Posts Tagged 'AGW'



Peter Sissons on the BBC’s climate change propaganda

The serialisation of Peter Sissons’ new book continues in the Daily Mail today, and the former newscaster turns his attention to the BBC’s editorial approach and coverage of climate change.

Perhaps it is a credit to the bloggers who have highlighted issues with the BBC’s coverage over the years that hardly anything Sissons says is new.  However what prove useful are the elements of Sissons’ professional assessment and inside observation of the BBC bias and propaganda, as demonstrated in the sections below:

There is one brief account of the ­proceedings, written by a conservative commentator who was there. He wrote subsequently that he was far from impressed with the 30 key BBC staff who attended. None of them, he said, showed ‘even a modicum of professional journalistic ­curiosity on the subject’. None appeared to read anything on the subject other than the Guardian.

This attitude was underlined a year later in another statement: ‘BBC News currently takes the view that their reporting needs to be calibrated to take into account the scientific consensus that global warming is man-made.’ Those scientists outside the ‘consensus’ waited in vain for the phone to ring.

It’s the lack of simple curiosity about one of the great issues of our time that I find so puzzling about the BBC. When the topic first came to ­prominence, the first thing I did was trawl the internet to find out as much as possible about it.

Anyone who does this with a mind not closed by religious fervour will find a mass of material by respectable scientists who question the orthodoxy. Admittedly, they are in the minority, but scepticism should be the natural instinct of scientists — and the default setting of journalists.

Yet the cream of the BBC’s inquisitors during my time there never laid a glove on those who repeated the ­mantra that ‘the science is settled’. On one occasion, an MP used BBC airtime to link climate change ­doubters with perverts and holocaust deniers, and his famous interviewer didn’t bat an eyelid.

Then there is the BBC’s cult worship of celebrity and love of being courted expensively, as demonstrated by their fawning over Al Gore:

Meanwhile, Al Gore, the former U.S. Vice-President and climate change campaigner, entertained the BBC’s editorial elite in his suite at the Dorchester and was given a free run to make his case to an admiring internal audience at Television Centre.

His views were never subjected to journalistic scrutiny, even when a British High Court judge ruled that his film, An Inconvenient Truth, ­contained at least nine scientific errors, and that ministers must send new guidance to teachers before it was screened in schools. From the BBC’s standpoint, the judgment was the real inconvenience, and its ­environment correspondents downplayed its significance.

And Sissons provides us with confirmation of the BBC’s determination to present only one side of the story, in wilful breach of journalistic ethics and flying in the face of the corporation’s own claims of impartiality and balance:

At the end of November 2007 I was on duty on News 24 when the UN panel on climate change produced a report which later turned out to contain ­significant inaccuracies, many stemming from its reliance on non-peer reviewed sources and best-guesses by environmental activists.

But the way the BBC’s reporter treated the story was as if it was beyond a vestige of doubt, the last word on the catastrophe awaiting mankind. The most challenging questions addressed to a succession of UN employees and climate ­activists were ‘How urgent is it?’ and ‘How much danger are we in?’

Back in the studio I suggested that we line up one or two sceptics to react to the report, but received a totally negative response, as if I was some kind of lunatic. I went home and wrote a note to myself: ‘What happened to the journalism? The BBC has ­completely lost it.’

Indeed.

BBC won’t reveal what we say to it

Following on from this post about a complaint of BBC bias and lack of journalistic rigour in coverage of matters concerning climate change…

Our anonymous contributor went on to submit an interesting Freedom of Information request to the BBC asking for details of:

  • how many complaints/ accusations of bias the BBC received from the public about the BBC’s coverage of climate change
  • how many of the complaints received about climate change were upheld by the BBC, i.e. were accepted
  • brief details / a list of all the complaints upheld, i.e. the details of the upheld complaint and the BBC’s response (excluding details of the person complaining)

The BBC has replied thus (you may want to get a coffee in for this long winded way of saying ‘piss off’):

——————————

The information you have requested is excluded from the Act because it is held for the purposes of ‘journalism, art or literature.’ The BBC is therefore not obliged to provide this information toyou and will not be doing so on this occasion. Part VI of Schedule 1 to FOIA provides that information held by the BBC and the other public service broadcasters is only covered by the Act if it is held for ‘purposes other than those of journalism, art or literature”. The BBC is not required to supply information held for the purposes of creating the BBC’s output or information that supports and is closely associated with these creative activities1, including information relating to the subject of editorial complaints. The BBC’s independence and impartiality would be at risk through disclosure of information on editorial complaints, which is discussed in detail below.

1 For more information about how the Act applies to the BBC please see the enclosure which follows this letter. Please note that this guidance is not intended to be a comprehensive legal interpretation of how the Act applies to the BBC.

The BBC has chosen not to volunteer information relating to the subject of editorial complaints for several very good reasons, chief amongst them being a desire to maintain our independence and impartiality.

You may not be aware that one of the main policy drivers behind the limited application of the Act to public service broadcasters was to protect freedom of expression and the rights of the media under Article 10 European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”). The BBC, as a media organisation, is under a duty to impart information and ideas on all matters of public interest and the importance of this function has been recognised by the European Court of Human Rights.Maintaining our editorial independence is a crucial factor in enabling the media to fulfil this function.

The Information Commissioner’s Office has recognised the importance of Schedule 1 of the Act in protecting the independence of the media, stating that:

“It is the Commissioner’s view that the ultimate purpose of the derogation (Schedule 1) is to  protect journalistic, artistic and literary integrity by carving out a creative and journalistic space for programme makers to produce programmes free from the interference and scrutiny of the public.”

The BBC agrees that we have the right to protect our journalistic and editorial independence by maintaining just such a private space in which to produce our content. This extends to the sifting and review of praise and criticism from audiences, as well as the seeking of an independent view of criticism in order to undertake this review process. This is an important part of the BBC’s process of creating and improving programmes. Despite the BBC’s obligation to be independent and impartial, many bodies, groups and individuals attempt to influence our output. This pressure takes many forms and has to be resisted by programme makers across the BBC. If the content of individual criticisms were available for public scrutiny on a regular basis then programme makers would be under even greater pressure to respond to lobbies or vocal individuals than they are already. They might be reluctant to make changes that reflect the views in the complaints in that they could be accused of “caving in to pressure” and other viewers would make judgements about the apparent impartiality of the programme. Conversely, if their judgement was to ignore the complaints, as they believed them to be invalid or outweighed by other factors, they will be accused of ignoring public opinion, without the opportunity to explain the reasons for their editorial judgement. The BBC also believes that publication could lead to a tit-for-tat escalation of complaints, particularly from lobbying groups or political parties, as opponents competed with each other in terms of volume and strength of a complaint to the BBC.

I hope that this provides you with some understanding of why this is an important concern for the BBC. In addition, I can advise, outside the scope of the Act that the BBC proactively publishes public responses to recent issues of audience concern which have caused a significant number of  complaints, or to any significant issue raised by complaints received. The BBC also publishes quarterly archived reports covering the main themes in all complaints received. In addition,information about second-stage complaints, i.e. those considered by the Editorial Complaints Unit, is published at the following site: http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/reports.shtml. Information about the third stage of the complaints process, i.e. those considered by the ESC, is published at the following site: http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/appeals/editorial_appeal_findings.html

Finally, the BBC makes a huge range of information available about our programmes and content on bbc.co.uk. We also proactively publish information covered by the Act on our publication scheme.

Appeal Rights

The BBC does not offer an internal review when the information requested is not covered by the Act. If you disagree with our decision you can appeal to the Information Commissioner. Contact details are: Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF telephone 01625 545 700. http://www.ico.gov.uk Please note that should the Information Commissioner’s Office decide that the Act does cover this information, exemptions under the Act might then apply.

Yours sincerely,

Colin Sellers

Head of Operations, BBC Communications, Marketing & Audiences
——————————
The long and short of this response from the BBC is that it has chosen to interpret the Act in a very loose way by extending it ‘to the sifting and review of praise and criticism from audiences, as well as the seeking of an independent view of criticism in order to undertake this review process.‘  One rule for the BBC and another for everyone else.
It would seem obvious that complaints rejected by the BBC are not used to inform the creation or improvement of programmes because they are arguing the complaints are baseless.  So, the only possible reason for withholding details of rejected complaints is to hide the extent of viewer and listener dissatisfaction with an editorial line the BBC is determined to pursue.
The BBC.  It’s what they do.  With your money.

Greenpeace founder questions man made global warming

Appearing on Fox Business Network on Thursday, Patrick Moore, the co-founder of Greenpeace, said global warming is a ‘natural phenomenon,’ that there’s no proof of man-made global warming, and he suggested that ‘alarmism’ is driving politicians to create bad environmental policies.

In his interview, Moore also explains why he left Greenpeace, saying that his departure was in part due to the group’s ‘extremist positions‘ and it is being hijacked by political and social causes as well as the left.

When a parent abandons their child and decries they behaviour you can be fairly sure something is wrong with that child.  Moore’s comments seem to confirm what many people have said about the environmental lobby for some time.


Enter your email address below

The Harrogate Agenda Explained

Email AM

Bloggers for an Independent UK

AM on Twitter

Error: Please make sure the Twitter account is public.

STOR Scandal

Autonomous Mind Archive


%d bloggers like this: