For a truly chilling account of the dissembling, back somersaulting, contortionism and duplicity the broadcasting establishment is prepared to engage in to defend its alarmist approach to climate change, I recommend you have a good look at this masterly piece of forensic journalism by Tony Newton at Harmless Sky. Ofcom, Channel 4 and a spaghetti soup of useless, scheming, economical-with-the-truth “regulators” have decided that Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth is not a factual documentary, and is not a piece of outrageous, lying political propaganda, despite a high court judgment that it had to be treated with extreme caution. They make Pontius Pilate and his hand-washing look innocent. OK, Tony’s post is not about the BBC, but of course those who control Channel 4 (almost all its chief executives have been ex-BBC) and Ofcom are drawn from the same smug, elite lefty-liberal cadre. What Tony has discovered is simply jaw-dropping. How do these people live with themselves?
BROADCAST CONTORTIONS…
Bookmark the permalink.
“How do they live with themselves?”
I think that their enormous houses, big cars, gigantic pensions, the respect and admiration of their peers, the obedience of their underlings, villas in Tuscany, skiing holidays, and private schools for their rioting Trustafarian offspring all help.
You would think that regulatory bodies might be better if the were more representative of the community they are trying to protect, i.e., the customer, however, this is what happens when you staff such bodies with ‘industry experts’ with vast ‘experience’, and an awful lot of connections.
They know what side their bread is buttered and whilst on occasion they may huff and puff. Generally, they will always serve their masters.
I thought Gore had been thorough discredited by now. In listings doesn’t ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ now come up as a comedy?
I cannot think of one “regulatory body” that is fit for purpose as the jargon has it. They are not independant to start with, hand picked and paid either by the businesses they should regulate or by government, ie us.
Indeed.
Other than for the poor sods who either suffer their ‘overisght’ abilities and/or pay for the privilege (usually both, and hence the income-generating UK taxpayer), anything with OF in front has pretty much become synonymous with corruption, insider dealing, jobs for the boys and sharp practice. When they are not being incompetent. STED, TEL, WAT, CON.. you name it.
Hence I am surprised Aunty and its ‘unique’ complaints/Trust self-regulation has not decided to rebrand as OFBroad, which kinda works on a few levels.
If this matter is taken further by TonyN, and he is asking for contributions to a fighting fund, will you let us all know?
He does finish the article with “A lot of work has gone into navigating this complaint through Ofcom’s tortuous procedures, and it would be nice to think that somewhere there are people who might think that the issues that it raises are important enough for them to make sure that it reaches its proper conclusion, with the ball in the net of what now appears to be an open goal. All that is needed is the funds and the will to see justice done.”
I thought Tony missed a trick by not focusing on Ofcom NOT following their own procedures (especially the bit where ofcom blatantly ignored its own procedure of providing copies of replies from C4 to him, and then treating his request that they follow their own procedures as a FOI request).
Sadly, really, the only way around situations like this is by having all the relevant parties in a room going over everything as if they were in a court of law. By keeping the entire process “faceless”, Ofcom has allowed itself to circumvent its own procedures with impunity.
That would not be able to happen if the final review was conducted like a court hearing…where Ofcom would have to face up to its accuser and answer some very awkward questions.
But lets be honest people…are any of us really surprised by Ofcoms actions? Where the cult of Mann Made Global Warming ™ has taken over.
Mailman
I have dealings with OFCOM in one of their other capacities at work. They are very irritating as having being given various duties by Parliament they just don’t want to do them. They made most of their technically qualified staff redundant a few years ago with the others leaving shortly afterwards. I get the feeling that the place is mostly manned by temps with a management made up of arts graduates who really want to play at being “media folk” rather than do what they should.
Yesterday the bBC aired an article about how James Blunt all by himself prevented WW3 which contained quite a number of anti-American statements. Which got me thinking why was the bBC promoting this non story from 11 years ago. Was it because Blunt released a new album last week? Or it is because he airs trailers for ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ at his concerts. It seems that the bbC has no problem plugging your new album if you subscribe to their cause which explains why Cat Stevens is in and John Lydon is out.
Even worse does the entire Blunt story doesn’t ring true ! We appear to have a junior officer in charge of few hundred men and a tactical radio net being used by Generals !!
Good point, it seems the so called bBC defence experts don’t seem to understand that even when seconded to another country, you remain under the command of the British . Any disputes result not in a charge but in an RTU. But hang on James (I saved the world) Blunt wasn’t seconded to the Yanks, he was serving with the Brits, who funny enough just happened to be in charge of Operation Joint Guardian with a certain General Sir Michael David “Mike” Jackson at the Helm on the 12th June 1999 when NATO troops turned up at Pristina Airport. Strange how the facts differ from what the bBC tries to push out as the truth.
For the bBC muslim in a wheelchair, Answer this if a bBC reporter refused to do as he was told from Rupert Murdoch would he get sacked?
I thought it sounded like a load of b****** reminiscent of Blair personally saving a Dane who was in trouble at Blair’s free holiday destination. That turned out to be a lie, I expect this will too.
I would like to hear the British General’s take on this incident.
I listened to this, it was all very very strange. Didn’t he also claim to have bumped into a journo with “floppy hair” i.e Boris?
Hmmm…I wonder how al beeb will cover this event?
Click to access 3rd_International_Energy_and_Climate_Conference__December_3rd-4th_2010__Berlin_Germany.pdf
Some interesting people will be speaking at this event.
Somehow I highly doubt the BBC will use any labels that would describe this event as a collection of respected scientists…I expect them to label those who present at this conference in quite the opposite way.
Mailman
Ofcom seem to have mastered the ‘Sir Humphrey Appleby’ patented art of obscuring the plainly obvious with rediculous verbiage!
Two days to copy n paste
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/13/gores-movie-in-the-uk-behind-the-scenes-battle/
…and your adolescent point is ?
No comments on the absurd degree of bias among BBC environmental “journalists” ?
It is not “old news” – unless one is a daily reader of WattsUpWithThat. Most of the stuff in the post by Robin Horbury will be new news. So your clever-dick comment was uncalled-for.
Meanwhile – here is an article published 15 November(I hope that is up-to-date enough for you) by an economist of far greater stature and experience than any of the loons at the BBC – or any of the loons in Whitehall and the Government currently fixated on nonsense policies:
http://www.thegwpf.org/opinion-pros-a-cons/1859-david-henderson-climate-change-issues-new-developments-in-a-20-year-context.html
Speaking of being taken seriously, being incapable of being anything but a one-trick tribal obsessive with Tourettes is usually a poor way to get anyone, even those undecided, to pay much heed.