Katabasis has been doing some excellent genuine research about BBC journalism. Using the churnalism search engine – which correlates journalistic content on the MSM to press releases – he has found that, despite the £1bn a year it costs to keep BBC news in business, the boys and girls at the corporation are a tad lazy when it comes to originaility. Put bluntly, they are dab hands at cut and paste jobbies. Not only that, they do it twice as much as any other media outlet. And surprise, surprise, they just love using material from prime eco fascist sources. Katabasis notes:
– The BBC is by far and away the worst offender for simply repeating whatever the Environment Agency claimed in its press releases.Out of the 393 articles where “significant” churn had taken place, the BBC were responsible for 44%. Likewise for the 49 articles that had “major” churn (meaning in most cases they were almost complete cut and pastes of the press releases), the BBC was responsible for 30.6%.
Put another way, the BBC is the world leader in recycling press releases from the most climate alarmist arm of government, because that’s what the EA is. Of course, it’s run by that Blairite, nice Baron Smith of Finsbury, so in the BBC mindset, what’s on offer must be true. The good baron’s framework of eco fascism, which the BBC so slavishly follows, is here.
The latest Climategate emails map out the inecestuous relationships that BBC correspondents have with the climate change “academics” who laid the foundations of and are perpetuating the climate change frenzy. The research by Katabasis shows brilliantly that, without doubt, BBC journalists are straining their sinews to peddle indiscriminately their wares. They don’t give a stuff about its veracity: all that matters is the alarmism.
Is there a search engine for cutting and pasting from Wikipedia? I’ll bet the BBC are world leaders in that, too.
“nice gay Baron Smith of Finsbury”
Is that a typo, or did you intend to refer to his sexuality? I realise that it’s another ticked box for the BBC, but it’s not really relevant to the eco-facism and will simply derail this thread unnecessarily.
Oooh! Stealth edit. How very BBC of you….
@deegee – you can use the churnalism engine to run such a test; it should detect any significant cuts and pastes from wikipedia.
Thanks for the link Robin.
After seeing a couple of comments here I also decided to give ‘Frack Off’ the treatment too. The BBC isn’t in the frame this time, but the Guardian is. Results are here:
http://i-squared.blogspot.com/2011/11/churnalism-churning-frack-off.html
You get the impression that these BBC “reporters” have brought these lazy practices (plagiarism) from University.
Sure, they might have a nothing degree and don’t know how to behave differently, but why do they never cut and paste reports onto the BBC coming from the Centre or the Right ?
From New Scientist:
CO2 may not warm the planet as much as thought
The climate may be less sensitive to carbon dioxide than we thought – and temperature rises this century could be smaller than expected. That’s the surprise result of a new analysis of the last ice age. However, the finding comes from considering just one climate model, and unless it can be replicated using other models, researchers are dubious that it is genuine.
Oh, now they’re skpetical? Why haven’t they been equally cautious about other model results which haven’t been reproduced? New Scientist is a solid mag, been reading it for years, but they’ve trended Warmist for the last few. At least they’re finally giving time to denialist voices.
Well if you use the almost pure CO2 Atmosphere of Mars as a proxy as Ferenc Miskolczi has done, then the warming due to CO2 in the last century was 0.1 Kelvin. The Greenhouse Effect on Earth of 33 Kelvin is calculated using Maths such as
Arrhenius and Stefan–Boltzmann and Miskolczi has used this to calculate it to be 3 Kelvin on Mars. This direct use of the old fashioned scientific method has also been used by David Archibald and confirmed this result. Computer Model predictions are only as good as the program and the data that is inputted, which is why the results are almost always bullshit, but bullshit that you have to wait at least ten years before you find out that the prediction is bullshit.
The Environment Agency have a veritable fleet of “communications” people (over 100 and maybe as many as 150….) and I do wonder about cross pollination with the BBC – it’s a cozy relationship like that between between the Guardian and the BBC. I looked and founf the EA’s climate change people hob-nobbing with the Tyndale Centre too… and only too happy to play up the imagined risks from fracking to extend their operations – so a hi-viz jacketed EA clipboard waver must be present at all places where the process is used.
Looking at the qualifications of people the BBC chooses to talk about Climate Change, you find that they are mostly qualified in the arts and humanities, even the scientists chosen to present documentaries are either geneticists or geologists. The idea of the BBC bypassing the Environment Agency by talking to the Professor of Atmospheric Physics at Oxford University live on television about the calibration of carbon dioxide warming of the atmosphere is not something that would be possible on the BBC. As a Mensa member I do not think intelligent people are in control at the BBC. The people in control of the BBC seem to vote the same way as the morons in the inner city shit holes, and therefore must also be morons.