I had the misfortune to work on a freelance basis a couple of times for Richard Branson. My conclusion? He’s a greedy, publicity-mad, calculating, self-serving, tight-fisted egomaniac (objectionable enough to make even the Adam Smith Institute into anti-capitalists). So I find this cat-spat between Richard Black and said Mr Branson tiresomely engaging. In the one corner, eco-nut Black is busting a gut to tell us that the Branson publicity wheeze to introduce lemurs to his Caribbean tax-dodge Mosquito Island is very, very bad, because it breaches the UN hallowed rules about biodiversity and the import of foreign species. How is it – I sometimes muse – that BBC reporters don’t apply the same lip-curling xenophobic contempt to immigration stories? The irony would be lost on them, I suppose.
On the other hand, our BBC environment campaigner is lost in admiration and reminds us that Mr Branson’s Necker resort is all about the saintly pursuit of eco-tourism. What a fantastic puff…the highest acccolade in greenieland is to be called “eco”. This $2,000-a-night retreat is obviously somewhere Mr Black dearly wants to go. In glowing Technicolor – the dilemmas and conflicts of BBC green-creed journalism.
That point about biodiversity and immigration is one that I have long mulled over but I fear that raising it would only increase my blog’s current troll infestation even further.
A bit O/T, but there’s another good Richard Black kicking being delivered over here, too
http://www.thegwpf.org/best-of-blogs/2824-black-propaganda.html
Steve, it’s a shame Richard Black didn’t post that article on his blog. Then he could have been challenged about it and links to the other side of the story could have been given in the comments field. That would have opened a few more eyes to Richard Black’s one-sidedness. It’s not like it’s hard to put both sides of an argument. It should be second nature to a journalist.
The other side of the story is here:
http://www.energyindepth.org/2011/04/five-things-to-know-about-the-cornell-shale-study/
Sadly, describing Mr Black as a journalist is a bit of a stretch, these days
So you’re saying that immigrants are a different species who should be kept in their own territories in case they start breeding out of control and threaten the indigenous fauna?
You’ve tipped your hand a bit there. I think you’ll find that the racism and anti-Islam on this site is meant to be purely framed in terms of hand-wringing concern about impartialilty.
Well actually if you bother to think about it all your point is rather stupid! all creatures on this planet are lumped under one heading be it animal insect plant no matter their source or environment or even subdivisions of species and the same applies to us there are billions of differences between us as humans, that suit the environment we are born to and the nurture we receive from our parents or elders in that environment and these are not always transferable to other settings just pop in Cortez and tell me that introducing of a foreign entity worked out for the locals ! I celebrate the fact we are all different and don’t think/live the same you seem to be implying that we are all one amorphous blob that can be mixed as we choose! really ? go on try that in the Balkan states and tell me how you get on .
Oh and yes I am ‘anti-Islam’ I have no problem treating something that hates me and my morals as a threat to my way of life as well as to women/homosexuals/anyone from another religion/children why do you think it’s all good just to hand-wring about it and hope it all turns out OK if you ignore it ?
Blimey. It must have been a good harvest, judging by the number of straw men you’ve got out of it.
Humans are humans. Self-aware animals not solely driven by instinct, who have developed to travel to any part of the planet and adapt accordingly. Your equivalence with, say, the Japanese Knotweed doesn’t really hold up.
Cortez, eh? So the technologically more advanced immigrants are going to turn up, get mistaken for our gods, steal all our gold and give us new diseases are they?
Remind me, what was the immigration issue in the Balkans again?
And to claim that Islam is a monlithic entity that hates ‘women/homosexuals/anyone from another religion/children’ when you’ve just said that ‘there are billions of differences between us as humans’?
Personally, I’m against those limitations of freedom no matter where they come from, Muslim, Christian or Communist. I just don’t use it to shore up my existing prejudices.
DRT, I hope you know what you’re talking about because I haven’t got a clue.
“Personally, I’m against…limitations of freedom no matter where they come from, Muslim, Christian or Communist.”
In other words you are only anti-Muslim when it is intolerant, sexist, and homophobic. Of course the Muslim religion is (which you know full well) intolerant, sexist, and homophobic, and so that makes you anti-Muslim doesn’t it.
“I think you’ll find that the racism and anti-Islam on this site..”
This might have scared people off a few years ago but I doubt if it will work now.
Don’t care.
Wild – thanks for the back-up, but I don’t think my point needed confirming quite so bluntly. Makes you look a bit like a sockpuppet of mine.
Hippiepooter, and indeed Barry – of course you don’t.
That’s why this is in fact one of the most pro-BBC sites in existence.
Sure, it reinforces the people who think that there’s some fundamental bias in the BBC (which happens to manifest itself in not wholeheartedly matching their viewpoint on a divisive subject) but they’re not interested in a debate anyway, so can be left to stew in their own righteousness.
However, its ongoing obsessions and swings into vitriol are hardly going to convince anyone who thinks that the BBC is perfect. Draping the handkerchief of ‘bias’ over the elephant of ‘personal prejudice’ isn’t going to fool anyone. A pity, because the BBC does make mistakes in judgment and should have somebody highlighting this for its own sake.
Then there is the largest group – the middle ground who might see something on the BBC, think the balance is a bit off and then look for a website on which do discuss this. Well, they’re going to take a look at the site and its tone, judge the BBC by the calibre of its enemies and run straight back to Auntie apologizing for having ever doubted it.
So that’s 2-1 to the BBC. One easy one for both sides, and then an own goal by B-BBC.
Ironically, B-BBC writes about ‘Palin Derangement Syndrome’, which can be a valid criticism on occasion, but is suffering from chronic ‘BBC Derangement Syndrome’. Every report must be a result of bias, all bias must be a result of a conspiracy to bring the country to its knees and introduce Sharia Eco-Socialism.
Now, this comment isn’t going to change anything, but if one day you start to wonder why this site never achieves any actual ‘scalps’, or wider recognition, it could be taken as a theory. One among many, obviously. Can’t be biased about it, can we?
…..trouser,
In some ways you’re right, we are doing what you say.
I plead guilty to some of your accusations. I do keep going on and on, seemingly achieving nothing. Reading this site does make you suspicious of everything you see on the BBC, and as you say, some of us do drape the handkerchief of bias over our personal prejudices.
Some of our personal prejudices are worth listening to though.
I think you weaken your point by exaggerating, viz:”…….some fundamental bias in the BBC (which happens to manifest itself in not wholeheartedly matching their viewpoint on a divisive subject)”
Ditch the ‘wholeheartedly’ and you might have a stronger argument.
I really wish I believed the group that ‘looks for a website to discuss things that seem off balance’ were in the middle ground, because I fear they are in the minority, most of them an already enlightened minority.
The BBC is an established, permanent, immovable object. It’s so complacent that it can bat away criticism with an a vague ineffectual swipe and carry on regardless. We buzz away in the background. If once in a while we cause slight irritation we’re brushed off without further ado, or swatted by the Trust.
Anyone who continually complains about the same issue is marginalised as being from ‘the right wing’ or from ‘a lobby.’
It’s the Catch 22 situation. You have to prove you’re mad to get out, (of the army) but wanting to get out proves you aren’t mad.
Or in this case, if someone is familiar with a subject their opinion is worthless because they’re bound to have a vested interest. You have to know a subject to spot the bias, but if it contradicts the BBC’s accepted consensus this disqualifies you from being thought impartial or reasonable..
I for one always prefer debate. A couple of years ago when I joined the site there was much more of that on B-BBC.
Sue – thanks for looking at my points and responding to them.
You do make a good point about people getting associated with one issue and then it just being ignored as ‘that’s what they do’. I’m not sure what the best way to deal with that is.
On the debate front, perhaps if there wasn’t quite such a general rush in the comments to condemn any contrary viewpoint as being that of a lefty Beeboid, the site might start to attract more of the second and third groups, which could only be good for everyone.
Yes I agree with that. But it works both ways. Accusations of racism don’t help. There needs to be some give and take.
I like debating with dissenting voices and I bellieve they enrich the site and in the long run help the cause.
“In other words you [Derooftrouser] are ONLY anti-Muslim [opposed to the tenets of the Muslim religion] when it is intolerant, sexist, and homophobic.
Of course the Muslim religion IS (which you know full well) [deny it if you dare]) intolerant, sexist, and homophobic [if a new religion called the “British Middle Class Blue Congregational Church” was set up with exactly the same practices and beliefs (except praying to Tonbridge Wells) you would denounce it as intolerant, sexist, and homophobic] and so that makes you anti-Muslim doesn’t it.”
The sole grounds for this difference in treatment (it would appear) is that you believe that people who have a brown skin ought to be held to different (lower) standards from the (presumably superior) white race.
You then denounce this site on the grounds that it is anti-Muslim and racist. Spot the flaw in your argument.
Wild – I watched Inception this morning and had no problem with the plot. The structure of your comment, however…
To clarify: I am against the opression of the freedom of people to do whatever they want (as long as it doesn’t affect others against their will). I don’t think that any creed or organisation has a monoploy on this, nor do I think that it is a fundamental to any of them.
You’re the one categorically stating that all Muslims are ‘intolerant, sexist, and homophobic’. I disagree. I also disagree that all Muslims are ‘brown’, but this gives a handy indicator to where you’re coming from.
If your Tunbridge Wells church set up, I would condem it. If somebody claiming to represent Islam espoused the same views, I would condem them. This would be because of the views they hold, with which I disagree. The wrapper they put them in is immaterial.
Derooftrousers is a good example of the mindset of many BBC employees. He (evidently) struggles to comprehend anything outside the closed universe of his Leftist prejudices, even though they are intellectually incoherent.
So, for example, he says that it is wrong to be sexist and homophobic, but he thinks it is wrong to be opposed to Islam!
He supports a free society, but any thought or deed that offends his Leftist assumptions is beyond the pale. In short you can say or do anything you like, just so long as you have his political approval. Being on the Right politically ipso facto undermines any criticism that you might have of the BBC.
Notice how quickly he accuses me of racism when I draw attention to his racist double standards. He has a postage stamp sized knowledge of Islam, and yet, in accordance with the principles of his Leftist universe he is keen to give out certificates of correct thinking about Islam.
If this ignorant Leftist jerk is the only answer the BBC has to criticisms of its political bias this speaks volumes. He is probably a BBC employee.
Hear hear and well said.
Wild – I’m sorry that I can’t get you to appreciate the distinction I’m making between (1) condemning people who want to restrict the freedoms of others and (2) automatically condemning one group that you believe invariably do so.
I believe in (1) as it leads to a more free society. I do not believe in (2) as it leads to the opposite.
I must, however, thank you for reminding me that anyone who disputes B-BBC’s way of dealing with perceived bias will end up being accused of being a BBC stooge or employee. Note that I haven’t actually given my thoughts on any bias, just B-BBC’s methodology. For the record, I don’t work for the BBC, or in broadcasting. I work in the evil, evil bonus-pits of finance, which would make me just about the worst Marxist ever.
Derooftrouser, if you deny that the Muslim religion is intolerant, sexist, and homophobic, all this tells us is that you know nothing about the Muslim religion, in which case you should stop telling people what they should think about it.
You declared that to assume that the BBC is biased to the Left is to undermine the credibility of any criticism. This tells us more than enough about your political assumptions.
I suggested that your knee-jerk Leftism suggested the possibility that you work for the BBC. You make it clear that you have no such excuse. Fair enough.
Yes trouser, there is always a danger in over-generalising. I think you’d be able to identify it better here if you took the beam out of your eye.
That Black article is huge. Surely a complete waste of time ?
Why doesn’t Black sepnd a bit more time studying and writing about global warming ? ALL aspects of the debate ?
Black lets his bias get the best of him when, after Branson is quoted saying this:
“We’ve been helping to try and preserve lemurs, and sadly in Madagascar because of the government being overthrown the space for lemurs is getting less and less,” Sir Richard told BBC News from his Caribbean property.
“Here on Moskito Island we’ve got a beautiful rainforest – we brought in experts from South Africa, and they say it would be an absolutely perfect place where lemurs can be protected and breed.”
….a bit further down Black says this:
Sir Richard’s motivation for wanting to introduce the animals is not entirely clear.
Black is calling him a liar, but provides nothing to support this position. All he does is say, “Well, it’s not for the money, so I’m stumped. But I know he’s lying somehow.” Branson makes his reasons perfectly clear, unless one is just biased against him.
Just before this, Black spins the way Branson responded to the concerns about impact on local species.
Sir Richard told BBC News that an environmental impact assessment had been carried out for Moskito Island; but critics in the BVI said it did not include evaluation of “introduced exotic species”.
It didn’t? So the assessment was about the environmental impact of what, exactly? Introduced native species? This makes no sense, other than to suggest that Branson is lying, again with no substantiation provided.
A poor hit piece, revealing Black’s personal bias.