Biased BBC reader Alan asks the question; “Why is Robert Peston so successful?”
In the Sunday Times Peston says he is setting up an organisation to provide inspirational speakers to schools…great thinkers from the worlds of business, politics, sports and journalism amongst others.
He is annoyed that it is public schools such as Eton that seem to get the most speakers….’To my amazement these incredibly confident kids implied that they were doing me a favour by inviting me (to speak)….they took it for granted that the most interesting and brainy people (er like himself?) would talk to them.’
Peston has created ‘Speakers for Schools’ to get more speakers into state schools….oh and with the evil Tories putting up the price of further education and mass unemployment this is ‘more important than ever.’
Seems a harmless enough story with a well meaning Peston……only who decides who the speakers are….do they have to be ‘on message’….and what is that message….say for example on climate change?
Consider how many other organisations the BBC is closely involved with which push a message.
The CMEP (Cambridge Media Environment Programme) co-run by Roger Harrabin or the Science Media Centre….also part run by BBC staff….or Futerra or the New Economics Foundation…or indeed the
UEA and the Tyndall Research Centre.
Organisations that aim to channel information to other media organisations, politicians and businesses about climate change and its presentation. They seek to become the main sources for that information.
Is that really OK or slightly sinister? If the main source for information about climate change comes from a pro climate change body that can hardly be good. The BBC is in effect taking control of not only its own output and what appears in it about climate change but is also able to control and influence what other media organisations and politicians broadcast or decide.
Here is what the BBC’s favourite ‘communications agency’, Futerra, tells then about presentation:
‘Forget the climate change detractors. Those who deny climate change science are irritating, but
unimportant. The argument is not about if we should deal with climate change, but how we should deal with climate change. Create a trusted, credible, recognised voice on climate change. We need trusted organisations and individuals that the media can call upon to explain the implications of climate change to the
The BBC does block dissenting voices…especially ones that are popular and credible…such as David Bellamy….but is happy to have David Attenborough promote AGW.
The BBC has decided the issues surrounding climate change are no longer in doubt….it is merely a matter of presentation. The problem is that the public, the vast majority of which do not believe in AGW, are ‘sceptical’ because they are too stupid, ignorant and confused as Harrabin helpfully points out…..
‘Private Virtue, Public Good
Published 15 May 2006
Facing up to climate change is often framed by government as an issue of personal responsibility. What if the public rejects this view, asks Roger Harrabin Who should take action to stop climate change – the government or the public? What if we took public opinion at face value? What if people are genuinely confused by the baffling notion that emissions from their central heating may be contributing to the drought in East Africa? So as No 10 longs for public consensus on climate change and detects signs of growing voter concern, public ignorance and confusion still abound. And there is no sign that the scientific debate is about to stop. This is not an equation we can expect the public to master on its own.’
What other organisations does the BBC run to promote its political and social ends? Its ‘Real world Brainstorm’ conferences in which it aims to get other organisations to work together with a certain ‘vision’?
Of course there is John Humphrys and his part ownership of the polling company ‘YouGuv’….who knows what other activities BBC employees get up to when not doing the day job. And not forgetting the World Service which openly admits it aims to influence politics and societies.
Somewhat beyond the remit of informing, educating and entertaining us.”