This latest exercise in naked partisanship by Richard Black has already been noted by B-BBC readers, but I was away yesterday and could not let it go without further comment. What it shows is that Mr Black is now such a fanatical propagandist that he is avidly snapping up any chance he can to rubbish the views of those who dare to disagree with him. The reality of the "story" - puffed up to be lead item on the warmist section of the BBC website - is that the editor of an alarmist science journal resigned after readers ganged up on him and told him that he had published a report that gave too much credence to evidence from dreaded sceptics which suggests more heat escapes from the earth into space than warmists say. The guts of the situation - as is explained here - is that the editor appears himself to be a spineless propagandanist who has caved in, despite the powerful evidence contained in the paper. But as pounce_uk has already astutely noted, the key part of Mr Black's predictably haughty, patronising put down of the offending research is the caption of Dr Roy Spencer, one of the joint authors: As`part of the BBC's sensational run-up to the 10th anniversary of 9/11, Mark Mardell speaks to a CIA officer about the use of torture, and whether or not it can ever be justified. The ideas discussed in the full piece may or may not be of interest to you. I don't know, and frankly don't care. What I want to draw your attention to is this statement by Mardell, with which he ends the piece: I hope they warned Mark Regev that the focus of his interrogation had been altered at the last minute, from the original version on the Today website - A biased BBC reader notes; 
THE 'C' WORD...
>> SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 04, 2011
Dr Spencer is a committed Christian as well as a professional scientist.
That, of course, to the BBC is the ultimate insult. He might as well have called him by the n* word. In the BBC lexicon, utter contempt is meant by such a description. To me, this marks a new low - the descent into a vicious, Inquisition-style vendetta against all who dare to challenge the alarmist orthodoxy. The gloves are off.Mark Mardell Sneers At The US Again
>> SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 03, 2011
Such discussions are the meat and drink of adolescent debating societies, rather than mature democracies - where it is more normal to assume it is very wrong, while very occasionally turning a blind eye if it happens. It has always intrigued me that when Britain really stood in peril of foreign conquest, when the blitz was killing more people than died on 9/11 night after night, it seems torture was not used. Perhaps they simply never captured a Nazi senior enough to be worth putting to the question. What is the tipping point?
This is the BBC North America editor giving you his personal opinion that, not only is the US inferior to Britain, but we're no better than adolescents. This is opinion, not journalsim, and sure as hell not impartiality. Will any of you trust someone about US issues who so candidly sneers at us? Palmed Off
“The "million people march" is due to take place tonight in Tel Aviv, protesting against the high cost of living and shortage of housing in Israel. Israeli government spokesman Mark Regev looks at the state of Israel today”
- to this updated item, an interrogation about Israel’s refusal to apologise to Turkey for the deaths of nine activists: Israel 'had right to board flotilla' So John Humphrys has read the Palmer Report. Well, parts of it, he assured Mark Regev. The parts of special interest to the BBC. Not the main parts, the ones that confirm the legality of Israel’s blockade against the smuggling of arms into Gaza, but those saying Israel used excessive force when they boarded the Mavi Marmara. The fact that the BBC brought Mark Regev on at all will have irked a particular type of listener. The type who is instantly up in arms at the sound of his voice, writing letters to the BBC about disproportionate pro Israel favouritism. They’re the ones that enable the BBC to claim impartiality ‘because we get complaints from both sides’. The Palmer report concludes that the blockade is legal, as was the interception of the boat in international waters. The problem seems to arise with how this was enforced. The Israelis’ reaction to the violent reception they faced was criticised because in the end nine activists were shot at close range, some in the back, and some several times. The fact that the activists were armed and uncooperative doesn’t seem to have been taken into consideration; it certainly wasn’t by John Humphrys. I’m wondering what the difference is between being shot dead, or being shot dead several times. They must have been very dead indeed. Would it have been acceptable to the BBC if the Israelis had waited to see just how far the activists were prepared to go before retaliating? If they had allowed one or two Israelis to be beaten to death, say, before deciding that shooting back was fair and proportionate? Or should the Israelis have given in, after polite requests to lay down weapons and comply with international law? It seems that is what Mr Humphrys would have advised. He must have seen the footage of the reception that greeted the boarding party when it landed on the good ship Mavi Marmara, it was shown on Panorama after all, but given that he is aware of the violence, and who initiated it, he seems to think the Israelis shouldn’t have boarded the ship at all! “It is hard to see how they could have initiated violence had you not boarded their ship.” he says. I suppose he would think that Britain had no right to intercept armed shipments from Libya to the IRA in international waters, either. Were the activists armed and resisting arrest? Yes they were. Were the Israeli soldiers being attacked and beaten with iron bars? Yes they were. Was Israel within its rights to intercept the ship in international waters? Yes it was. Was there a “Complex combative chaotic situation and close hand-to hand combat?” as Mark Regev repeated, and John Humphrys disregarded. Yes, undoubtedly. The truth is that the BBC thinks the ship should have been allowed to break the blockade, which they still want to believe is illegal, just as they still want to believe the flotilla was carrying aid, which they still want to believe Gaza needs. They still believe that Israel is the most evil place in the world, and they still want to doubt its legitimacy, no matter what any reports or investigations come up with. THE VENETIAN JOB...
>> FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 02, 2011
"This morning I sat through 2 showings of a BBC Breakfast report at the Venice Film Festival giving us the low down on the films being released and showcased there. In both reports the BBC showed a clip of George Clooney at a press conference, supposedly there to talk about his film. Did the BBC show clips of him talking about the making of the movie? or the fact that he directed it? No. They showed a 30 second Clooney monologue on why Obama's a great guy and has a very hard job. WHAT ON EARTH DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH THE FILM FESTIVAL?"
What indeed?
Sunday, 4 September 2011
Posts
