Monthly Archives: July 2011

The Steve Jones report, excellently analysed here by James Delingpole, is nothing more than a licence from the eco-loons who run the BBC to allow its reporters to continue their torrent of climate change lies. What’s happened is an immediate ratcheting up of the invective, and the unrestrained use of warmist so-called “consensus” to back it up. Here, for example, as a taster of what’s in store, Richard Black invokes lefty “comedian” Bill Maher (a natural favourite of the corporation)as part of the evidence to show that the nasty, ignorant US population are idiots for being doubtful about climate change, that the current heatwaves in the US are the result of out of control “feedback loops” in escalating warming, and the Arctic ice is melting. Where have I heard that before…? Oh, yes, here. And then as a platform for the main political point – to argue that US use of coal for energy must stop and be replaced by those nice, clean, windfarms.

AS usual, he ignores, cocks a snook at, doesn’t give a fig about, balancing information such as this, which shows that such heatwaves are not unprecedented or unusual in America, and that deaths from cold weather far outweigh those from heat.

It’s a textbook example of what – as I said in my previous posting on the Jones travesty – has been going on at the corporation for years, so what Mr Black is doing here is effectively gloating – and warning that much, much more is in store. For that reason, I don’t see the point in continuing to analyse the output of the BBC. If people think the Corporation is biased, and garner evidence for it, the so-called trustees hire an “expert” who agrees with their worldview and sanction him to pour bile and vitriol on opponents. Then, fingers in ears and in unison, they chant: “We’re right, your are wrong…na,na,na,na, na”. The BBC is now our very own version of the Pravda of old – no more, no less.

I wrote yesterday that the BBC Trustee’s report into science coverage is a travesty. It is worse. Professor Steve Jones says that too much space is given to climate “deniers”. Yet at least five years ago the BBC gave up all pretence at balance in climate reporting. It wrote:

The BBC has held a high level seminar with some of the best scientific experts (on whose and what measurement) and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of consensus.

That was justification for a propaganda mountain, which I have chronicled. Richard Black and his cohorts have been following that approach with relish. Their hated “deniers” are routinely ignored – or if they are mentioned – misrepresented and denigrated. So Professor Jones in his “inquiry” could not even spot what was blatantly obvious and instead unleashed another series of hate lies against those who dare to disagree with the BBC worldview.

The man who sanctioned this travesty is BBC trustee Richard Ayre, who has a pivotal role among the trustees because he is on the Editorial Standards Committee – he is one of only two professional journalists on the body and in charge (on our behalf!) of journalistic integrity.

He’s supposed to be independent, but of course isn’t – for a start, he’s a BBC pensioner (reliant on funds derived from a climate change investment portfolio)- and he worked for the corporation for almost 30 years before taking “early retirement” and going to work for Ofcom, that other arm of so-called regulation that perpetuates liberal-left media bias.

I know Mr Ayre reasonably well from contact with him during the 1990s when when he was controller of editorial policy. He believes without question he is fair minded and balanced, but it’s simply not true. He’s totally infected with the BBC mindset and it’s obvious from the moment he opens his mouth.

External evidence is easy to come by to support this, although Richard himself won’t and can’t see it. First he deliberately flaunts that his partner is the homo-eroticist artist Guy Burch, a militant “humanist” and contributor to the Pink Paper. Not part of the right-wing establishment, then. Second he himself is a highly active member of the Article 19 human rights and press freedom group. Such evocative touchy-feely, conscience touching words!In reality, it’s a worldwide militant force camapigning for…wait for it, climate change activism. Look at this from its website:

People living at risk of climate change or environmental degradation need to understand what is happening and take part in deciding how best to cope. ARTICLE 19 is working to ensure that people are informed and governments are held accountable for their environmental policies.

So let’s get this straight. The man who is jointly in charge of a so-called objective journalistic review into the BBC’s scientific coverage endorsed findings from a so-called independent “expert” (used regularly by the BBC for contributions) who could not even see what the corporation had being doing in terms of partisanship for years, and then went on to have the effrontery to call for overt increased censorship. Not only that, this “trustee” himself is a major supporter – it says so on the BBC trustee website -of an organisation that is camapaigning for…climate change activism.

You couldn’t make it up, could you?

NB – I wrongly stated in earlier versions of this report that Richard Ayre is the sole journalist on the ESC. It’s actually chaired by trustee Alison Hastings, who worked for many years in regional newspapers, and is a former editor of the Evening Chronicle in Newscastle. But that doesn’t alter the main point about Richard Ayre. And Ms Hastings it was who vigorously defended in April a Panorama documentary about the Israeli boarding of the Mavi Marmara as “accurate and impartial” overall. She may once have been a good editor…but BBC arrogance addles even the best of brains.