesty? With the revoltingly complacent "BBC praised for science reporting". Which is exactly as Professor Jones intended and exactly in line with the Pravda stylebook. The trustees should be hauled to account, every man jack of them, but such is the poverty and depravity of what the BBC has become that they cannot see their bigoted, blinkered nastiness. I will leave the last word for now to Melanie Phillips: One of the worrying things about the BBCs current wall-to-wall coverage of the Murdochalypse* is that when the Eurozone utterly collapses your average BBC viewer will ask themselves "when did that start?" and "how come nobody put that on the telly"? It's been brewing for months...years...eh? Why didn't anyone say anything? The BBC, mindful of this, are getting their defence in first. Good tactics, lads. 
BBC TRUSTEE IS CLIMATE ACTIVIST
>> THURSDAY, JULY 21, 2011
The BBC has held a high level seminar with some of the best scientific experts (on whose and what measurement) and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of consensus.
That was justification for a propaganda mountain, which I have chronicled. Richard Black and his cohorts have been following that approach with relish. Their hated "deniers" are routinely ignored - or if they are mentioned - misrepresented and denigrated. So Professor Jones in his "inquiry" could not even spot what was blatantly obvious and instead unleashed another series of hate lies against those who dare to disagree with the BBC worldview. The man who sanctioned this travesty is BBC trustee Richard Ayre, who has a pivotal role among the trustees because he heads the Editorial Standards Commission - he is the sole professional journalist on the body and in charge (on our behalf!) of journalistic integrity. He's supposed to be independent, but of course isn't - for a start, he's a BBC pensioner (reliant on funds derived from a climate change investment portfolio)- and he worked for the corporation for almost 30 years before taking "early retirement" and going to work for Ofcom, that other arm of so-called regulation that perpetuates liberal-left media bias. I know Mr Ayre reasonably well from contact with him during the 1990s when when he was controller of editorial policy. He believes without question he is fair minded and balanced, but it's simply not true. He's totally infected with the BBC mindset and it's obvious from the moment he opens his mouth. External evidence is easy to come by to support this, although Richard himself won't and can't see it. First he deliberately flaunts that his partner is the homo-eroticist artist Guy Burch, a militant "humanist" and contributor to the Pink Paper. Not part of the right-wing establishment, then. Second he himself is a highly active member of the Article 19 human rights and press freedom group. Such evocative touchy-feely, conscience touching words!In reality, it's a worldwide militant force camapigning for...wait for it, climate change activism. Look at this from its website: People living at risk of climate change or environmental degradation need to understand what is happening and take part in deciding how best to cope. ARTICLE 19 is working to ensure that people are informed and governments are held accountable for their environmental policies.
So let's get this straight. The man who is in charge of a so-called objective journalistic review into the BBC's scientific coverage endorsed findings from a so-called independent "expert" (used regularly by the BBC for contributions) who could not even see what the corporation had being doing in terms of partisanship for years, and then went on to have the effrontery to call for overt increased censorship. Not only that, this "trustee" himself is a major supporter - it says so on the BBC trustee website -of an organisation that is camapaigning for...climate change activism. You couldn't make it up, could you?OPEN THREAD...
>> WEDNESDAY, JULY 20, 2011
Yes I know this is a bit overdue but better late than never! Off you go....
IT'S ALL ABOUT TAKING RESPONSIBILITY....
TRUST ME, I AM A MUSLIM
CONSPIRACY THEORIES ON THE LICENSE TAX
"Anyone hear John Pienaar on the BBC this morning getting over excited and giving us his version of events?Cameron says he had no inappropriate conversations with News Corp. people. Pienaar essentially claims Cameron is lying. Pienaar states that Cameron has spoken about BSkyB with the Murdochs based solely on the way Cameron phrased his answer. To me it was quite clear...he had not spoken of the BSkyB deal. Pienaar then went on to allege News International is acting like a rogue state having serious repercussions for our culture and society. Nicky Campbell this morning was just as bad.suggesting that Cameron has done a deal with Murdoch to cut the BBC budget. (The horror of it!) His reporter came on to say there was no proof of this (letting it hang of course that well, it might be true) but that the thing was that it reminds people of the value of public service broadcasting. Nothing like being able to slander your rivals and promote yourself! I also believe it was Dame Nicky who asked one of the 7/7 families 'how long had your phone been hacked for?'. So their phone was definitely hacked? Really? Any proof? As far as I am aware there is absolutely no proof or evidence that shows any 7/7 or 9/11 families had their phones hacked. Their phone numbers and addresses were in the private investigator's files, but then they would be as the newspaper needs to get in touch with them in the normal course of reporting events....mere possession of the numbers means nothing. This is the BBC at its worst feeding into the conspiracies and half truths that are designed to attack the Murdochs, the BBC's commercial and ideological rivals. Far from being a professional news broadcasting organisation with high standards of behaviour and ethics it has become a platform for any wild accusation to be shouted out to the world by anyone with a grudge against News international and lending the authority and credibility of the BBC to those people and their prejudiced rantings."
Even The President Is Trapped In Nasty Uncle Rupert's Grasp
TRAVESTY
The BBC Trust is supposed to be the guardian of the public interest. Its role is to ensure that the BBC adheres to the high standards of its charter. But with this recommendation, the Trust has shown that it will destroy the BBC’s duty of fairness and impartiality and replace it by an Orwellian double-speak on the grounds that there are certain ideas which cannot be challenged. This is not guarding the sacred flame of journalistic integrity. It is a secular Inquisition.
Priorities and Agendas
Thursday, 21 July 2011
"As usual with nearly all Muslims he slips in a bit of anti Christian rhetoric whilst promoting Islam. Jesus is the Son of God in Christianity, the Lord Jesus, divine himself, God on Earth. The Muslims claim he was just a man, merely a prophet. Murad cleverly attacks the Christian theology without openly doing so...stating merely that worshipping a 'human baby' is idolatry....he then goes on to say that that has nothing to do with his thought for the day so anyway let's get on....he just thought he would mention it.... I could be wrong but is his final sentiment really about Muslim terrorists betraying Britain's trust....but Britain must still trust Muslims?"
Posts
