Share it

Wednesday, 14 November 2012

The Biased Broadcasting Corp.

The BBC has long claimed it is impartial and tries to give a balanced overview. Those of us who happen to not share the prevailing left wing bias its staff seem to have on a wide range of matters, have long argued this is false. But, as a "Licence Payer" (For those outside the UK, if you own a TV set or anything which can receive TV or radio signals and images you are required by law to pay this and it goes to the BBC) I have long ago given up watching anything they broadcast. The slant has become more and more obvious and the denizens of Broadcasting House obviously consider themselves bomb-proof.

Watch any interview or 'discussion' programme they broadcast. Anyone giving a 'message' they agree with gets a soft ride. Let it be a Conservative or someone else they like to vilify and the agressive questioning, constant interuptions, attempted 'corrections' and snide sniping destroys the victim's attempts to get his or her message across. This has spread across a wide range of matters in the news, Israel is always presented as the aggressor, there is seldom, if ever, mention of the daily bombardment of civilian targets from Gaza by Hamas using "Grad" missiles - unless one goes wrong and falls on their own people. There is constant denigration of Jewish history in the region - usually dismissing them as "just Arabs with a different religion" or as "immigrants' and "Zionists" who "stole" the land.

And then we have the constant stream of Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth propaganda and the "message" of "Anthropomorphic Global Warming." Well, there's nothing like an admission of fact from the top of the organisation itself ...

Yes, glad you stopped this — I was sent it too, and decided to
spike it without more ado as pure stream-of-consciousness rubbish. I can well understand your unhappiness at our running the other piece. But we are constantly being savaged by the loonies for not giving them any coverage at all, especially as you say with the COP in the offing, and being the objective impartial (ho ho) BBC that we are, there is an expectation in some quarters that we will every now and then let them
say something. I hope though that the weight of our coverage makes it clear that we think they are talking through their hats.

That is the body of one of the emails released in a "Climategate" tranche of email exchanges between various bodies and the "Climate Research Unit" (this one is from a senior BBC manager to Prof Phil Jones at the UEA CRU) which has caused such a storm in climatology and scientific circles. The admission that the BBC is biased is telling. It certainly indicates to me that the state of the Corporation is like that of Denmark in Shakespeare's Hamlet. There is something very, very rotten right at its core.

One can only hope that it can be cured, before the cancer destroys it completely.

1 comment:

  1. Paraphrasing Richard Feynman: Regardless of how many experts believe it or how many organizations concur, if it doesn’t agree with observation, it’s wrong.

    The IPCC, some politicians and many others stubbornly continue to proclaim that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide was the primary cause of global warming. Measurements demonstrate that they are wrong.

    The average global temperature trend has been flat since 2001. No amount of spin can rationalize that the temperature increase to 2001 was caused by CO2 increase but that 25.9% additional CO2 increase had no effect on the average global temperature trend after 2001.

    Without human caused global warming there can be no human caused climate change.

    Average GLOBAL temperature anomalies are reported on the web by NOAA at ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/monthly.land_ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat
    GISS at http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
    Hadley at http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/monthly
    RSS at http://www.remss.com/data/msu/monthly_time_series/RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v03_3.txt and
    UAH at http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt .
    The first three all draw from the same data base of surface measurement data. The last two draw from the data base of satellite measurements. Each agency processes the data slightly differently from the others. Each believes that their way is most accurate. To avoid bias, I average all five. The averages are listed here.

    2001 0.3473
    2002 0.4278
    2003 0.4245
    2004 0.3641
    2005 0.4663
    2006 0.3930
    2007 0.4030
    2008 0.2598
    2009 0.4022
    2010 0.5298
    2011 0.3316

    A straight line (trend line) fit to these data has no slope. That means that, for over a decade, average global temperature has not changed. If the average thru September, 2012 (0.3526) is included, the slope is down.

    See what really caused the warm up during the 20th century and what caused it to stop warming in my stuff made public at the Climate Realists web site.

    ReplyDelete