The BBC was once supposedly a fine, respected news organisation, a public body that attempted to maintain the highest standards of impartiality, balance and accuracy. All that, even the pretence of all that, has gone out of the window in these days of relativity when one man’s terrorist is the BBC’s freedom fighter and the insidious corrupting effect of political correctness, which is anything but, being more about lies and cover up than truth in order not to hurt the feelings of the guilty.
That once fine body is now putrifying and rotten, corrupted by the very people charged with protecting the BBC’s privileged and elevated status, a status only given to it on the condition it maintained those standards of impartiality, balance and accuracy. Vast sums of money going into the pockest of the BBC’s new ‘elite’, moral arrogance and superiority, the sneering at those who don’t subscribe to the BBC’s views (and why should it have any?), the belief that they are the chosen ones ordained to lead the unthinking, unwashed masses out of the ignorance they dwell in, all have led to the corrupting of the BBC and its basic principles of producing news that people could rely upon as true.
If ever there was a time when a review of the BBC was needed it is now as the BBC sinks ever faster into self-reverence and hubris to protect the privileges of the gilded eilite who milk the BBC and its licence funds filling their own pockets whilst also exploiting the BBC’s reputation and facilities to peddle their own propaganda about politics, war and climate.
A prime example would be the BBC’s climate change reporting, now as corrupt and untrustworthy as anything produced by the state-run news organisations of the Soviet Union. We know that Roger Harrabin was in receipt of money from the climate change propaganda unit, the Tyndall Centre, which admitted the funds were to help create pro-climate change news and block news that was unhelpful to the cause….
Email 2496 explains why the Tyndall Centre funded the Harrabin/Smith seminars – the Real World seminars of the Cambridge Media and Environment Programme
Mike Hulme:
Did anyone hear Stott vs. Houghton on Today, radio 4 this morning? Woeful stuff really. This is one reason why Tyndall is sponsoring the Cambridge Media/Environment Programme to starve this type of reporting at source
Those seminars, signed off by Lord Hall, were highly successful in steering the BBC’s reporting along the road to becoming nothing more than a vehicle for disseminating climate change propaganda.
The BBC’s Harrabin worked in cahoots with a climate activist, Joe Smith, in order to pervert the BBC’s narrative and Harrabin admits his wish is to do the same world-wide…
“The seminars have been publicly credited with catalysing significant changes in the tone and content of BBC outputs across platforms and with leading directly to specific and major innovations in programming,” – Dr Joe Smith
“It has had a major impact on the willingness of the BBC to raise these issues for discussion. Joe Smith and I are now wondering whether we can help other journalists to perform a similar role in countries round the world” – Roger Harrabin
With such obvious evidence of blatant corruption can we expect the politicians running the BBC Charter review to hold the BBC to account and for things to change? Hmmm…unlikely as the government sees the BBC as a useful tool in its own climate change campaign….funding Harrabin to produce yet more propaganda…..
The Open UniversityRoger Harrabin | Changing Climate | 8pm
@BBCRadio4. Roger is currently supporting OU-led project Stories of Change: http://www.open.edu/openlearn/nature-environment/the-environment/creative-climate/stories-change/about-stories-change?ONSCM=scm015&MEDIA=scm015ncomgen_tw143 …
‘An enterprising newsdesk might enquire how much the BBC spends on politically correct courses and who runs them. As for Cardinal Harrabin — for that would have been his rank in Galileo’s day — times are good. He has landed a sideline with the Open University, doing a series of climate-change interviews. We are paying. The £1.5 million project is being funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council, a quango run by scientists and ‘parented’ by Sajid Javid’s Business Department. Sajid will be proud to see his budget being used in this important way.’
So much for the BBC’s claims of independence…not from government, nor from lobby groups.
The events of the last week should provide yet more compelling evidence that illustrate the BBC’s complete failure to maintain even a semblance of integrity and honour.
Consider the reaction of the BBC Trust to Quentin Lett’s ‘What is the point of?’ programme about the Met. Office…
A Radio 4 programme that claimed that the Met Office had exaggerated the threat posed by global warming as part of its “political lobbying” has been found guilty of serious breaches of the BBC’s editorial guidelines.
The BBC Trust said that What’s the Point of the Met Office?, broadcast on August 5 and hosted by the journalist Quentin Letts, had “failed to make clear that the Met Office’s underlying views on climate change science were supported by the majority of scientists”.
Much of the complaining was orchestrated by the BBC’s very own Roger Harrabin…and yet he is not censured at all…Quentin Letts tells us that…
‘All hell broke out. Cataracts and hurricanoes! The Met Office itself was unfazed but the eco-lobby, stirred by BBC environment analyst Roger Harrabin, went nuts.’
‘BBC journalists are meant to be impartial, but climate change hack Roger Harrabin is whipping up criticism online among Greens of a programme made by his own employer. Radio 4’s What’s The Point Of . . . ?, looked at alleged politicisation of the Met Office.
The show was made by the Mail’s Quentin Letts. ‘From what I can gather, Comrade Harrabin has blown his top,’ Letts says. ‘All the hot gas he is producing may rupture the ozone layer.’’
Given that, as the Telegraph says, ‘The What’s the Point of…? strand is a light-hearted, provocative show that takes on British institutions, asking what purpose they serve.’, what did the BBC expect…and have all the other such programmes about other institutions also been deemed to have broken broadcasting rules? No of course not.
And remember this is the BBC that dumped the Met. Office.
It seems that the Trust has itself been guilty of breaking a few rules here and has selected one programme to censure at the behest of the climate change lobbyists led by the BBC’s very own Harrabin who as I say seems to have escaped any opprobrium himself despite his clearly one sided approach to reporting climate change.
Then consider this morning’s ‘A point of view’ by anti-war and climate campaigner Sarah Dunant…one of those media luvvies who think their opinion is more valuable than those held by the rest of us because she is famous to a greater or lesser degree…ala Cumberbatch.
A more one sided and provocative rant in its half truths and distortions we could not expect to hear on RT or Press TV…and yet it’s on the ‘respected’ BBC. Will the BBC Trust be investigating? No of course not…Dunant is fully onboard the BBC narrative being anti the Iraq war, pro climate change and full of excuses for Muslim terrorists…Muslims naturally being the victims of the West’s policies and in this programme Dunant manages to link all of them together….the Iraq war, terrorism and eco disaster. Bingo.
It is one of the most outrageous pieces of conspiracy theory driven tripe you’ll ever come across and yet this is in effect the BBC’s own narrative on these issues. Listen and weep.
Time for the BBC to be put to bed and Lord Hall to be dragged either into court for breaching the legal requirement to produce impartial news or in front of a committee of MPs who aren’t afraid of the BBC’s power and reach.
Interesting to note just how important the Greens think the BBC is to the cause claiming the Met. Office, a main contributor to the IPCC, used the resources and authority of the BBC to provide credibility and backing for its narrative….and disaster, all that influence and power is gone.
The very fact that Yentob standing down from one job was released when the BBC was in full anti war in Syria mode was on a day that was good for burying bad news, just shows the BBC managers’ mind set. Of course for many who are only slightly interested they will think he has gone from the BBC altogether. (And what is the retirement age at the Beeb for senior managers?). Isn’t misleading the public corrupt?
I am just listening to the fact that Desmond is the worst storm ever. Well little of that rain got into my part of Yorkshire. But I can hear the glee with which this storm has been reported, all grist to the mill for climate change when the Paris conference is on. I wonder what building there has been recently in Carlisle? The trouble is that the BBC proves itself over and over to have its own agenda and it has become unreliable for telling the truth and as such it is time for it to become commercial and free us from the license fee.
If one had to buy into the Beeb, would I? Would I buy their news service? I would have to have news and I guess the Internet would not be enough but I would be reluctant to remain with Auntie. But I would be willing to give up Bake Off and everything else, and read a book.
Let’s not forget that everyone who watches live TV pays towards the bbc. That means that for those who watch what is called Freeview is not, repeat not, free because you have to give the vile bbc money; £145.50; each year to be able legally to watch free to view TV. Not only that, if like me, you don’t have a live TV permit, you are not permitted to watch the Parliament channel. I see that as a denial of the ability to participate in the democratic process by the undemocratic entity that is the bbc.
In addition, the word activist has been hijacked by the communists. Activist means Troublemaker and they would be better labeled as Agitators, as in the old communist term Agitprop because the bbc is a major source of Agitating Propaganda.
I wondered why the BBC only attacked Quintin Letts and Peter Lilly, but not Piers Corbyn and Graham Stringer, who also appeared on the program. Piers being the best qualified to criticise the Met Office. It looks like the reason is the BBC’s left-wing politics. The Guardian does not seem to mention the two scientists who are members of the Labour Party, were on the program. So the BBC creates the narrative of right-wing sceptics, through censorship. Anyway, I believe that Sir David Clementi has been given the task of finding out how to replace the BBC Trust.
As for “failed to make clear that the Met Office’s underlying views on climate change science were supported by the majority of scientists” How do the non-scientists of the BBC Trust know what the underlying views of scientists at the Met Office are? Should that not have been “failed to make clear that the Met Office’s underlying methods on climate change science were supported by the majority of scientists”. I think its true that the majority of scientists are still using the Arrhenius method, due to ignorance of the new thermodynamic method. But then that is why Piers Corbyn could have explained why this was an error, and that the Met Office could put that right, if it took on Piers as its top adviser.
So in a way, the morons at the BBC Trust, are correct.
Do not read this blog post:
http://cliscep.com/2015/12/06/do-not-read-this-blog-post/
By order of the BBC Trust and Cardinal Harrabin.
This is from a transcript of a program banned by the BBC Trust members Richard Ayre, Sonita Alleyne, Mark Damazer, Bill Matthews and Nick Prettejohn.
Quentin Letts: The title of this programme is “What’s the Point of the Met Office?”. Can you answer that question – what’s the point of this organisation?
Piers Corbyn: The point for them and the government is it’s primarily was set up to do weather forecasting, to the best of its ability and to the best available science. They fail in that, because they’re not using the best available science. The reason is, they’ve had another purpose latched on them, which is to – and you read it in their blurb on the TV – it’s to promote and defend and propagate the man-made climate change theory, and suggest what horrors are going to come, allegedly, from more CO2, which is fiction.
Richard Ayre is qualified in Philosophy
Sonita Alleyne is qualified in Philosophy
Nick Prettejohn is qualified in Philosophy
Bill Matthews is qualified in the Humanities
Mark Damazer in qualified in History
But
Quentin Letts is qualified in Classical archaeology
Piers Corbyn is qualified in Astrophysics
Graham Stringer is qualified in Chemistry
Peter Lilley is qualified in Physics