The BBC World Service Trust is an arm of the BBC that receives £17.9m a year – mainly from the Department for International Development and the EU (52%)- to train broadcasters to spread messages about development. Some of what it does is vital and laudable; for example helping to spread knowledge about HIV/Aids through the development of soap operas that are actually listened to. However, and as in everything the BBC does, it is a big caveat, there is a sinister side to its mission. It campaigns loudly about ‘the environment’, and inevitably, where BBC folk are involved, that actually means about ‘climate change’. Take, for example, Africa Talks Climate (do you notice the missing word?)about which the organiser says:
The drive to help people understand issues such as climate change and to have the opportunity to speak and act is at the heart of our work…In a partnership project funded by the British Council, ten countries have been identified in which BBC WST researchers will be conducting research: DR Congo, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan, Tanzania and Uganda. The major objective of Africa Talks Climate is to identify the entry points to engage, inform and empower Africans in local, national and international conversations about climate change. To achieve this, the initiative will collate opinions and then amplify the voices of people at all levels of society.
Interestingly, this was all done with the British Council, which as EU Referendum has pointed out today, is another government-funded body which has been infested with ‘climate change fervour.
Back with WST, their efforts extend to the eastern Caribbean and South America, but also to India. Here, the trust’s aim was again to train journalists:
An extensive training programme for journalists and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) was carried out in nine Indian states to improve the quality and quantity of information published in the media and to create a better flow of information between environmental NGOs and the media.
Their partner in part of the enterprise was TERI (The Resources and Energy Institute) set up by none other than Ravendra Pachauri, the boss of the IPCC. TERI itself is not without controversy (to put in mildly), but, eh, this is ‘climate change’, so for WST, it’s simply “our non-profit partner”.
Now I’m all for Indians and Africans (and anyone else) becoming more aware of the need to treat the environment properly. But this, folks, as we well know, is not really about that. It’s about the BBC pushing their ‘climate change’ lies and propaganda, and nothing will get in their way. The truth is that the World Service Trust, funded by our taxes, is busily at work persuading journalists round the developing world to spread lies and to hate the West for the injustices they have heaped upon them through CO2 emissions. The BBC, whose motto is “Nation Shall Speak Peace unto Nation” is frantically stoking up hatred instead.
I know there are legal loopholes which permit this, but how is this anyting other than the BBC acting as an arm of the Government? And the EU influence raises its ugly head once again.
Regardless of whatever it is they’re training Beeboids to say, isn’t this wrong?
AFAIAA the World Service is completely funded by the Foreign Office and, again AFAIAA, always has been. The once incredibly high reputation of the BBC internationally was formed by the work done by the BBC during WW2. Yes, it was an organ of the Ministry of Information during WW2 but it managed to project an image of conveying the truth about what was happening. Disasters such as Dunkirk and the Fall of Singapore were not glossed over. Of course the “truth” was nuanced but the BBC made strenuous efforts not to broadcast one set of facts in one area of the world which would contradict another set of facts broadcast elsewhere and, generally, the set of facts were the “truth”. However, being broadcast durting a war, the broadcast “truth” might not have been the whole truth.
Today the World Service broadcasts any old crap which is approved by the Foreign Office (ie Labour) and meets the BBC agenda: so, I guess, there’s not a lot of behind the scenes conflict over what is broadcast. Accordingly, it’s hardly surprising that patronising guff about raising climate change conciousness in Africa gets extensive airtime.
As an aside, occasionally in the 60s I used to listen to the English service of Radio Moscow. How I laughed! All those encomia to peace, the dignity of labour, the racism of the US, the inevitable fall of capitalism etc. Little did I suspect that the same species of ingsoc rubbish would be spewed out by our own state broadcaster only 40 years later.
It’s wrong and it’s illegal but who has the clout, the time and the money to drag these lying bastards through the international courts?
Nobody I know. Although Lord Christopher Monckton springs to mind…?
BBC ‘Newsnight’ has ‘climate scepticism in Australia’ tonight.
A non-BBC source:
http://www.climatesceptics.com.au/climate-change/
Why the BBC even has a world servie these days is beyond me. The days of the great British Empire spouting propaganda to the rest of the world is long gone.
If the Tories really do want to start saving money start scrapping this crap
Well, I am off to Gambia , Senegal and Guinea-Bissau for 1 month in March ( all paid for by me ! ) . Will be quite busy with many things, but I hope to have some time to work on some small solar energy projects, including solar ovens at a local level.
But, I would love to invite some Beeboids , at their own expense, to come with me and educate the natives. Problem is , some of the places I shall be visiting don’t have any hotels, let alone 5-star.
The other problem is that the stupid Beeboids do not have any skills which are of any use to the locals who are totally uninterested in “Global Warming “.
Safe journey.
Actually most journalists and liberals have no skills of value. Would be very interesting to drop two groups of people off on a desert island, one lot engineers and hands on people (like plumbers etc) and another lot full of journalists, feminists and politicians.
Be interesting to see which group finds it easiest to survive.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/specialreports/the_climate_connection.shtml
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0053gb6
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8376009.stm
All have a certain perspective…
David 20:06
Many thanks. I lived in that part of the world for some years, but it can still be quite dodgy, but still safer than Edinburgh on a Friday night.
On the BBC bias front, a lot of the educated W. Africans I know are now getting sceptical about the BBC and I say nothing to disagree with them !
One evening, drifting off to sleep during the midnight news on Radio 4, I woke in the early hours at which point it had morphed into the BBC World Service. There was a most appalling programme on Islamic science, presented by a Muslim academic, with no hint of an alternative view. Western superiority was put down to imperialism; no mention of the relative approach to the philosophy of science in Christian and Muslim countries.
I thought the World Service was supposed to represent the British point of view to the rest of the world, rather than relay Islamist propaganda to us and the rest of the world. Why do we still fund it?
I imagine a disproportionate number of the BBC World Service editorial staff are Muslim – endlessly commissioning non-British stuff.
Meanwhile Radio 4 this morning carried a half-hour whine by some young woman about the native Indians of Canada. Keep bashing the British Empire, that’s the thing.
Yes; the BBC licencepayers and taxpayers are merely the milch-cow to the BBC.
The BBC’s Middle East policy is driven by its imperative of pleasing the Islamic interests, and opposing Israel.This is all interlocked with the BBC ‘Arabic TV’ service which alongside Al Jazeera, with which the BBC has a technically agreement (so that, inter alia, the BBC can show Al Qaeda/ Bin Laden threats against the West early).
Of course, the large numbers of Muslim personnel employed by the BBC will be allowed/encouraged to ensure that the BBC output on e.g. the Middle East, politically fits with Middle East Islamic interests, not with the independent interests of Britain, or Israel. The BBC is obviously infiltratged in this way.
Take the BBC’s ‘kid-glove’ treatment of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and the Ahmadinejad regime: the BBC is most concernend with having its dhimmi Persian service broadcast in Iran than anything else. So the BBC is reluctant to criticise the barbarities of that regime., in case the BBC is permanently banned from broadcasting its dhimmi message there.
And the BBC (and Labour) treat with dhimmitude the ‘PRESSTV’ political arm of the Iranian regime, which has its HQ and its 24/7 propaganda operation against Britain and the West, in LONDON !
The BBC sees itself as giving priority to servicing the political, cultural and economic interests of the countries it broadcasts to in the Middle East.
The words ‘BBC’ and ‘Trust’ seem to be ever more silly in combination these days.
I await the establishment of ‘The BBC Editorial Objectivity Trust’, chaired probably by Jeremy Bowen with all reports going first via Helen Boaden to make sure nothing Aunty ‘reports’ upon adversely affects the investments of the pension fund.