Neil Midgley reports optimistically in the Daily Telegraph today that the BBC’s new editorial guidelines will force our greenie friends at the corporation to start including more so-called sceptics in their climate alarmist reporting, because for the first time, science is included in rules about impartiality.
My advice is not to hold your breath. I have a letter from Ceri Thomas, editor of Today, saying that because there is a ‘consensus’ about global warming, reporting of the subject only needs to give “due impartiality” to sceptics. In other words, sceptics are wrong, the consensus is right, and programmes should only pay minimal lip-service to them.
Nothing that I can see in the new guidlines changes this. Mr Thomas is pretty much representative of the entire BBC management class, and he sits on the board of a warmist organisation that camapaigns to give the warmist cause more prominence, and excludes sceptics.
Meanwhile, tens of thousands of pounds of our money are being wasted in distributing 12,500 of these useless new guideline documents to BBC staff in Britain “and round the world”. What wonderful self-love!
Why do they need to spend £££ on a printed wire-bound book? What’s wrong with e-mail?
Beeboids are not very comfortable with technology.
Remember this from a few days ago…?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11514210
‘BBC diplomatic correspondent Bridget Kendall said the latest developments would raise questions over UK and US relations and the possibility there was an attempt to cover up the circumstances of Ms Norgrove’s death.’
That para seems to have gone (along with any other input from Ms. Kendall) and, by my recollection of its location, been replaced by this (and possibly other ‘changes’ (is newsniffer still active?):
The BBC’s diplomatic correspondent Nicholas Witchell in Kabul said British officials there were ” utterly dismayed and dumbfounded”.
He said the situation affected the credibility of the Americans and added: “They say the Americans were so certain on Saturday so why has it taken them 48 hours to revise their position?”
Possibly a new piece may have been more appropriate as further facts come out?
Or is that in the forthcoming monk-illuminated script, pigeon-posted errata of the new editorial guidelines from a £3.6B, unique, ‘news’ monolith.
Maybe under the section ‘Try not to cover up stuff, especially when it’s stuff we’ve written about claimed cover-ups. It makes us look silly’.
The only way impartiality will EVER be achieved at al beeb is if all public funding is cut off and they are forced to go commercial.
When that happens they will be forced to take a position, like every other MFM outlet out there and then stand by the position.
Oh, you reckon that is no different to how al beeb stands for everything that is opposed to this country, the West and science.
Well, this is true BUT look at the upside…Im no longer compelled by law to pay for the bastards! 🙂
Win-win situation.
Mailman
ust posted the below at;
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/aboutthebbc/2010/10/new-bbc-editorial-guidelines-l.shtml#comments
Lets see if this even gets up…and if it does, whether it stays up if the thread is closed!
“Sorry but the BBC’s issues with impartiality are one of culture, which cannot simply be addressed by adding a few words to a document your staff will never really read.
If the BBC was serious about impartiality you wouldnt need a document like this telling us how awesome you are simply because the BBC would already be impartial.
I mean lets face the truth here. The BBC stopped reporting the news decades ago and instead started reporting its opinion as the news. You want to be serious about reporting the news, get rid of all the BBC blogs which are nothing more than a collection of leftist ideology.
Please do tell us underserving underlings how exactly the BBC will change how it reports Mann Made Global Warming ™, Immigration, Islam, Republicans, British way of life, multiculturalism over night? Actually, lets be slightly more realistic, how does the BBC plan to report on any of these items over the next 10 years?
Sadly, each of the above items I have listed the BBC has shown a marked bias towards. Mann Made Global Warming, the BBC is an advocate. Immigration, the BBC is an advocate for unlimited immigration. Islam, the BBC is an advocate for Islam and censors any and all stories that shines light in the true nature of the beast (anyone seen an in depth analisys of Wilders trial or Theo Van Goughs murder? No, didnt think so). Republicans, how many times did the BBC regurgitate the lie of Palins beautiful son being her grand son? Dont even get me started on how the BBC has treated and still does treat GW. British way of life…the BBC is an advocate for the destruction of the British way of life, after all its unfair to expect all those immigrants to adapt to Britain and fit in.
So yes, please do explain how you intend to change the BBC when so many of the biases I have listed above are so deeply ingrained in to the corporations leftist culture.”
Mailman
Mailman,
It was still there just now along with other excellent posts and a hilarious reply from some Beeboid called Laura. The BBC is just a sick parody of itself.
It’s a long time since I lived in the US but, in Colorado anyway, the local TV stations used to broadcast editorials giving the station’s view on local (and national and international) events and politics. Most stations were affiliated to one of the national networks and fed this national stuff locally. Accordingly, an ABC-affiliate station, for example, relayed ABC’s national news broadcasts etc and, in that respect, acted as a transmission belt for East Coast liberalism. However, you had no doubt where the local station stood editorially and you could assess what was broadcast on that basis.
The hypocrisy of the BBC is, of course, that it denies that it has any political position on anything and claims due “impartiality” in its coverage. Ceri Thomas would, I guess, claim that he/Today is impartial but it is a peculiar use of the “impartiality”. It is much like the use of the word “unanimous” by the old Communist trade unionsts who accepted the “unanimous decision of the majority” when a particularly outrageous resolution was forced through a mass meeting.
But your local TV station doesn’t hire reporters and anchors based on their ideology. The viewer can usually tell if there’s a separation between the editorial desk and the rest of the reporting.
Not so with the BBC, where every report, every segment, every line, is created with a specific agenda in mind.
The political bias creeps in even when reporting on a non-partisan human interest story, like the Chilean miners. Matt Frei has to label Chile’s President as “right-wing”. His political bias also caused him to openly suggest that the whole operation was being cynically manipulated to benefit the President. He wouldn’t have done that for Lula or Morales or Chavez or The Obamessiah.
The guidelines say the BBC has to be inclusive. This is a word straight out of Diversity Seminars. The results are groups of people who like like a Benetton advert but all think exactly the same.
also the school of thought control that is “common purpose”
Anyone remember the honesty courses that all beeboids had to attend presumably beacuse they were all lying sh*ts but its all much better now after spending how much money?
Now they write up some faked up rubbish that they dont really mean and they dont really have any intention of sticking by and they are not going to implement if they can posibly help it?
So whats new!
They are so lost in their own web of lies and deceit, a web of their own making BTW that perhaps they believe their own lies now. Look at how honest and open we are they simper, look at this document and marvel at our genuine love of impartial news they croon to each other, are we not the best thing since fresh ciabatta they giggle.
Its all about top show, all fur coat and no knickers as they say uuup North. If they actually think that we will buy into this fraud then really are more cretinous than we think they are.
Emily Maitlis accidentally revealed on air not long ago that they had to go through “online courses” when this stuff happened. The recent update on Editorial Guidelines mentioned “modules”.
Click through the pages, tick the boxes, hit “Submit”. Job done, crisis averted.
Holy Crap! (literally)
has anyone noticed this AGW-inspired gibberish on Jo Abbess’ blog?
http://www.joabbess.com/2010/10/13/the-messiah-with-us/comment-page-1/#comment-11668
Pick o’the quotes..
“Osama bin Laden is not a saint, but his heart is turned towards the suffering of others..”
oops sorry, that link is to my comment awaiting moderation.
Try this…
http://www.joabbess.com/2010/10/13/the-messiah-with-us/
Maybe she’ll try to get Roger Harriban to alter his own reporting to include that.
I love the Gaza flag up top. Class act, that Jo.
Yes David – it is no suprise that the ecofacists also support the enemies of democracy
“Osama bin Laden is not a saint, but his heart is turned towards the suffering of others..”
‘Course it is – he’s continually seeking new methods to exacerbate the suffering, and novel means of death and destruction.