Interesting to read the BBC report on the G8 pledge to reduce carbon emissions by 50% by 2050. It lasts for two sentences before the USA gets a rhetorical slap from the State Broadcaster, with the word “pathetic” inserted for maximum effect! As with much of the BBC’s coverage on this issue, it is presented as cuts for the sake of cuts. There is little if any discussion on the actual climate and economic impacts this 50% carbon reduction would have over the next 100 years and I guess that suits the alarmists for whom the BBC does such a sterling service propagandising. For those who prefer to consider the issue in a balanced way, I do recommend Bjorn Lomborg’s “Cool It”
MORE HOT AIR
Bookmark the permalink.
“Doing nothing is not an option. By 1950 our grandchildren will be walking around neck-deep in horse manure. Only a world-wide plan to replace horses with dung-efficient goats can save the planet. What a shame that the Austro-Hungarian Empire refuses to sign up to the Baden-Baden Treaty”, said a spokesperson.
archroy | 09.07.08 – 11:01 am | #
That’s very funny – and apt.
The problem is that BBC arts grad journalists have no real feel for the rate and effect of technological development.
In less than a century the car progressed from the horseless carriage to the Toyota Prius, aircraft from the Wrght Flyer to the space shuttle and communications from the crystal set to the internet.
I drive a hybrid Lexus 4×4 now that does exactly twice the mpg of a Range Rover I had ten years ago – and by the time plug-in, lithium battery hybrids arrive in a couple of years, the average commuter will be seeing over 100mpg.
The major problems facing mankind in the next century are completely unforseeable now – a virus pandemic, major meteor strike or alien contact could give us some real problems to worry about.
Whilst it is irritating in the extreme (to put it mildly) that the BBC’s idea of balanced coverage regarding global warming is to:
a) interview someone agreeing that the action being taken to prevent it is a good thing
b) interview someone saying that the action doesn’t go far enough
I think it may well be counterproductive. There was a time when I was reluctantly coming to the view that there must be something in global warming. It was the growing stream of one-sided articles that made me smell a rat and start to question the whole idea. Once I started to critically question what I was spoonfed by the BBC and look elsewhere for information I suddenly started to see all the holes in the logic. My gut feeling is that more and more people are going down this route – wasn’t there a recent poll showing that people remain very sceptical despite the stream of propaganda?
And my experience has been that once you realise the bullsh*t you are being fed in one area, you question everything the BBC tells you. I now trust nothing I hear from BBC news. I believe (hope?) that the shriller they get over global warming, sorry climate change, sorry dangerous climate change, the greater will be the mistrust.
And my experience has been that once you realise the bullsh*t you are being fed in one area, you question everything the BBC tells you. I now trust nothing I hear from BBC news. I believe (hope?) that the shriller they get over global warming, sorry climate change, sorry dangerous climate change, the greater will be the mistrust.
Roland Deschain | 09.07.08 – 3:47 pm | #
Yup.
The BBC will go the same way as new labour – for exactly the same reasons.
Once people realise they’ve been fed bullshit, they feel a bit foolish and react very strongly in the opposite direction.
I wouldn’t give the beeb more than another five years max.
In any case, once people start getting most of their programming via the internet the’ve got no way of putting the genie back in the bottle.
Are they going to train Crapita heavies to come round and analyse your hard drive to see what you’ve been watching?
Are they going to train Crapita heavies to come round and analyse your hard drive to see what you’ve been watching?
John Reith spins in his grave | Homepage | 09.07.08 – 3:57 pm | #
If they get their way they won’t need to. They’ll ask your ISP who will be obliged to tell.
The arctic sea ice isnt melting as fast as it should and new projections see last winters ice surviving into the winter and we should see record Arctic ice levels in 2008/09! Hmmm, I wonder if the BBC is going to report this? Naaah, its not Nooos is it?
I see that the much hyped Argentine glacier damn collapse story has disappeared and I wonder why? Could it be that Argentine scientists studying the glacier have found that the collapse was natural? Ooooops! I wonder if the BBC will issue a retraction? The BBC never issues retractions does it? Remember the BBC story about the Antarctic ice melting fast because of global warming, it was on constantly? Well, the Antarctic is now going through a very harsh winter with record levels of sea ice and record levels of old sea ice! Whoops a daisy, its an honest mistake dont you think? I mean they were promised by their go to Noooos source(the eco mentalists) that the world is on the verge of melting innit? Im sure the BBC acted in good faith innit? I mean they have enacted some VFM(value for money)measures by sacking all its expensive and old fashioned qualified science reporters and replaced them with a direct phone/fax line to the FoE/GP, yes its saved lots of money innit? Remember the BBC story about Britain is going to have long,dry and hot summers with chronic water shortages? The BBC are strangely silent on this now! Could it be that the BBC engages its collective mouth well before engaging its collective brain?
Perhaps we could look forward to a panarama special about every BBC prediction that didnt turn up or every Nooos report that turned out to be wrong? Perhaps we will IF the BBC can pin the blame on its undercover Joooos who are obviously working on the inside to destroy the BBCs reputation, perhaps these 5th column Joooos are secretly working for Mossad and chimpy Hitler Bush? Yeah that sounds plausible! Perfect BBC logic eh? There U go, one Panarama special coming rite up!
Cassandra: That wanker Harrabin (and Shukman) just spout their bollocks then more on to the next story.
When they want to talk about climate change creating hot dry condiitons they will find SOMEWHERE on the planet that is suffering that and then “claim” we could all end up this way.
Then they find somewhere where its wet and cold and “claim” the same thing.
Fact is Al Bore, Harrabin and Shukman are lefty arts educated prats who have no interest or understanding of science and therefore spout shite based on lefty opininos only.
When I watch the evening news I always seem to get a totally different opinion of events from all the news outlets. I’ve listed them in most leftie/liberal down to least.
BBC News
Channel 4
Sky News
ITV
Fox
I actually find ITV and Fox the most balanced in their reporting usually getting opinions from all sides. The BBC in particular are guilty of only ever giving one opinion.
Tim:
Globally the coolest June for 12 years
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistem…data/ GLB.Ts.txt
2 million sq kms more ice at the poles since same time last year.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
How much longer can the BBC keep up the bare faced lies on Global Warming?
This is a BBC Nooos bulletin:
Global warming is real and attacking us now and there can be no doubt about the danger the world is facing in its war against dangerous man made climate change scientists say!
In other Nooos Polar bears are drowning and penguins are starving to death because of global warming that is real and with us now, scientists say and they are saying that the poles have melted and sea levels will soon drown all short people and we interview some Tory who doesnt mind that this is happening because he is rich like all Tories, the BBC has learned!
More on that later by our science analyst Roger Horrorbin(laden) but first, Gordon Brown bravely sets out his brave vision to fight dangerous climate change by bringing in ration cards and banning white English males from using public services, they will in future only be allowed out at night on foot! Our political correspondent Oral grrrrin will talk to the heroic comrade Harperson about her brave quest to give white native English people the thrashing they undoubtedly deserve!
Meanwhile in other Noooos the Joooos murdered hundreds(at least) innocent Palestinians at a wedding AGAIN and the world condemns the war criminal Jooos(as it should)!
Casandra: Well done for getting plenty of “dangerous climate change” in there. Hillary Benn will be pleased!
Tim: Easy. Harrabin and Shukman will simply focus on something else.
Butterfly shortage – caused by 4X4 drivers
The Bees have gone missing – Scummy Amnericans fault
A shortage of Rent boys – er don’t know, but I’m sure the BBC will get “dangerous climate change” in there somewhere!
I wasn’t going to comment on this thread as it’s just throwing up the same rhetoric. But then I read:
“I actually find ITV and Fox the most balanced in their reporting usually getting opinions from all sides.”
I’ve re-read this several times and can’t detect any sarcasm. It seem serious. Not so much ITV but FOX?!? Fox are way, way more biased than the Beeb because of their corporate sponsorship. And yes, I know they have every right to sit as far on the right as they like – a) we are not forced to pay for them and b) there is no government instruction or self-imposed policy or Fox Trust insisting they remain unbiased. But to say they are unbiased is very misguided.
They are as neutral as the Daily Mail and the Guardian. Just different wings.
Martin,
BBC scientists have learned that dangerous climate change that is real and with us now is causing the disapearence of woodlands shrubbery that Gay men use as cover for their wonderful dogging social activities and the Gay rites activists have appealed for EU funding of only one billion pounds(the BBC thinks this is a bargain) to provide fake foliage instead of the real thing which is being ravaged by dangerous global warming that is real and with us now scientists are saying!
Not so much ITV but FOX?!? Fox are way, way more biased than the Beeb because of their corporate sponsorship……. But to say they are unbiased is very misguided.
Barry | 09.07.08 – 8:21 pm | #
Corporate sponsorship doesn’t necessarily mean right wing. The Labour Party here has relied on it until recently – lots of big corporations like Capita get very fat on “big government”.
Although Fox has some very right wing anchors like O’Reilly – I’ve noticed it’s far more scrupulous than the BBC about presenting two points of view to each topic.
Even O’Reilly always has two opposing spokespeople – and Hannity & Colmes IMHO is a model for how politics ought to be presented, with a presenter from each side of the political spectrum interviewing each guest.
On the beeb all we ever get is a left leaning presenter (or two or three) agreeing with various shades of lefty guests – or ganging up with ill disguised distaste on anybody to the right of them.
Barry, have you ever watched Fox?
If you have, I suggest the reason it might appear Right wing to you is simply because it features some Right wing presenters and pundits – something the BBC almost wholly avoids and which you are unused to.
I see no evidence that Fox’s actual news coverage is biased – quite unlike the BBC’s, as has been shown many times in this thread.
GCooper: Some of the on FNC commentators are biased but they usually give airtime to differing views (i.e. Hannity and Colmes).
Thankfully Fox News is not as socialist, pro-democrat and pro-muslim as Al Beeb. Otherwise I wouldn’t know what to watch when it comes to news.
Even the Clinton campaign conceded that Hillary got the fairest coverage on Fox News, by the way.
We’ll see if Obama will appear on the O’Reilly Factor. I doubt it…
I wonder if Al Beeb ever had conservatives like Newt Gingrich on. Maybe someone on here knows the answer.
disillusioned_german | 09.07.08 – 10:48 pm |
Yes, the Fox News talking heads are biased to a man (or woman). But most of that is presented as opinion, and there are no illusions that Hannity or O’Reilly or the legion of bottle-blonds in the morning are presenting impartial news.
When Fox does report on actual news events, they don’t fake it, and they present it as news, not as a story with a narrative. The majority of the broadcasts are made up of opinion-mongers, though, and the fact that Fox actually allows right-wing voices when the other channels don’t (unless it’s during a defensive interview) makes the Leftoids mad.
Contrast that with what CNN International does, and you’ll know whom to trust when it counts.
Tim 7.38pm – 2 million sq kms more ice at the poles since same time last year
I was in Germany a couple of weeks ago with only BBC World & CNN International for company. Both channels maintaining a 24 hour a day barrage of global catastrophe that is all my fault. One or both reported that all N pole sea ice was expected to have disappeared before the end of summer.
I’m aware of that, David… I still live in Germany (but I’ve got Sky Digital over here for which I’m gladly paying about 30 Pounds a month) and I’ve seen CNN International’s Output. I’ve got many friends in the US, I visit regularly and I want to know what’s happening in the US. Fox News gives me that, CNN never has.
O’Reilly is a conservative libertarian, I believe Shepard Smith and Greta van Susteren are leaning left and Hannity and Colmes is a conservative / liberal match up (I detest Colmes).
I like the mix, I even get informed about European news (I learned about Paul Potts of “Britain’s got talent” fame during Brit Hume’s “Special Report”). I like Fox News because it’s different and a lot less left leaning than Al Beeb or even Sky News. Question is: Could you succeed with a conservative news output in 2008 Europe (which is mainly EU-controlled)? I’ve got my doubts.
Barry –Fox are way, way more biased than the Beeb
That’s a total bleepin’ lie.
From memory, Fox’s LIBERAL (I.E. LEFTIST BRIGADE) Juan Williams, Diane Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, Mark Lamont-Hill. Bob Beckel, Greta van Susteren, Geraldo Rivera, Mara Liasson, Alan Colmes, Howard Wolfson, most of the guests on Red Eye, Shep Smith, Jane Hall, and 50% of all party hacks.
Fox beats the BBC hands down in political “fairness.”
Of course, I realize your idea of fairness is 4 leftists to every conservative, so no wonder you are confused
Martin | 09.07.08 – 6:43 pm
I actually find ITV and Fox the most balanced in their reporting usually getting opinions from all sides.
The Most Biased Name in News
Fox News Channel’s extraordinary right-wing tilt
In a study of interviewees on the network’s signature political news show, Special Report with Brit Hume, FAIR found that of 56 partisan guests in a five month period, 50 were Republicans and six were Democrats. That’s 89 percent Republican, a greater than 8 to 1 imbalance……
…..During the course of the study, 65 of the show’s total of 92 guests (71 percent) were avowed conservatives. Conservatives outnumbered all other points of view, including non-political guests, by a factor of more than 2 to 1……
…As a comparison to Special Report, FAIR studied interviewees on CNN’s Wolf Blitzer Reports over the same period, and found that of 67 partisan guests, 38 were Republicans and 29 Democrats– 57 percent Republican versus Special Report’s 89 percent. About 32 percent of Wolf Blitzer’s total guests were avowed conservatives, versus 65 percent on Special Report.
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1873
Pretty disingenuous, mediavixen. What does accuracy in Media say, or Media Research Center?
And, while we have your attention, what about the subject of this thread – the BBC’s craven fawning to the ‘Greens’?
mediavixen | 10.07.08 – 9:43 am | #
I actually WATCH Fox news, unlike you. And that’s DISINGENUOUS CRAP.
But please, carry on spouting about which you know eff all. Makes no difference. to me, and keeps you off the streets.
I have already listed a bunch of commentators, off the top of my head, who are LIBERALS, who appear regularly across all Fox output.
That’s just a few I could think extemporaneously.
Please list all the CONSERVATIVES who appear across BBC News output.
Here’s the little trick the likes of CNN pull. They have someone like David Gergen on, and call him a CONSERVATIVE. He is not.
Let’s have some names, instead of bogus links to a bogus studies (sic).
Mediavixen,
Oooops you didnt quite tell us everything there did you pet? I wonder why you missed the part about many democrats have and are boycotting Fox! Hmmm I wonder why you forgot to mention that little nugget? The democrats are well known for their blackballing skills and ultra demanding pre interview rule setting and many democrats and leftists take great offence to Fox because they ask difficult questions and have the temerity to doubt the socialist world view that the leftists/democrats hold so dear. Notice how the democrats will not engage with anyone who doubts the manmade global warming theory? Notice how Fox has a standing invitation for Al Gore to engage in an open scientific debate with skeptical scientists and yet Al gore the fearless democrat is too afraid?
It isnt because Fox bans democrats its because democrats are blackballing Fox!
Why is the Beeb compared with Fox News anyway? Personally on the rare occasions I’ve watched it it’s been hysterical, ludicrously biased crap (and Fox isn’t much better haha), but:
1) America is a much more conservative place that the UK anyway.
2) As I understand it US news isn’t required by law to be politically impartial.
3) Fox is a commercial operation and has no requirement to represent the views of taxpayers as a whole.
The Most Biased Name in News
Fox News Channel’s extraordinary right-wing tilt………….
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1873
mediavixen | 10.07.08 – 9:43 am | #
Do you really think we’re that stupid on here MV ?
FAIR is a hard left activist “collective” – here’s one of their fans:-
I would just like to congratulate the collective on its wonderful achievements and hope that many others will be encouraged to join in this widely important work.”
—Noam Chomsky
…and some of their product offerings:-
https://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/592/t/6157/shop/shop.jsp?storefront_KEY=78
If you rely on FAIR for your world view you must be slightly to the left of George Galloway.
In case anybody is in any doubt about FAIR – this is from an article in the broadly left-leaning New York Times:-
FAIR reflects the views of that numerically insignificant group who used to regard Pol Pot as a hero and who wept at the defeat of Daniel Ortega……. Their Marxist class interpretation of media behavior is simply kooky, and their insistence that the media are dominated by conservatives makes sense only to people who think that anyone to the right of Noam Chomsky is conservative.
By WALTER GOODMAN
Published: June 17, 1990
I thought this thread was on climate, so despite the last few entries, I’ll post here.
The latest bout of ‘green’ propaganda-moonshine came this lunchtime on R4’s Open Country, previously a (largely) politics free zone. Now it’s engaged in the hunt for Britain’s ‘greenest’ village and a licence, therefore, to spout on about eco-wackery. First off was reporter Eleanor Goodman (previously a reasonable political reporter for C4 News). Her opening gambit was to note that the village in question was the ancestral home of the George W.Bush family. “Not,” said Ms Goodman, “exactly known for their green credentials”.
BBC heaven: a chance to have a pop at Bush and to combine it with green-loonery.
Jack Bauer and JRspins are correct about FAIR. Just to add to the pile-on, all anyone needs to know about them can be gleaned by looking at the products they sell on their website:
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=110
Or this sidebar featuring “Recent Advisories & Alerts”:
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=6
If Wolf Blitzer shot all his Republican guests, and sang hymns to all the Democrats, the numbers they reported would still be the same, and would be just as meaningless.
I, too, heard Open Country this lunchtime and, like Robin, was astonished by how brazen it was. In fact I momentarily toyed with the idea that it was a send-up. Sadly, it wasn’t.
If anyone is looking for evidence of just how off-track the BBC has got on ‘Green’ issues, I recommend it via the listen again service.
GCooper,
Just what I wonder are ‘green credentials’? Is it some kind of ID card that gets you into some upmarket club or society? Do they have a secret handshake or password?
I can imagine someone walking into BBC land and flashing his ‘green credentials’ at the security guard and says, its OK, Im green! Perhaps they only allow news guests on the TV if they have this special ID?