Monthly Archives: August 2012

‘The physicist Leo Szilard once announced to his friend Hans Bethe that he was thinking of keeping a diary: ‘l don’t intend to publish. I am merely going to record the facts for the information of God.”Don’t you think God knows the facts?’  Bethe asked.   ’Yes,’ said Szilard. ‘He knows the facts, but He does not know this version of the facts.‘

The BBC continues its cover up of wrong doing and the obscuring of the evidence trail when asked to be fully transparent and accountable for its actions.

We have had the Balen Report and its evidence of anti-Israeli reporting kept under lock and key, now the BBC has decided that the ‘expert’ people who influenced one of the most important strategic changes in its stance towards reporting climate change should be kept anonymous….as related by Bishop Hill.

‘My long struggle to find out who attended the BBC’s seminar on climate change has come to an end (if you are not familiar with the story, see here). Readers here will recall that the seminar appears to have been attended by a bunch of NGO people, who decided that there was a consensus on climate change that meant that sceptics could be sidelined in the corporation’s output. The BBC Trust then falsely reported that the decision had been made by leading scientists.

My FOI request, dating back several years, has been repeatedly turned down and the appeal has gone all the way to the Information Tribunal, a rather more formal process than the Information Commission, being overseen by a judge.’

Bishop Hill also releases his submission to the Leveson inquiry which includes a section on Roger Harrabin’s CMEP which he ran in conjunction with climate change activists and was partly funded by the University of East Anglia…of CRU Climategate fame..

Here is some of that submission:

On 6th January 2010, and in the wake of the Climategate scandal that had engulfed the University if East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, Professor Richard Tait, chairman of the BBC Trust’s Editorial Standards Committee (ESC) announced that the BBC would conduct a review of impartiality and accuracy of their coverage of science.

It seemed to us that if such an exercise was to be useful, then input from the BBC’s critics would be essential, therefore we wrote a very constructive joint letter to Professor Tait asking if we could make a submission to the inquiry.

In spite of an extensive correspondence with the BBC Trust over a period of four months, we were unable to obtain confirmation that the letter had been delivered to Professor Tait.

The view that we formed was that the last thing the BBC Trust wanted for their review of the impartiality and accuracy of its science coverage was any input from critics.

We ask that the Inquiry should look at the submission that we then sent to Professor Jones too.

In summary, it identifies a rather shadowy organisation called the Cambridge Media and Environment Programme, set up and co-directed by the BBC’s Environment Analyst, Roger Harrabin, and Dr Joe Smith, a lecturer and environmental activist from the Open University.

We provided evidence that CMEP had been financed by a leading climate research institute, a major environmental NGO and a government department among others.

The purpose of CMEP was to organise seminars at which senior BBC staff would be joined by specialists in particular fields relating to environmental matters. CMEP’s partners in these ventures were the BBC itself and an environmental lobby origination called the International Broadcasting Trust.

We provided evidence that these events had a real impact on programming.

We also drew the BBC’s attention to a statement in John Bricut’s seminal report From Seesaw to Wagon Wheel: Safeguarding impartiality in the 21st Century, adopted and published by the BBC Trust in 2007 and signed off by Professor Tait.

This notes the care that the BBC takes to preserve impartiality in reporting controversial subjects such as climate change by saying:

‘The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts, and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus.’

This event took place in January 2006 and was organised by CMEP…meantime, an eyewitness account of the seminar posted at Harmless Sky indicates that the experts advising the BBC at this seminar were in fact climate change activists.

Between the time when Professor Jones was appointed by the BBC and the publication of his report, he had things to say about climate sceptics in an article for the Daily Telegraph headline “Gods, floods – and Global Warming’:

’Global warming is a myth.

‘Type that into a search engine and you get thousands of hits – but global warming is not a product of the human imagination; or no more so than any other scientific claims for – like them – it depends on its data, the accuracy of which has been affirmed by the inquiry into the leaked East Anglia documents. The subject has, alas, become the home of boring rants by obsessives.’

This hardly suggests that the professor would be likely give anyone who might question the current dogma on climate change, or the way in which it is reported by the BBC, a fair hearing…BBC news gathering and editorial staff had got far too close to environmental activism for impartiality to be preserved.

Over five years after we started to try and discover who the “best scientific experts” that the BBC relied on when it first decide to limit coverage of climate scepticism in its output, we still do not have an answer.’

The BBC are pretty keen to dissect anything to do with Christianity, not so keen with Islam, they are quick to disembowel the Tea Party….Paul Ryan suddenly comes on the radar and Ayn Rand is ‘rubbished’…but ‘Occupy’ is glorified and given a halo of respectability and moral authority.

Is it really leaderless, does it have a nice, heart warming for the good of mankind ethos as its basis, is it really all about equality and responsible capitalism?

No, not at all…..the vast majority…say 99%, are ‘useful idiots’ being manipulated to provide cover for the usual ragtag  bunch of anarchists and Marxist revolutionaries:

‘Neo-anarchists and other far leftists provided part of the core leadership of Occupy in a number of cities. They deserve credit for helping spur the movement—even if flash movements don’t require extensive organization or recognized leaders to make a bright and dramatic entrance and to have real effects.

There were leaders—yet OWS tended to deny they existed. Without any formal means of selection, they were there. They talked more, stayed around longer, filled the most important committees, and shaped decisions. To sustain and expand the flash movement these leaders believed that it was important to assert the primacy of its “mass” forms and to make a virtue of an alleged lack of leaders.

Many of these leaders, as well as a number of those who helped to get Occupy off the ground, were evasive about their views. What made the movement dynamic (and interesting!) was its link to the dismay and anger of many Americans about unfair inequality, bad economic conditions, and political inability to fix either. Yet anger at economic trouble, unfair inequality, and weak political leadership doesn’t lead toward approving the full agenda of the neo-anarchists and neo-communists. This agenda calls for undermining present forms of political authority, replacing market society (capitalism) with anarchist and/or communist economic schemes, and unmasking liberal institutions as coercive frauds. Asserting this agenda loudly and clearly would have distanced its advocates from the strong currents in public opinion that sympathized with OWS.

Within the left 5 to 10 percent of the American electorate, parts of the neo-anarchist agenda can get a serious hearing, without producing much support. More broadly these views have no real standing. People who believe them can help organize movements and be active in them, but this requires modulating or concealing their own commitments.

Affirming the virtues of a leaderless and unprogrammatic movement afforded room for maneuver for actual leaders, without requiring them to articulate and defend their political and ideological positions.

The Tea Party and of course Obama’s 2008 campaign overshadow OWS in political significance, but for the moment they stand together as three instances of a volatile and exciting politics that we are deep into without understanding very well.

If Occupy was mainly a vivid and significant flash movement that had a real effect on public debate, that’s important now and later. This experience signals new forms of political and social expression. Initiatives from outside the centers of political power can rapidly shift the terms of political debate and act.’

I did enjoy this expose of BBC gullability over at the always excellent Elder of Ziyon! Ever get the feeling that you’ve been taken in — because you wanted to be?

Justin Webb and Co always have a pop at the American ‘Right’, or what they categorise as ‘Right’…..those who like to hunt, fish, like pickup trucks and hamburgers…and are Christian.  If they come from the South, and are white, or from the ‘Bible Belt’,  all the more fun for the city slickers on the Today programme.

I know who I would rather chew the cud with given the choice:

The Cowgirl from Oklahoma  ‘Born and raised in the country, I Love wide open spaces. Enjoy camping, fishing, hunting, and any form of outdoor cooking, hot, warm and cold smoking. Preserving what I hunt, catch, raise or forage. I enjoy being able to provide food for my table. I’m thankful for each day and will never take anything for granted.’

And she is a great cook. (Scroll right down).

Blond, white and coming from Oklahoma, the ‘Beltbuckle’ of the Bible Belt, having dubious hobbies and interests she is clearly someone to be denied a vote and a voice.  Can’t really see her being invited onto the Today programme for her views on politics unlike the string of left wing actors, writers, artists and singers who are brought in to provide a human face and ‘street cred’ to the BBC’s anti-Bush/Romney or pro-Obama machinations as nobody really trusts dodgy journalists however famous they are.

Bizarre but true.

It seems the BBC will go to any lengths to nick you for non-payment of the license fee….even to go so far as to ‘create’ the evidence against you:

This is what the BBC will not tell you about the beliefs and actions of the Muslim Brotherhood….and remember the Muslim Brotherhood is well established in the UK.

First:

‘Last week in Egypt, when Muslim Brotherhood supporters terrorized the secular media, several Arabic websites—including Arab News, Al Khabar News, Dostor Watany, and Egypt Now—reported that people were being “crucified.” The relevant excerpt follows in translation:

A Sky News Arabic correspondent in Cairo confirmed that protestors belonging to the Muslim Brotherhood crucified those opposing Egyptian President Muhammad Morsi naked on trees in front of the presidential palace while abusing others. Likewise, Muslim Brotherhood supporters locked the doors of the media production facilities of 6-October [a major media region in Cairo], where they proceeded to attack several popular journalists.

El Balad adds that the supporters of Tawfik Okasha, another vocal critic of President Morsi—the one who widely disseminated the graphic video of a Muslim apostate being slaughtered to cries of “Allahu Akbar”—gathered around the presidential palace, only to be surrounded by Brotherhood supporters, who “attacked them with sticks, knives, and Molotov cocktails, crucifying some of them on trees, leading to the deaths of two and the wounding of dozens.”

Second:

WARNING….EXTREMELY GRAPHIC KILLING OF A MUSLIM WHO CONVERTED TO CHRISTIANITY.

‘For those who prefer not to view it, a summary follows:

A young man appears held down by masked men. His head is pulled back, with a knife to his throat. He does not struggle and appears resigned to his fate. Speaking in Arabic, the background speaker, or “narrator,” chants a number of Muslim prayers and supplications, mostly condemning Christianity, which, because of the Trinity, is referred to as a polytheistic faith: “Let Allah be avenged on the polytheist apostate”; “Allah empower your religion, make it victorious against the polytheists”; “Allah, defeat the infidels at the hands of the Muslims”; “There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his messenger.”

Then, to cries of “Allahu Akbar!”—or, “God is great!”—the man holding the knife to the apostate’s throat begins to slice away, even as the victim appears calmly mouthing a prayer. It takes nearly two minutes of graphic knife-carving to sever the Christian’s head, which is then held aloft to more Islamic cries and slogans of victory.’

(The video link is in the article itself if you really want to watch it….trust me it is very gruesome and unpleasant)

Last week as the BBC were praising Mohammed Morsi for having removed the Army from powerful government positions the Muslim Brotherhood supporters were on the rampage against Christians and those who dared to leave Islam.

‘In fact, only the other day a top Egyptian Salafi leader openly stated that no Muslim has the right to apostatize, or leave Islam, based on the canonical hadiths, including Muhammad’s command, “Whoever leaves his religion, kill him.” Islam’s most authoritative legal manuals make crystal clear that apostasy is a capital crime, punishable by death.’

Biased BBC by its very nature doesn’t often praise the BBC, or rather, doesn’t praise some of its professional, reliable and scrupulous journalists.

One such journalist could be Ross Hawkins  (7 mins) who delivered an excellent overview of the latest controversy over the sale of school playing fields…or rather the new rules for regulating such sales.

He explains the complexities and various scenarios simply, with clear insight into motives and likely outcomes…it is all intelligent and without drama or any perceivable political side to it.

In other words exactly what you would hope to receive from a highly professional BBC intent on keeping the public up to date on the latest news and all viewed from a completely neutral standpoint.

Why do I mention this? Because so many of his colleagues fail utterly to work to these standards…and it seems the more senior they are the less inclined they are to toe the line. The longer they have been in the job the more complacent, arrogant and ‘untouchable’ they become, seemingly left to their own devices as long as they don’t do anything too outrageous and obvious.

This attitude is not only prevalent in the Today programme but is endemic across the BBC from its other key news programmes to its environmental reporters and the darkest corners such as ‘Wake Up to Money’.

Perhaps Ross Hawkins is the result of a new ethos and training at the BBC’s journalism college…if so, good. However that still leaves a lot of ‘old timers’ in place who will be around for years to come not living up to the ideals and standards that should be demanded of them.

If you can’t teach old dogs new tricks and get them to mend their ways, move them to another job where they can’t stagnate and become bored and disinterested…..or sack them.

The excitable Evan Davis could learn a lot from the calm and concise Hawkins.

From Guido Fawkes

‘The days of Big Media’s gatekeepers deciding what is news and what is not news, are long gone. We decide tomorrow’s news…

And so it turned out, as the “Guardian of Beeb“ story not only made the Sun but was also the subject of blogs by Dan Hannan at the Telegraph and Roy Greenslade over at the Guardian themselves. Greenslade asked “Why is that so surprising?” It wasn’t to Guido.

Greenslade was on the money when he wrote

“There are so many similarities between the BBC and the Guardian aside from assumptions about politics. Both organisations are free of commercial ownership, with the corporation funded by licence and the paper owned by a trust.”

Which isn’t an unbridled good. It imbues both with an anti-profit ethos bordering on anti-business as well as anti-capitalist.  The shared mindset of the two organisations is most clearly visible in their coverage of America and Israel. The Republican party is extremist because they don’t subscribe to left-wing nostrums and Israel is the primary cause of trouble in the Middle-East. These are axiomatic truths for the Guardian-BBC axis of “progressiveness”…’

The BBC has survived for a long time shrugging off numerous attacks and complaints, relying on its historic reputation for fairness, balance, truth and accuracy to maintain its position and the support of politicans and others well placed, and inclined, to shield it from destruction.

That reputation is jealously guarded, the BBC willing to fight through every court in the land and at huge cost to hide wrong doing by its journalists.  It has become a massive operation, one of the most powerful and influential media machines in the world.  It has given itself a wide remit and there is not an area of the media in which it does not have a major presence. Despite being a publicly funded and supposedly independent organisation it also has the enormously successful BBC Worldwide which generates a revenue of over £1.5 billion…..

‘BBC Worldwide, the commercial arm of the BBC, a fast-growing media and entertainment company designed to maximize BBC profits by creating, acquiring and developing media content and media brands around the world. It has annual revenue of approximately $1.5 billion.’

It is a monolithic and overpowering presence in the media world, able to crush competitors at will…not only able to but willing to use that power….in conjunction with the Labour Party and the Guardian it of course launched an assault on Rupert Murdoch’s own media empire, News International…the BBC’s commercial and ideological rival or opponent.

Its web presence essentially puts out of business many other news providers who rely on advertising for their revenues, its local radio and popular culture stations such as Radio 1 and 2 all compete against commercial stations who of course are at an enormous disadvantage in not having the ability to force people to pay for their services whether they use them or not.

It publishes a large number of magazines, again massively distorting the market, it provides educational services to schools and the Open University, it of course provides services to climate change propagandists and works in conjunction with them…as at the CMEB….and the  University of East Anglia.

The BBC is an ever growing monstrous presence that has far outgrown its basic remit to entertain, educate and inform.   It uses its size and power to influence Party politics, it manipulates the news and what appears as ‘stories’ so that the Public are given versions of those stories that are designed to influence their thinking and change their perceptions rather than allowing them to make up their own minds.

The BBC has become something that is at complete odds with everything it was set up to defend…democracy, liberty, freedom of thought and speech, an exposition of truth, accuracy and honest reporting.

It is too big, too corrupt politically, too arrogant and too unaccountable.

It is no longer fit for purpose.

It is time for a change.  A renewed ethos, a renewed thirst for truth, integrity and genuine journalism, a renewed urge  not to be the biggest and best but just to be the best.

If a man named George Entwistle can’t get back to basics who can?