I’m not sure why BBC correspondents are on Twitter. When I was trained to be one, the emphasis was in ensuring balanced reports that gave all sides of a story. Twitter is deliberately designed to push one-sided opinion. Richard Black, however, has been increasing his carbon footprint over the weekend by visiting Washington and he’s keen to tell us all about his excitement via Twitter.
So far, there’ve been two posts…the first is in support of a blog by Bob Park, a retired US academic, who, over many years has been warning – in greenie militant fashion – of the dangers of the population explosion. In the post liked by Mr Black, he admires the way the Chinese have brought down the birth rate (now how was that achieved, Mr Black?) and then takes a hefty kick at the two front-runner Republican presidential candidates for daring to have five and seven children children respectively. They are compared by Mr Park to the peasants in Afghanistan – unlike the great Obama, who has only two. Mr Black is clearly in ecstasy over the subtlety of the venom.
His second herogram is reserved for the Norwegian foreign minister Jonas Gahr Støre, who has told a meeting of energy executives that there can be absolutely no doubt about climate change. Personally, as a trained BBC correspondent, I reach to check my wallet every time a politician tells me there’s a dead certainty about anything. And the redoubtable Donna Laframbois has a brilliant posting here about the economic gullibility of politicians. But Mr Black clearly doesn’t operate with such complexity. He – rather than going to the trouble of filing a balanced report which might have to deal with inconveniences like verifiable evidence – prefers to nakedly and unashamedly puff the words of the deluded Scandinavian by Twitter.
Since 1935, there have been only sixteen years in which the Labour party has not held the office of the Prime Minister of Norway. It is effectively a one party state and is now in a Red/ Green Alliance.
For its Foreign Minister to announce that he is sceptical of Global Warming is equivalent to purchasing Speedy Boarding Membership of Dignitas and a one way ticket to a Switzerland.
No possible hint of bias there, Mr Black?
once again the old chestnut “climate change”…NOBODY doubts or denies climate change!
“Norwegian official: ‘Absolutely no doubt’ climate change is real”
alternatively and just as logical:
“Norwegian official: ‘Absolutely no doubt’ water is wet
Black is using propoganda
“Vagueness. Generalities are deliberately vague so that the audience may supply its own interpretations. The intention is to move the audience by use of undefined phrases, without analyzing their validity or attempting to determine their reasonableness or application.”
With the term “climate change” Black and his cronies really mean “AGW theory” As Span Ows says, no one is denying climate change.
And by quoting politicians Black is using the well known:
Appeal to Authority propaganda technique. “Appeals to authority cite prominent figures to support a position idea, argument, or course of action.”
Everyone knows that there are many different opinions on how climate changes, yet Black as an activist is not interested in honest reporting. He and his braindead science and environmental corraspondents are not, and have never been honest brokers since Harrabin molded them to his image. To be honest what would a real scientist be doing working for the BBC? Its not what scientists do.
No doubt Black, Harrabin, and Gregory took up their “lazy journalist” positions to save doing some hard work . I know science is hard work because I am a “scientist” (in the BBCs accepted use of the word.) though not a climatologist.
“He stressed that while it is dangerous to deny climate change, it also is dangerous to deny the world’s energy needs.
“I think denial is the worst,” he said, “and it can have a backlash that none of us should live to see.”
I repeat, NOBODY is denying it.
Norway has ceased to be attached to planet RealWorld and maintains only tenuous links with the messy business of really earning a living.
This is supported by huge oil revenues which have , to date, more than adequately covered the malinvestment of the Norwegian body politic.
Even the BBC was wondering about this one.:
“Police in Norway cut in half a traffic fine for a Swedish trucker on the grounds that Swedes earn less than Norwegians, Oslo newspaper VG reports.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16460222
In this blessed state of innocence, cushioned by enormous per capita gas revenues, the process of disappearing into the stratosphere of loopiness is well advanced.
It doesn’t matter to the Norwegians whether AGW is a reality or not.
They love the narrative and the communal guilt trip..and the buzz that they are saving the world.
The state provides everything…social security and health. All paid for by fossil fuels.
No one really has to think up there anymore.
Sixty years ago they were very, very poor in Norway. Then oil and gas. Then lost contact with reality concurrently with the late 60’s counterculture. And have never looked back since.
But they say the right things for our Mr. Black.
Mr Black is up to his usual lazy opaque reporting again. Nobody doubts ‘climate change is real’ as well he knows (the issue is always AGW), but it serves his agenda to muddy the waters and wilfully under-report. The linked story makes for some interesting reading:
“…The crowd – mostly male, lots of suits, strongly representing the energy business – applauded Støre, and lines to greet him formed immediately once he’d finished speaking. In a cramped elevator afterward, one attendee noted to murmured agreement that the climate-change remarks appeared to have struck a nerve.
“It’s the man-made part that I think is a bunch of hogwash,” responded an elegantly dressed woman who appeared to be in her 60s. “I’m sure at the end of the last ice age there was global warming, too. The Earth warms and the Earth cools. God made it that way…”
But I suspct that last paragraph wasn’t reported at all by Mr Black, who should perhaps choose his totems rather more carefully.
Black is at it again, this morning: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16439807
Reduced to writing such incomprehensible rubbish as this:
“…Researchers used data on the Earth’s orbit and other things to find the historical warm interglacial period that looks most like the current one.
In the journal Nature Geoscience, they write that the next Ice Age would begin within 1,500 years – but emissions have been so high that it will not…”
All utterly meaningless and usefully vague to the point of utter nonsense.
Also, I note in yet another act of heroic cowardice, Mr Black has elected not to enable comments on his spurious ‘news’ story. The BBC – they just love engaging with their readers, don’t they? Why, one might almost imagine they are somehow afraid that we might disagree with Mr Black’s authoritative reporting…
‘Mr Black has elected not to enable comments on his spurious ‘news’ story.’
Tends not to go well for the story, his or the BBC’s reputation when they do, as a few folk who actually know what they are talking about clarify soem of his ‘reporting’, and a few more licence fee compellees get to grasp what they are in fact funding.
I am awaiting the next The Editors outing by a Boaden or Wilson, as they are always good value. There must be one ‘we are still getting it about right!!!!’ as they are facing a lot more folk saying that, actually, no, they are not.
Frankly watertight oversight is about the only time I can trust the BBC to be not messing with the truth.
Twitter can be interesting. Just noticed this..
martin_hickman Martin Hickman Sky News concentrating on following tickertape: ‘Mackenzie: The Guardian was ‘completely wrong on Milly Dowler hacking story’ #Leveson
And noting the affliations of the author, and those RT’ing, I doubt in highlighting its ‘slant’.
Mr. Hickman not so troubled by the ticker tape, emails, online banners and totally bent headlines run by the national, publicly-funded broadcaster then, vs. a private outfit who can do what it likes if it wants?
I am not even sure if he’s managed to separate his opinion from SKY’s sharing of Mr. McKenzie’s fact.
Hence raising the topic of rampant media bias was.. brave.
Second post by excellent @PhilippaNews http://bbc.in/wHrHrX on how she used Twitter to report the #Lawrence trial verdict live