BBC Global warming deceit

Serious question ( since I am interested in the answer)

Is there anybody here who can genuinely watch a film for the first time on a channel where it is interrupted, every 10 or 15 minutes?

Moggy

No.
My attention span never survives the first advert break.
In fact I never get through even a short programme with endless adverts. My life is too valuable these days (what remains is now clearly finite) to waste it being shown stuff I neither want, can afford or even find attractive in the purchasing sense.
Banality has won the battle in my case–sadly.

A.

Serious question ( since I am interested in the answer)

Is there anybody here who can genuinely watch a film for the first time on a channel where it is interrupted, every 10 or 15 minutes?

Moggy

Moggy.
Thank God there’s some common sense left in the World.

When the Charter comes up for renewal, there will be two factors prominent. One is that it has failed to meet its Charter. The other is that broadcast media has become ‘legacy’ media and has been superceded by the Web. The inevitable conclusion is that BBC will no longer be compulsorily funded, but voluntarily, and set free from government mandate to be Charter-bound. BBC then will become whatever the funders want it to be, thereby injecting a higher level of quality into our overall legacy MSM and new Web media mix.

I have no conception of what an MSM is.

But if the BBC as it is currently funded were to be replaced by anything bankrolled by advertising / sponsorship, then I pity all who have to suffer it.

Moggy

When the Charter comes up for renewal, there will be two factors prominent. One is that it has failed to meet its Charter. The other is that broadcast media has become ‘legacy’ media and has been superceded by the Web. The inevitable conclusion is that BBC will no longer be compulsorily funded, but voluntarily, and set free from government mandate to be Charter-bound. BBC then will become whatever the funders want it to be, thereby injecting a higher level of quality into our overall legacy MSM and new Web media mix.

Steven

Do you seriously believe that making the BBC a commercial channel would improve anything? remember but for the phone hacking scandal this government were on the point of handing a broadcasting monopoly to a certain unsavoury character, this same individual had long whined about the BBC being funded.

The only good thing to come out of that scandal was the curbing of Murdoch’s ambitions.

Wot…no plug ?
You are slipping 😀

They’ll need to spend more than their budget just to monitor / comment on here!!!:diablo:

I’ve often wondered though if anyone here (or elsewhere) is sponsored in some small way by a political organisation to make comment.

Well it could be the EU resident trolls….

EU to set up euro-election ‘troll patrol’ to tackle Eurosceptic surge The European Parliament is to spend almost £2 million on press monitoring and trawling Eurosceptic debates on the internet for “trolls” with whom to debate in the run-up and during euro-elections next year amid fears that hostility to the EU is growing.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/9845442/EU-to-set-up-euro-election-troll-patrol-to-tackle-Eurosceptic-surge.html

Steven

When the Charter comes up for renewal, there will be two factors prominent. One is that it has failed to meet its Charter. The other is that broadcast media has become ‘legacy’ media and has been superceded by the Web. The inevitable conclusion is that BBC will no longer be compulsorily funded, but voluntarily, and set free from government mandate to be Charter-bound. BBC then will become whatever the funders want it to be, thereby injecting a higher level of quality into our overall legacy MSM and new Web media mix.

Steven

I wouldn’t hold me breath for that old son.

For information this is the current Charter – 2006 with a number of changes following the Pollard Review ( I think ) in 2005.

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/about/how_we_govern/charter.pdf

The BBC has never really been impartial.
What you must ask yourself is this. If the bias was in your favour would you still be quoting this at me? Personally I doubt it.
The BBC follows the British establishment view–largely…
I just accept that all news generating media has a bias of one sort or another–it’s the way of things…
If you’re sitting there really believing things can be otherwise then I’m sorry to inform you that you are naive.

I have no problems with media sources possessing a slanted view, provided that they do not pretend that they are doing otherwise. BBC is given a compulsory funded £3.5billion a year and a Charter to not be biased or one-sided. It demonstrably fails to achieve this with its coverage of global warming. This is not the result of simple poor journalism, or a lack of resources, but of a calculated policy of denying its viewing public essential information.

BBC is as much a failing, deceitful organisation in that respect, as any rate-fiddling bank, horsemeat stuffing packager, or rogue trader, yet it does not get the approbrium or legal action that it richly deserves. It can hide behind that £3.5billion guaranteed income a year, and the fact that as a major media organisation, it can if it wishes, strangle any hint of dissent.

When the Charter comes up for renewal, there will be two factors prominent. One is that it has failed to meet its Charter. The other is that broadcast media has become ‘legacy’ media and has been superceded by the Web. The inevitable conclusion is that BBC will no longer be compulsorily funded, but voluntarily, and set free from government mandate to be Charter-bound. BBC then will become whatever the funders want it to be, thereby injecting a higher level of quality into our overall legacy MSM and new Web media mix.

Steven

Moggy.
Yes, I actually forgot that.
I bought the book and read it. There was nothing new that people like Len Deighton hadn’t mentioned thirty years earlier. It certainly to my mind, took a very conventional view of the battle. There was a certain political undertow I think, but like the point I’m trying to illustrate here, we should be able to disect that from the text, and discount it, or count it in depending on our own World view, or political bias. Perhaps I wasn’t the target audience.

I doubt you ever visit ‘The Aerodrome’ but all sorts of odd people turned up there before ‘Flyboys’ was released. Mind you, there are a lot of really odd people there anyway.
Claiming it to be the best thing ever etc.
There were a couple on here (well one in particular) who washed up claiming things for ‘Red Tails’ too.
Can’t say for certain what their motives were, but again you never see them now–well posting that is.
Just a personal opinion anyway.

Now before you laugh or say I’m paranoid, I know this happens with films. Twice on aviation forums in recent times contributors have popped up in the lead up to films being released promoting the film in question, then just as quickly gone when the film is out.

The only case I can recall was the esteemed Dr North, his dreary BoB book and his parade of sock puppets.

Moggy

Points taken, Andy and you are right about the predictability of the course of threads like this.
But I assure you I most certainly am not sponsored! It never occurred to me that members might be!

Charlie.
While I agree that two wrongs etc, don’t make a right, I’m at a point in life where I no longer care enough about battling the perceived wrongs.
There’s no point, and rather like this forum, where people who otherwise have no voice at all, are allowed a small space to make a point (even though they are ignored–even by the other contributors largely), if you try and change something, you will fail.
One only has to read the endless threads of quasi-political postings above to see that.

At this point I’m leaving this thread because as ever it will run to 10 pages of the same people sticking to the same points over and over and no side giving an inch.
I do tend towards thinking that politics of a left/right nature are so deeply embedded in the psyche of many that they rather inadvertently fall back on the arguments of whichever side of the political divide they originated from.
Perhaps more non-aligned thinking is required..??

I’ve often wondered though if anyone here (or elsewhere) is sponsored in some small way by a political organisation to make comment. I know that some years ago a right wing political organisation associated I think with the young Conservatives (at best a highly disreputable bunch of farmers spawn and other undesirables) were paying people to ring into radio phone ins to slew arguments. I believe at the time the Jimmy Young show was demonstrated to have been a victim. Local radio had also been targeted.
To be fair, I suspect the left have tried it too, they’ve just not been caught.

Now before you laugh or say I’m paranoid, I know this happens with films. Twice on aviation forums in recent times contributors have popped up in the lead up to films being released promoting the film in question, then just as quickly gone when the film is out.
Flyboys was an example of this. Sometimes they get quite nasty if someone expresses doubt about the quality of the film too.

Sorry to slew the subject of the thread, but it’s not really going anywhere and it’s my turn to have the floor..
Andy

Prime Ministers of both left and right have been angered by the BBC and declared war on it over the years,

It is probably getting things about right then.

Andy – two wrongs do not make a right. If you exceed the speed limit you break the law and could be punished.

The BBC Charter is not a law of the land and the now defunct Governors of the BBC used to play a far stronger role in upholding it, than the Blair created Trust, which seems to serve little or no purpose at all. I am no longer sure what the “Establishment” is or is perceived to be. It is certainly little to do with what is was 50 years ago.

The BBC has its own agenda and I believe its objectivity can be called into question. Prime Ministers of both left and right have been angered by the BBC and declared war on it over the years, so I don’t think the case that it loosely follows the goverenment can be substantiated.

The Charter is due for review in 2016. I have doubts that it will be renewed.

BBC has a Charter which requires it to be impartial, particularly in regard to news and current affairs. It cannot be said to be impartial on AGW if it deliberately leaves out swathes of relevant information. It is therefore in breach of its Charter, and we cannot dismiss this lightly.

The Charter was put in place so that the public could have some degree of trust in BBC, without checking every fact or needing to seek alternative sources of information to see what BBC might have left out. Funding for BBC is compulsory, and if BBC is in default on its Charter, then we have every right to take away that funding.

There’s also a law in this country which says that you must not drive at more than 70 MPH on a motorway.
of course that’s always followed to the letter by everybody too.

The BBC has never really been impartial.
What you must ask yourself is this. If the bias was in your favour would you still be quoting this at me? Personally I doubt it.
The BBC follows the British establishment view–largely.

I just accept that all news generating media has a bias of one sort or another–it’s the way of things–like people speeding om the motorway.
If you’re sitting there really believing things can be otherwise then I’m sorry to inform you that you are naive.

Re 138
Charliehunt

Charlie,

Thank you for that confirmation. I thought that I had digit trouble ! My problem with Google is that it often leads me to sites like Wikipedia.

it.

Ah John but we are free to choose where to click!!;)

I don’t actually see why we should expect that. It might be desirable but I wouldn’t expect it.
I’d say it was more incumbent upon it to feed ‘the great unwashed’ the Government (or better still the establishment) line.
Something it’s been doing for a long time.

Steven beat me to it. The Charter requires it.