Journalistic Double Standards at the BBC Due to Ideology

As everyone here knows by now – but people who rely on the BBC for their information will not – the US Justice Department has collaborated with the Norfolk Constabulary and Metropolitan Police to seize computers and a router from UK citizen Roger Tattersall, who runs the truth-seeking blog Tallbloke’s Talkshop, under the moniker, “Tallbloke”. Tattersall is one of a handful of climate truth-seekers* who had a link to the ClimateGate2 emails posted by a third party on their blogs.

The BBC defined the first release of ClimateGate emails in 2009 as “stolen” and “hacked”. Even though they didn’t actually know what happened. As part of the investigation into what the BBC has described as the stolen emails, the UK authorities asked the US Justice Dept. to instruct WordPress, where Climate Audit is hosted, to hand over all blog records during the days leading up to “FOIA” posting a link to the emails. Tallbloke has posted the legal notice on his blog.

So far, there has been utter silence from the BBC. This is not exactly like WikiHacks abetting Pvt. Bradley Manning’s illegal acquisition – honest people would call it theft – of all that Dept. of Defense data, which was subsequently published by St. Julian Assange and his crew.  In Manning’s case, he was arrested for actually stealing the data, and Assange has been indicted for knowingly receiving stolen goods and publishing it. Even today, the BBC defines that data instead as “leaked:”. The double standard is clear. It’s an editorial choice, driven by the biases of the BBC staff involved. Anyone doing a search of “Manning” and “leaked” on the BBC website will see loads of evidence. The opposite is true for ClimateGate.

Tattersall has not stolen anything, has not published anything, and was not responsible for “FOIA” posting a link to it on his blog. All he did was report that it had happened, and report on the emails after he saw them. Just like the BBC did with the documents Manning stole and Assange published. Today, as it happens, St. Julian has gotten a break in his appeal against being extradited to Sweden, and the BBC is all over it, making sure everyone still has hope for this heroic figure. At the same time, Manning is back in the news because his pre-trial hearing is starting.  As I write this, the BBC News Channel just referred to his act as “leaking”. It now seems to be enshrined in the BBC style guide.

Now Mark Mardell is asking if Manning is a hero or a villain.We know that certain Beeboids think Assange is one.

Pte Manning is the intelligence analyst who US authorities suspect of being behind the hugely embarrassing Wikileaks releases. He was arrested in Iraq last May for illegally downloading material from America’s secret internet network.

Mardell admits it was illegal, which is refreshing. Notice, though, the pathetic editorializing of referring to Defense Dept. classified documents as “America’s secret internet”.

To some he is a hero, to others a villain.

Many in America will feel, if he is guilty, it is quite clear that he is a traitor who has broken his vows to his country and deserves harsh punishment. Some have even said what he and Wikileaks have done amounts to terrorism.

The defence may choose to paint a picture of a disturbed young man, sensitive and gay adrift in a macho culture. They are likely to bring up allegations that he has been subjected to deliberately punitive detention in a military brig.

Get out the tiny violins, folks. None of this justifies breaking the law in any situation. It’s especially ridiculous to use “punitive detention” as an excuse for something he’s already done. But never mind that. The fact that Mardell and the BBC are happy to give voice to those who declare Manning – and by extension, Assange – a hero.  Can someone show me a single example of the BBC giving the same time for praise of a single climate truth-seeker or someone who says we have a right to see the UEA and other climate scientists’ data, as well as their work?

No, of course there isn’t any. The BBC Trust even declared that they don’t have to give time to those voices. And they got a Warmist to do a report saying they need to be even more biased. To the BBC, releasing the ClimateGate emails was wrong, and harmful, and we have no right to see any of it.

Again as I write this, the BBC is giving air time to someone declaring Manning as a hero, a champion for justice and the US Constitution. Another Beeboid in the US got the quote, and has made a separate report saying the exact same thing Mardell did.

Here’s Mardell again on Manning:

But it will be interesting if they put the main point of his many supporters – that what Manning did transcends legal rules and national interests, that information wants to be free, and that truth is more important than government’s desire to keep something secret.

Behind this is a specific allegation – that orders to Manning were illegal.

And there you have the BBC’s Narrative as well. Mardell is at the trial today, and has reported from there for the BBC News Channel as it gets underway. He repeated what he said in his blog, that the defense is that no damage was done by publishing the documents. Funny how that’s exactly the line ex-Beeboid and now Democrat strategist, Katie Connolly, tried to push a year ago. Manning wouldn’t have done this without knowing that Assange would publish it. What the BBC never told you is that Assange’s stated goal is to harm US interests. So it doesn’t matter whether or not any harm was done. An attempted crime is still an illegal act. Mardell knows this – he reads the Washington Post – but curiously leaves that out of his anaylsis. Only one side is given: Manning’s.

Manning and Assange are in the news, and the BBC sees no parallel between their cases and what has happened to Tattersall, someone who has neither stolen, nor published, nor abetted anyone doing either, emails which are not classified.

So where is the BBC reporting on the legal action taken against a UK citizen for being tangentially involved in the publishing of emails from the climate scientists? This is the top level of US government helping to seize personal property from a UK citizen for something someone else did, and over which he had no control. Nobody could have prevented “FOIA” from posting a link on their blog. It’s intimidation at best, oppression at worst. Where’s Rory Cellan-Jones on this? He’s all about freedom of publishing whatever one likes when it’s a paedophile handbook. One would have thought that the Beeboids who were so angry about the emails being published would be eager to jump on someone connected to it. Yet they haven’t made a sound.  Don’t want to give any more air time to “opponents of the consensus”, I guess, as reporting on it would open up discussion about what happened, and the fact that there is evidence of fraud contained within.

A clear double-standard of reporting on the publishing of non-public emails. It’s all driven by the personal ideology of BBC employees. They support St. Julian, so sanitize his publication of classified documents. They support Warmism, so demonize the publication of their emails. This latest round of releases sure hasn’t gotten much play by the BBC. They made a big deal about the arrest of Pvt. Manning for actually stealing classified documents, but are completely silent when international authorities collude to seize private property, as well as server records, of someone who did absolutely nothing, and was only a spectator of an act which may not even be illegal. I understand that there’s so much big news to report today that there isn’t time to do a main report on it.  But why isn’t this worth even the tiniest of news briefs on the website?

When will the BBC start honestly reporting about what’s been going on? If anything, Tallbloke and whoever “FOIA” is are the real heroes. They’re seeking the truth, and informing us all about real law breaking, real collusion to produce agenda-driven data with which to influence governments. They’re seeking truth about the data the UN and all of our respective sovereign governments are using to oppress us, to reduce us, and to control our behavior. The BBC abets this, and tries instead to demonize or suppress information to the contrary.  If it ultimately turns out that these truth-seekers are wrong, that still doesn’t make them criminals for seeking the truth. Yet that’s not how they’re treated by the BBC, in stark contrast to how they treat an actual criminal, and a man who has openly stated his desire to harm US interests.

UPDATE: Now I know why the US Government is involved. One key revelation in the ClimageGate2 emails is that the US Dept. of Energy was colluding with Phil Jones to hide data that harmed the cause, and would give fodder to truth-seekers. The same Dept. of Energy which has thrown $4.7 billion down the Green Energy toilet to Obamessiah moneymen was funding some of Jones’ research. It just gets worse and worse, doesn’t it?

* I refuse to use the term “climate skeptic”, as once one starts using one’s opponents terms, the argument has already been lost. From now on, I’m going to use the term “climate truth-seeker” or similar.

Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Journalistic Double Standards at the BBC Due to Ideology

  1. john in cheshire says:

    David, how about ‘climate realist’?


  2. DJ says:

    And let me be the first to state the obvious: at least Climategate doesn’t have a body count. Brad’s little tantrum? Well….

    (but is there any connection between that BBC and the other BBC, the one that refuses to report on the grooming of girls by a certain mysterious demographic becuase it would supposedly encourage extremism?)


    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      Manning had nothing to do with that. That was purely St. Julian gloating about his own handiwork.


  3. London Calling says:

    Welcome to Great Britain, 2011, hurtling backwards to the Soviet Union of the 1950s, to East Germany in the days of the Stasi. the knock on the door, the Secret Police, the Thought Police. Are you now or have you ever been doubtful about the scientific consensus behind Man Made Global Warming? Do you know anyone who is? Give us their names, we only want to help them. David Cameron loves you.


  4. Natsman says:

    Posted this on Delingpole’s blog earlier

    “You are charged that, on divers dates in the privacy of your own home, you did vocally or by means of the use of a keyboard did express an opinion or opinions contrary to the “Unauthorised Expression of Opinions Act”, 2011, as amended, and in the persuance of this activity, did cause person or persons unknown to become aware of the content of certain incriminating E mails, contrary to the “Spilling the Beans Act”, 2009.  Also, by virtue of the aforementioned expression of an opinion, or opinions, did cause most of the global population to become alarmed at the prospect of needlessly high energy bills due largely to the alleged habits of a harmless trace gas, contrary to the “Science is Settled Act” (vide Al Gore et al), 2006.”


  5. Martin says:

    Roger Harrabin was picked up on Radio 5 for stating the emails were ‘stolen’ the first time around. Can’t remember who it was but he spouted in out as if under orders and the other person in the studio had a go at Harrabin, who then had to retract the ‘stolen’ claim.


  6. Jeremy Clarke says:

    Everyone, man-made climate-change believer and heretic alike, should be deeply, deeply concerned at this story. Assuming Tallbloke’s account is true (and there is no reason to disbelieve him), this is an astonishingly heavy-handed, authoritarian response to the theft/leaking/hacking of a few bloody emails. 

    ‘Climategate’ was not a terrorist plot; people’s lives were not threatened, nor was national security put at risk.

    It is an absolutely appalling misuse of power – rather like using a sledgehammer to crush a strawberry.


    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      Exactly. And it’s an international misuse of power. Driven by ideology which the BBC supports at your expense.


  7. Phil says:

    ‘It’s an editorial choice, driven by the biases of the BBC staff involved.’


    The ‘the biases of the BBC staff involved’ mean no choice was involved.


  8. John Horne Tooke says:

    This is scary stuff. What are the authorities afarid of? The politicians across the globe are still using AGW to hike energy bills and taxes even after the emails etc have been in circulation for 2 years. All the data is supposed to be public.  I expect the emails that have not beem released m ust contain even more damming evidence of fraud by “important” people.

    I wonder how many people will now be convinced that the whole “theory” is a political con trick by the heavy handed way the authorities have tried to silence their critics.  This is not trivial.

    “So, now the long knives are coming out. The leftists, the ruling class, the environmentalists pinned all of their hopes on Global Warming, and these leaked e-mails are finishing it. We are now seeing acts of desperation.”

    Read more:


  9. Martin says:

    It just backs up what I said previous that if you take CERN and their experiments over both the Higgs particle AND the Neutrino experiment both of which have got scientists disagreeing, they put the data out there for others ot review and interpret.  
    That is how real science works, how these climate change muppets think that hiding thier data away or how they come to this conclusion is beyond me.  
    “Here is our graph showing the world is warming”  
    “Um can we see the data and how you got to those conclusions please?”  
    “We’d just like to take a look at the data and the assumptions please”  
    The above is so called climate change science in a nutshell.


  10. 1327 says:

    My guess would be that the Police are coming under heavy political pressure to do “something” anything in fact hence the incredibly stupid raid on Tallblokes house.

    I have always thought that the Climategate emails aren’t so much stolen as leaked. They were probably created by UEA in response to an FOIA request. However someone high in the food chain at that institution was embarassed at what was about to emerge and put pressure on to stop it. However lots of copies had already been made.