on a day long series of programmes under the working title of Planet Relief, a ghastly sounding load of right-on eco-fascist claptrap propaganda, presented by well known and respected scientific investigators Ricky Gervais and Jonathan ‘a bargain at £18 million’ Woss (“is ‘e ‘avin a laff?”, as Gervais might ask). The Guardian’s piece sums it up best:
Two of the BBC’s most senior news and current affairs executives attacked the corporation’s plans yesterday for a Comic Relief-style day of programming on environmental issues, saying it was not the broadcaster’s job to preach to viewers.
The event, understood to have been 18 months in development, would see stars such as Ricky Gervais and Jonathan Ross take part in a “consciousness raising” event, provisionally titled Planet Relief, early next year.
But, speaking at the MediaGuardian Edinburgh International Television Festival yesterday, Newsnight’s editor, Peter Barron, and the BBC’s head of television news, Peter Horrocks, attacked the plan, which also seems to contradict the corporation’s guidelines. Asked whether the BBC should campaign on issues such as climate change, Mr Horrocks said: “I absolutely don’t think we should do that because it’s not impartial. It’s not our job to lead people and proselytise about it.” Mr Barron said: “It is absolutely not the BBC’s job to save the planet. I think there are a lot of people who think that, but it must be stopped.”
The rest of the Guardian’s piece is worth reading too. The interesting things about this from a Biased BBC point of view are:
a) that they have been working (and presumably spending tellytax cash) on this for 18 months – even though it sounds like such a partial mad-cap non-starter (or are they really so arrogant as to think they could get away with it?);
b) that the likes of Peter Horrocks and Peter Barron feel the need to speak out in public about it to, presumably, stop the BBC from inflicting yet another huge own goal in terms of their claims to be impartial and unbiased.
P.S. Apologies for my lack of posts since Saturday. I’ve been laid low by a nasty little viral infection, but am beginning to feel a bit better.
To be really clear, you could add:
(c) “I absolutely don’t think we should do that because it’s not impartial. It’s not our job to lead people and proselytise about it.” That’s a very big and pregnant ‘it‘ we now have here. It applies equally to…….. well, name your favourite peecee bugbear. In fact, name them all.
The BBC breathlessly reports on a Climate Change march through Birmingham, headlined by that great wise environmental guru, Lemar:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/west_midlands/6965909.stm
However, despite the article’s pride of place at the top of the ‘West Midlands’ section of BBC Online (more important, obviously, than the stabbing of a 31 year old man and the suspicious death of an elderly woman, it turns out that only, erm, ‘up to 20’ people will actually be marching:
http://icbirmingham.icnetwork.co.uk/mail/news/tm_headline=star-backs-fight-against-climate-change&method=full&objectid=19653019&siteid=50002-name_page.html
One look at the signs the marchers are holding gives an indication as to what end of the political spectrum the activists are at. And what the hell it’s got to do with Christian Aid and Islamic Relief is beyond me.
I won`t be counting any chickens yet,
I thought it obvious that execs control over their staff is about as effective as a nun trying to chaperone a rugby club annual piss up.I`d be astonished if this this warmists mutual masturbation fest doesn`t take place.A BBC spokeswoman said, “This idea is still in development and the intention would be to debate the issue and in no way campaign on a single point of view.” Debate? Something like this i should imagine,
“Mr Ross do you think our anti- industry, anti-progress campaign is loin moisteningly wonderful or merely an astonishingly brilliant piece of cutting edge media synergy?”
Woss:It`s bwilliant,and helps me justify the absurdly huge chunk of tax
that the public give me to stuff my mattwess.I shall swap my wolls woyce for a pair of woller skates and save the planet!Hey wicky! can you give me lift home?”
It is mind-boggling that the BBC is falling into the campaigning trap so soon after an internal report
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6763205.stm
was critical of the way that the BBC’s favoured causes – such as Make Poverty History and Live 8 – were being openly championed with license-fee payers’ money.
The recent publicity given to the Heathrow aircraft and Israel hate-fest (although the anti-Israel bit wasn’t mentioned by Auntie) both here and on BBC World are examples of exactly the same self righteous lecturing. Also the publicity the BBC World gave last week to anti-capitalist hooligans petitioning some business meeting or other was vomit-making.
It’s all part of the Blue Peteresque syndrome of “I don’t want the BBC to be impartial, I want it to be right!” plugged by Peter Horrocks’ co-panelist at last spring’s debate with Robin Aitken. The woman simply couldn’t see that not everyone might agree with her on what is ‘right’.
Peter Horrocks didn’t pick up on this glaring admission of impartiality at the time. It’s encouraging to see that he appears to have done so now.
Good to see that at least a few BBC people are prepared to try to rein in the BBC as it continues on its headlong gallop away from its responsibilities (how positively boring to be balanced and objective) and towards its favourite narrow lefty causes.
chrisb said:
Woss:It`s bwilliant,and helps me justify the absurdly huge chunk of tax that the public give me to stuff my mattwess.I shall swap my wolls woyce for a pair of woller skates and save the planet!Hey wicky! can you give me lift home?”
That just conjured up a gut churning image of Woss and Gervais doing a comedy version of Toni basil’s “Oh Mickey” to raise funds and awareness. I feel ill just thinking about it. If there is a god, please spare us!
Thing is though, Live Earth was only performed a couple of months ago and the reviews I read of this were hardly glowing.
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/music/article2027517.ece
Unfortunately, license payers money and moral hazard spring to mind with this case, and I wonder if a private entity would be embarking on such an event.
(hope the viral infection clears up soon).
What makes anyone think this isn’t just a fabricated argument set up by the BBC to make it look as though there is an internal debate within the organisation and that they are not all “soft left,and soft green”?
Me,cynical?
Shouldn’t Ofcom be doing something about this? That’s what they’re there for isn’t it. I notice they don’t let you complain about things that haven’t yet been broadcasted yet. Pity.
If the BBC really is trying to push the climate agenda with the aim of reducing personal environmental footprints on the part of viewers, the choice of Ross is astounding.
His ‘performance’ during Live Earth (which worked soooo well) was positively cringe worthy to anyone sincere in trying to share positive solutions and/or encourage reasonable self-sacrifice by positive example.
I’m afraid this all smacks/ed of simply yet another celebrity-fest for some local D-listers to play with lots more toys and uber-cool global A-listers in a very exclusive, self-serving crib.
And it’s not like Live Earth even cranked up much by way of the great God ‘ratings’.
As awareness went, about all I can recall is a Spice who took one week to forget she was ‘doing it all for her baby’ to getting her own private jet on tour in case she and the power sisters had hissy fits (and I’m sure half of the entertainment crew will be flying along for the ride, if they are not up in helicopters over the Antarctic to show us what ‘we’ are doing by er, taking helicopters to visit the Antarctic).
The use of ‘celebrity’ to promote the notion of restraint is facile. They have nothing but money and time, and the demands of screen time ensure that they have to seen with loads of ‘stuff’ and in as many exotic locations as possible all of the time. Popping out of the limo to walk a bit or claiming you offset your trips just doesn’t cut it. Just one tabloid shot of a Lemar of Siena or Richard Branson in their new Aston, on a beach in Barbados or lighting the touch paper on a tourist spaceship undoes any positive awareness their brief dalliance with ‘doing their bit’ may achieve. The media is totally complicit because it’s a quick and lazy way to look like you are concerned and ‘doing’ something whilst getting the faces that attract the viewers and some backstage cred in the ‘green’ room. Message is secondary.
Yes, I think we do need to do all we can to understand and educate on what climate change is all about, and what can and should be done to address what ever it is possible and prudent to do to mitigate any adverse affects.
Having another, now possibly to be aborted, party was never going to be it.
Shame about the waste.
“Rickytshirt:
Shouldn’t Ofcom be doing something about this? That’s what they’re there for isn’t it.”
This is the CV of Ofcom chief exec:
“Prior to Ofcom Ed was Senior Policy Advisor to the Prime Minister for Media, telecoms, internet and e-govt. Before that he was Controller of Corporate Strategy at the BBC. He also worked in consulting at London Economics Ltd, as an advisor to Gordon Brown MP and began his career as a researcher with Diverse Production Ltd, where he worked on programmes for Channel 4”
Great to know that OFCOM is in safe hands.
How incestuous. Clearly our democracy is largely an illusion.
I actually think we are witnessing a bit of integrity at the corporation. Good on you Peter Barron. Lets hope they listen to you.
The BBC knows which side its bread is buttered. The global warming issue is to be used by the government to introduce and increase all sorts of taxes. Stunts like Planet Relief will hardly do the BBC any harm at licence fee review time.
Pete, I suspect you are right. I remember the BBC “Africa season” in 2005 which amounted to little more than a whole month of TV programmes devoted to supporting the government’s policy on Africa including increased aid (taxes in other words). It was a disgraceful example of collusion between the BBC and the government to promote the government agenda. The BBC never denied that they cooperated with government.
I’m sure this whole climate change season will be similar, but perhaps this time a few voices in the BBC will be prepared to speak out. I may be hopelessly optimistic but I do get the impression that more and more people within the BBC are waking up to just how corrupted and biased the organisation has become.
The Today Programme on Sat [Fri?] devoted 5 minutes to covering a new musical about… yes, global warming.
Utterly uncritical of course.
If the BBC was serious about “global warming” then it might send fewer employees to minor events around the globe. BBC global jaunts are notorious for their vast overstaffing.
But like diet coke cancels out the calories in a bacon sandwich, so left-wing piety cancels out carbon emissions.
The science, while compelling, is far from proven, the BBC is very biased on this issue. very.
we could do with BrassEye/ChrisMorris to mercilessly take the p*ss out of these bandwagoneering GlobalWhining celebs.
The Indy (Terence Blacker) is now on the Beeb-bashing trail over Climate Change religion.
http://comment.independent.co.uk/columnists_a_l/terence_blacker/article2903524.ece
“In a democracy, it is dangerous when a country’s dominant broadcasting institution spends millions of pounds on an all-day revival meeting which takes an issue of political complexity and turns it into an object of mindless religious yearning.
Climate change, thanks in part to the BBC’s efforts, has become a thought-free zone for many people. Discussing renewable energy with them can be as illuminating as talking about the Day of Judgement with a religious fundamentalist.”
Here’s another nail in the coffin of MMGW:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=b35c36a3-802a-23ad-46ec-6880767e7966
Breaking: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory
Hat tip: Drudge.
Whose “awareness” is it anyway?
I keep reading campaign groups like the climate-change nazis saying they want to “raise awareness”.
Hang on. I don’t want my awareness raised. Its my awareness,I like it at the level it is.
If somebody stopped you in the street and demanded you listen to them for twenty minutes you might well suggest they “poke it” What’s different if they try to mug you by proxy through the media?
Its MY awareness, its not on offer, up for raising. I dont want to listen to theeir tendetious drivel. Campaign groups should not assume they have a right to force me to listen – where are my rights?
This is a good point. They are actually lowering awareness by insisting that we think within the confines of their little box.