It turns out that the Television Trust for the Environment – the BBC greenie programmes supplier whose problems I noted here – derives half its income, more than £500k, from the EU, and effectively gives its programmes away; last year it made less than £50,000 from sales. In effect, therefore, it is a propaganda arm of the EU. Not without coincidence, I suspect, its website was mysteriously taken down on the same day, October 24,that FBC Media – the other company named in the BBC report about conflicts of interest – went into administration. Bishop Hill has done sterling work in digging out the 2010 annual reports for TVE and its commerical arm that makes programmes. These show that the trustees were increasingly worried about income (the vast majority of which is through donations) and fairly drastic measures had been introduced to cut costs. This could explain the sudden departure of the website. The combination of cash problems with a sudden withdrawal of its shop window (the BBC) could have forced the trustees to take terminal fright.
What the figures reveal is the extent of conflict of interest that the funding of TVE created. The BBC relied for a major plank of its environmental programmes from an organisation that effectively was being paid for by the EU (£500K), the UN (£245K) (through a variety of its agencies), along with Oxfam, the Swedish and German governments, a couple of greenie trusts and the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists – a total misnomer in that they are actually camapaigning green fanatics. Every element of this financing is from organisations that want unfettered greenie propaganda; TVE and the BBC were dutifully compliant.
Put another way, the EU and the UN have effectively bought airtime on the BBC, but their strident propaganda has been disguised as “independent” film-making. What is astonishing about the BBC’s role in this is that TVE’s funding is not secret, annual reports have been published for years. So why have the BBC trustees not realised this huge clash of interest before now? That’s because they are so much in bed with the climate change lobby, including the UN and the EU, and so much convinced that the science is “settled” that they are blind.
Update: The Mail on Sunday article by David Rose yesterday in which he detailed TVE’s activities, and revealed how Roger Harrabin had apparently received grants from the UEA, has been mysteriously pulled. Is he (or any other parties involved) taking legal action? I wait with bated breath! In the meantime, if you haven’t already done so, take a look at this contribution from Harmless Sky. Masterful.
***This has appeared at the end of the wiki TVE entry over the past couple of days – it was definitely not there Friday:
tve’s website is currently under reconstruction. Two tve programmes were included in a BBC Trust report into “sponsored programming”[6], and were found to be editorially impartial, complying with BBC Production Guidelines. One programme on eradicating the killer global cattle disease rinderpest was deemed to have a conflict of interest with the sponsor. The second programme was only found to have inadequately clear credits.
‘Put another way, the EU and the UN have effectively bought airtime on the BBC, but their strident propaganda has been disguised as “independent” film-making.’
By way of balance, I would invite any with another way of putting it to contribute, beyond spelling corrections or digging up stealth edit admissions on Ceebeebies as evidence of national broadcast coverage.
Ms. Boaden, for instance, might kick it off on how that tallies with the whole genetic impartiality meme.
Because she got it about right, that’s how. That’s all the explanation the plebs need.
Because the very first thing the BBC did was to neuter and control the BBC trust, in effect the BBC oversight consists of BBC insiders turning a blind eye to BBC criminality. What this means is the BBC makes up the rules as it goes along, its behaviour is not regulated, rules are made to be broken with impunity. Bit like the EU then eh? Beeboids looking after beboids, the NUJ dutifully keeping damaging news from the headlines, squashing investigative journalism.
How we can be expected to use the words “BBC” and “trust” in juxtaposition defeats me.
The BBC are institutionally corrupt, biased and are zealots for the new Marxist cause of mitigating climate change through Marxism.
They are STILL at it, they can’t give up, because they are desperate not to be found for the liars they are.”No let up in greenhouse gas rise””Concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere rose to yet another high in 2010, according to the UN’s weather agency.
Levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) – the major contributor to climate change – rose by 2.3 parts per million between 2009 and 2010.” (my emphasis)
Yet funnily enough it hasn’t caused the planet to warm. I wonder why that would be? Perhaps because the level of Carbon Dioxide has everything to do with the level of human economic activity, and nothing to do with climate.
These bast*rds make you want to scream.
“(CO2)..the major contributor to climate change”
Where do they get this gem from? If we accept the theory that “greenhouse” gasses take a major role in climate change, then H2O would be the major contributor. Or are the BBc arguing that only CO2 is a “greenhouse” gas?
As usual with the BBC it is science dumbed down to its lowest level and then twisted.
The BBC and its trustees aren’t blind.
They just have the typical public sector mentality. They assume that everything they do is good because it is done with public money and they are caring and clever public sector people.
This bizarre mindset explains not only why they make or show programmes on behalf of organisations they agree with, but also how they convince themselves that rubbish like Eastenders, Casualty and Radio 1 constitute public service braodcasting.
Here it is in black and white, the criminality of the BBC, here we have signs of the cover up and the denial. The BBC has lost sight of what constitutes decent behaviour, run wild after controls were sabotaged. Here we have the end result of the ends justifies the means interpreted by perverted ideologues and bigots.
Monday, November 21, 2011
Another heavy-duty coverup
These coverups are a work of desperation. Warmists must know that coverups show them in an extremely bad light. Below is a brief comment by Bishop Hill on some Warmist corruption by the BBC and Cambridge university. You can read the University’s desperate attempts to keep the matter under wraps here. They were even willing to break the law if they could get away with it.
Even curiouser is that the Daily Mail article His Grace refers to seems now to have been pulled — doubtless after threats of legal action. They acted too late however. Copies of the article are all over the blogosphere. For reader convenience I reproduce it immediately below His Grace’s comment. I downloaded it direct from the DM within hours of its being published
David Rose at the Mail on Sunday has a long article about the Cambridge Media and Environment Programme, the seminars set up by Roger Harrabin and Joe Smith to inform BBC editorial policy. I get a mention
[Joe Smith’s] opinion, which he sets out on his website, is that ‘everyday human activity – moving, eating, keeping warm or cool – is gently stoking a slow-boil apocalypse’. He calls climate change ‘one of the challenges of the age’ and urges the world to take radical action. A Freedom of Information Act disclosure obtained by Andrew Montford, who writes the climate-change blog Bishop Hill, reveals that the Tyndall Centre provided £5,000 a year for three years from 2002.
The BBC has given Rose a response to the article as follows:
‘The BBC is aware of the funding arrangements for the Real World seminars. They have been considered against our editorial guidelines and raised no issues about impartiality for the BBC or its output.
When you think about it, this is pretty amazing.
BBC editorial policy can be decided by a bunch of environmentalists sitting round a table with senior BBC decision-makers and this raises no issues about impartiality?
UEA can fund the private activity of a BBC journalist and this raises no issues about impartiality either?
Extraordinary.
SOURCE
Oh and BTW, the article was in all likelihood pulled by the NUJ.
Cassandra
The BBC do not see the point in being ‘impartial’ on this issue at all as they have already decided that they are justified in taking the AGW high ground to ensure their message is rammed home to a generally ill-informed public.
As the BBC only take the view of the Royal Society, WWF, Greenpeace and the Guardian and give them 100% impartiality ‘weighting’ there is no room for dissent/impartiality at all. So in their blinkered little one track minds they have done the impartiality calculations ages ago and ‘realists’ lose 100-0.
Any show of impartiality would be a show of weakness or doubt and that would never do.
Even the IPCC themselves are now beginning to show signs of backing down on the hot climate hysteria message, as the models don’t work, (to be replaced by ‘weather disruption’, so what’s new ?) however, this attitude has not yet filtered down to the EU/UN/NGO propaganda machine as they just don’t ‘get it’ – yet.
During the complaint from the Space Special Interest Group of Mensa we where astounded to find that the BBC is more biased than the Royal Society and even the IPCC.
The BBC which claims to be impartial says the AGW Theory is a “Fact”. The Royal Society says “uncertainty”, even the IPCC recognises it cannot call assumptions facts, by only saying “likely”. The BBC also does not want you to know about the Kiwigate and Judithgate scandals. Judithgate was a scandal in Astronomy when it was found that the IPCC produced a faked consensus that the Sun was not a key player in climate change, and all from one single scientific paper, Astrophysicists Doug Hoyt and Richard C. Willson, the satellite experts behind the collection of the original data found that the scientists who produced the paper had fraudulently manipulated their data.
From the harlesssky blog:
UPDATE 21/11/2011 12:45: Andrew Montford informs me that David Rose’s article in the Sunday Mail about CMEP has been taken down from their website because of a complaint from Roger Harrabin.
The resident BBC climate crook doesnt like us to know that he has his fingers in the till, that his stories are spoon fed to him while he takes cash.
Turn over the stone and the creepy crawlies dive for cover, pure pond life.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2063737/BBCs-Mr-Climate-Change-accepted-15-000-grants-university-rocked-global-warning-scandal.html
I have checked the link to David Roses piece in the Mail from Harmless Sky and it works OK. It is the same link as above. Is this the piece that was “pulled”?
It’s correct that this particular webpage was down during the day, and has been restored again now.
Christopher Booker at The Telegraph also has an excellent piece on the subject
The BBC’s hidden ‘warmist’ agenda is rapidly unravelling
Does this mean that the Mail checked its facts and found them to be correct?
I just pasted this a few posts back regarding the short clip about “global warming”. It is an hour long, but I suggest everybody watches it…and then sent to the BBC.
James Delingpole exposes more of the politics of climate:
“Uh oh, global warming loons: here comes Climategate II!”
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100119087/uh-oh-global-warming-loons-here-comes-climategate-ii/
‘Climate Science’ has picked up on this too:
“BBC CLIMATE ‘EXPERT’ IN FUNDING CONTROVERSY
This article in the Mail-on-Sunday looks at the details of how Roger Harrabin accepted payments from a climate alarmist pressure group which was used to fund seminars at the BBC. The article also mentions other clear conflicts of interest at the BBC in respect of programmes on climate change where substantial funding comes from similar groups. Clearly money buys influence and many, if not all big businesses are in on it.”
An interesting email from the climategate2 dossier (h/t Nullius in Verba at Bishop Hill):
3757.txt
Joe Smith @ OU to Mike Hulme @ UEA
Dear Mike
We are writing to some alumni of the University of Cambridge Media and Environment seminars gathering ideas for the BBC’s coverage of the Rio+10 Earth Summit in a year’s time. Before the Rio summit, the BBC held the One World festival, which included some memorable broadcasting – particularly a feature drama on refugees. Some broadcasting is already in the pipeline that will relate to the themes of Rio+ 10, but this is an open opportunity for you to put forward ideas that will be collated and circulated amongst relevant BBC decision-makers.
* What should the BBC be doing this time in terms of news, current affairs, drama, documentaries, game shows, music etc?
* How can the BBC convey the theme of sustainable development to viewers and listeners who have probably seen all the issues raised before?
* Is there any scope for a global broadcasting initiative?
* What are the strongest themes and specific issues that should appear in the media in the months and years following the conference?
If you have thoughts, please send your reply both to this email and copy to harrabin1@aol.com. We will also draw on the information gathered in planning a new three year programme of media seminars.
Best wishes
Joe and Roger
Joe Smith and Roger Harrabin
University of Cambridge Media and Environment Programme