steven_whHere we go again. I don’t think I’ve misread anything…
I had a look at OFCOM as they receive complaints from all broadcasters and therefore it would a good comparison to see if the original point was valid. A quick glance at the last few weeks showed that since January only one BBC programme has had more than 10 complaints in a week. Other broadcasters had many more. Therefore, from a limited amount of data, the original point of steven_wh’s post appeared to be wrong.
You come along and tell us all that you personally have complained directly about the BBC on a number of occasions. Tell me how that fact fits into a comparison of complaints with other broadcasters?
OFCOM only covers actual programme material. There is much more to criticise BBC for outside of the programmes. This topic thread concerns what has been deliberately hidden by BBC.
Which broadcaster has been in the news the most over the past year? BBC has been making headlines, for all the wrong reasons, including the resignation of its DG. Criticism can come from many directions, even from its own senior employees, such as Jeremy Paxman. You do not need the formal channels of OFCOM to realise the extent of dissatisfaction with BBC.
Transcripts released from the Pollard report into the BBC’s Savile inquiry revealed Mr Paxman was strongly critical of how the BBC treated former Newsnight editor Peter Rippon, whom he described as “the fall guy”….
… In an email that appears among the Paxman transcripts, which are heavily redacted, Mr Paxman said it was “very unfair, and frankly not at all untypical, that the BBC has dumped all this on one individual [Rippon]. I think the BBC’s behaviour now is almost as contemptible was it was then.”
Steven
steven_whHere we go again. I don’t think I’ve misread anything…
I had a look at OFCOM as they receive complaints from all broadcasters and therefore it would a good comparison to see if the original point was valid. A quick glance at the last few weeks showed that since January only one BBC programme has had more than 10 complaints in a week. Other broadcasters had many more. Therefore, from a limited amount of data, the original point of steven_wh’s post appeared to be wrong.
You come along and tell us all that you personally have complained directly about the BBC on a number of occasions. Tell me how that fact fits into a comparison of complaints with other broadcasters?
OFCOM only covers actual programme material. There is much more to criticise BBC for outside of the programmes. This topic thread concerns what has been deliberately hidden by BBC.
Which broadcaster has been in the news the most over the past year? BBC has been making headlines, for all the wrong reasons, including the resignation of its DG. Criticism can come from many directions, even from its own senior employees, such as Jeremy Paxman. You do not need the formal channels of OFCOM to realise the extent of dissatisfaction with BBC.
Transcripts released from the Pollard report into the BBC’s Savile inquiry revealed Mr Paxman was strongly critical of how the BBC treated former Newsnight editor Peter Rippon, whom he described as “the fall guy”….
… In an email that appears among the Paxman transcripts, which are heavily redacted, Mr Paxman said it was “very unfair, and frankly not at all untypical, that the BBC has dumped all this on one individual [Rippon]. I think the BBC’s behaviour now is almost as contemptible was it was then.”
Steven
steven_whDear Steven.
I’m suspicious of you.
You turn up here with only 121 posts (not actually too much of an issue but an indicator I think) but you have a real axe to grind. The usual right wing suspects here appear to argue very regularly–as do the opposing leftists, but you’ve just popped up.
My suspicion is that you have an agends–care to share it..?
Ever been a young Conservative..?
Andy
Just what has the number of posts, on this very good forum, got to do with the validity of the comments on the issue of BBC deceit on AGW?
Steven
steven_whDear Steven.
I’m suspicious of you.
You turn up here with only 121 posts (not actually too much of an issue but an indicator I think) but you have a real axe to grind. The usual right wing suspects here appear to argue very regularly–as do the opposing leftists, but you’ve just popped up.
My suspicion is that you have an agends–care to share it..?
Ever been a young Conservative..?
Andy
Just what has the number of posts, on this very good forum, got to do with the validity of the comments on the issue of BBC deceit on AGW?
Steven
steven_wh…
Look, you’re being led a merry dance.
We all are.
Governments want people who know and/or care enough about this issue to be at one another’s throats arguing about the causes of climate change because otherwise they might be joining together and asking awkward questions about what governments are (not) doing to mitigate the effects of climate change – whatever the actual cause or, more likely, combination of causes.
The governments have a number of fingers in this pie. Green taxes can be applied to almost any activity, because just about everything we do uses energy, APD and the EU ETS for aviation come to mind. Huge sums of money are to be spent on ‘mitigation’ efforts, the UK figures are £18billion a year, for windturbines, solar, and subsidies; with many opportunities for consultancies and renewables directorships. There is the political righteousness of ‘saving the planet’ to look forward to, and the chance to strut your stuff on the world stage, with perhaps a chance at a Nobel prize. So we do not actually need to mitigate anything, just give the impression that all that tax and cash swirling around is doing something.
This should be prime ground for real investigative journalism from an organisation that had not already made up its mind what it was going to say beforehand, but that would of course rule out the current state of BBC.
Steven
steven_wh…
Look, you’re being led a merry dance.
We all are.
Governments want people who know and/or care enough about this issue to be at one another’s throats arguing about the causes of climate change because otherwise they might be joining together and asking awkward questions about what governments are (not) doing to mitigate the effects of climate change – whatever the actual cause or, more likely, combination of causes.
The governments have a number of fingers in this pie. Green taxes can be applied to almost any activity, because just about everything we do uses energy, APD and the EU ETS for aviation come to mind. Huge sums of money are to be spent on ‘mitigation’ efforts, the UK figures are £18billion a year, for windturbines, solar, and subsidies; with many opportunities for consultancies and renewables directorships. There is the political righteousness of ‘saving the planet’ to look forward to, and the chance to strut your stuff on the world stage, with perhaps a chance at a Nobel prize. So we do not actually need to mitigate anything, just give the impression that all that tax and cash swirling around is doing something.
This should be prime ground for real investigative journalism from an organisation that had not already made up its mind what it was going to say beforehand, but that would of course rule out the current state of BBC.
Steven
steven_whOnly those with an agenda of their own whine about bias. All politicians whine about the BBC…..
Yes, a lot of people complain about BBC, far more than other broadcasters. What does that tell you about BBC?
It is a pity that aspirational programming that educates and inspires is valued so little by the general public.
No, the public is not at fault here. It is the BBC broadcasters who are dumbed down and incapable of making quality documentaries. This results from decades of insulation from the realities of what the public wants by the guaranteed and legally extracted licence fee system. This iniquitous system enables BBC to churn out the easily produced, lazy, over styled, ill researched mush, without any link to the critical appreciation of the public.
Fortunately for us, another medium has grown up, the Web, whose informative and discursive powers, far exceed the now embarrasingly outmoded legacy MSM* that is BBC.
Steven
(* MSM = Main Stream Media, mainly broadcast TV and newspapers. Legacy = obsolete or bypassed.)
steven_whOnly those with an agenda of their own whine about bias. All politicians whine about the BBC…..
Yes, a lot of people complain about BBC, far more than other broadcasters. What does that tell you about BBC?
It is a pity that aspirational programming that educates and inspires is valued so little by the general public.
No, the public is not at fault here. It is the BBC broadcasters who are dumbed down and incapable of making quality documentaries. This results from decades of insulation from the realities of what the public wants by the guaranteed and legally extracted licence fee system. This iniquitous system enables BBC to churn out the easily produced, lazy, over styled, ill researched mush, without any link to the critical appreciation of the public.
Fortunately for us, another medium has grown up, the Web, whose informative and discursive powers, far exceed the now embarrasingly outmoded legacy MSM* that is BBC.
Steven
(* MSM = Main Stream Media, mainly broadcast TV and newspapers. Legacy = obsolete or bypassed.)
steven_whDo you seriously believe that making the BBC a commercial channel would improve anything?
The suggestion on funding changes for BBC was for voluntary donations, on tbe understanding that BBC would still be free to air including for those who do not choose to contribute, and it would be ad-break free. Sponsored programmes would also be encouraged. In this way, those people who are so keen on the concept of public service broadcasting, and perhaps irrationally support BBC come what may, can feel righteous in their proud support for the institution. They will no doubt also be happy with the principle of paying their own money for other people’s free entertainment.
But, back to the topic in hand. Changing BBC will be hard, particularly in regard to the presenters of science based programmes. We had Bellamy as a AGW realist, but when he spoke up against BBC’s position, they stopped employing him. Attenborough is enough of a scientist to see through the global warming myth, but values his longterm BBC career. Patrick Moore, an AGW sceptic, is now sadly deceased. Brian Cox fancies his image too much to care.
If only we had presenters of the incisive calibre of say, Raymond Baxter, who had both the ability to get at the key factors in any technology, and the capability to present it in an easy form. The other problem is the dumbing down of most television. The standard method consists of:
Only extreme change at BBC will get us out of this.
Steven
steven_whDo you seriously believe that making the BBC a commercial channel would improve anything?
The suggestion on funding changes for BBC was for voluntary donations, on tbe understanding that BBC would still be free to air including for those who do not choose to contribute, and it would be ad-break free. Sponsored programmes would also be encouraged. In this way, those people who are so keen on the concept of public service broadcasting, and perhaps irrationally support BBC come what may, can feel righteous in their proud support for the institution. They will no doubt also be happy with the principle of paying their own money for other people’s free entertainment.
But, back to the topic in hand. Changing BBC will be hard, particularly in regard to the presenters of science based programmes. We had Bellamy as a AGW realist, but when he spoke up against BBC’s position, they stopped employing him. Attenborough is enough of a scientist to see through the global warming myth, but values his longterm BBC career. Patrick Moore, an AGW sceptic, is now sadly deceased. Brian Cox fancies his image too much to care.
If only we had presenters of the incisive calibre of say, Raymond Baxter, who had both the ability to get at the key factors in any technology, and the capability to present it in an easy form. The other problem is the dumbing down of most television. The standard method consists of:
Only extreme change at BBC will get us out of this.
Steven
steven_whI’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.
Steven
steven_whI’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.
Steven
steven_whThe 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
steven_whThe 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
steven_whFair enough but surely as we are equipped (well at least I am) to be able to judge, disect, and base our opinions on information gleaned and assembled from a number of sources–as indeed you are doing, the BBC is supplying a source of information.
Can you seriously name a one stop news media that you would completely trust..??
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.
Peter 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.”
http://autonomousmind.wordpress.com/2011/01/25/peter-sissons-on-the-bbcs-climate-change-propaganda/
Steven
Sign In
