Author Archives: Ed Thomas

Bushwhacked.

By | | ,
46 Comments

Sometimes I read a report and wonder why it is there. Nothing existential, just the non-sensical logic behind it. This morning the BBC headline runs ” Bush ‘is avoiding Iraq decisions'”- top billing for this story.

Let’s leave alone the fact that this headline immediately promotes a subjective, politicised point. Let’s question its very newsworthiness. Why is it there? Perhaps, I thought, because yesterday Bush was hailing Iraq progress and (as the BBC put it) freezing any “pull out” from Iraq. That’s newsworthy, really.

Yet what about today’s headline? Ah, well that’s the Democrat response. We’ve moved from reporting a decision arising from concrete events to the political strategy of one US party. Not cricket, BBC.

You can often tell the BBC position because they reiterate a certain rhetorical line in an article, underlining a particular soundbyte.

In this case, we first of all get the warm-up line from the Beeb, “But his opponents say the people want answers from this president, now.” (which certainly has a rhetorical ring to it inappropriate to a factual news item), and then the main event from Nancy Pelosi:


“”The president has taken us into a failed war, he’s taken us deeply into debt and that debt is taking us into recession,” she said. “We need some answers from the president.””

It’s like the run-up before the penalty kick.

What’s really funny though is the fact that the BBC headlines a story Bush “avoiding Iraq decisions”, when in fact he has just decided something- which was yesterday’s news. Today’s news is that he’s declined to follow-through with a decision that the Democrats wanted and want to intensify and speed up. This is rather more nuanced and requires the BBC’s special news skills (arising from its unique funding) to bring to our attention.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Notable balance corrected

By | | ,
34 Comments

Newsbusters has done a great job of bringing this story to light– how an activist got the ear of a BBC journalist, Roger Harrabin, and bent an environmental story that began with a definite note of climate reality and ended up toeing the same old same old BBC AGW line.

Classic activist argumentation was apparently used, such as “It would be better if you did not quote the sceptics. Their voice is heard everywhere, on every channel. They are deliberately obstructing the emergence of the truth.”

The email dialogue apparently came to light because environmentalist Jo Abbess fell to blabbing about it online to her pals. Thanks to Jennifer Marohasy and Newsbusters the BBC’s willingness to appease the environmental activists is exposed.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

What do they think they’re doing?

By | | , ,
10 Comments

Well, hello, hello, hello. Simply incredible the certainty with which the BBC report the findings of one group of UK scientists on the sun-spots – warming link alleged link. Keep in mind the following is just the link descriptor, which is the first thing a viewer reads before clicking to read the article itself:


“The idea that the Earth’s climate is determined by cosmic rays and the Sun’s activity is discredited by UK scientists.”

Note the subtle avoidance of saying “disproved” by using something perhaps stronger- the great argument of all man-centred warmists, ridicule. Damn, those crazy sun-spotters are so past-tense they’re already finished- discredited no less.

But anyway, to proceed to the article, which begins in highly suggestive terms:


“Scientists have produced further compelling evidence showing that modern-day climate change is not caused by changes in the Sun’s activity.”

Well I always thought that outside of opinion pieces a journalist was supposed to source subjective judgements like “compelling”, but maybe that’s a quibble.

But then, I’d quibble with the following statement too:

“This is the latest piece of evidence which at the very least puts the cosmic ray theory, developed by Danish scientist Henrik Svensmark at the Danish National Space Center (DNSC), under very heavy pressure.”

At the very least under very heavy pressure. Heavy stuff indeed. Yet which is it that was pressurizing the cosmic ray theory (hardly rocket science anyway)? Is it the implied series of pieces of evidence which preceded “the latest”, or is it “the latest”? It’s not clear to me, and do you know, I don’t think it’s supposed to be.

Bottom line (literally): …”we had better carry on trying to cut carbon emissions”.

So not a bit politicised at the BBC, is it?

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

General BBC-related comment thread:

By | |
215 Comments

Please use this thread for comments about the BBC’s current programming and activities. This post will remain at or near the top of the blog – scroll down for new topic-specific posts. N.B. this is not an invitation for general off-topic comments, rants or chit-chat. Thoughtful comments are encouraged. Comments may be moderated.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

General BBC-related comment thread:

By | |
303 Comments

Please use this thread for comments about the BBC’s current programming and activities. This post will remain at or near the top of the blog – scroll down for new topic-specific posts. N.B. this is not an invitation for general off-topic comments, rants or chit-chat. Thoughtful comments are encouraged. Comments may be moderated.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Do you think they think he was right then?

By | |
32 Comments


Man in a Shed highlights this instance of BBC covering for Gordon in the light of the Hain fiasco. The word “right” is used four times in the opening to the article (including in the photo caption).

This is the kind of knee-jerk support we can expect from the BBC newsrooms. The subliminal dimension of this is underlined by the fact that a search of the BBC website, focussing on News and Sport, cannot locate this article using the exact headline under which it ran- see here.

It’s worth pointing out here that the BBC website search tool is truly the creature of the BBC, aimed at preserving the BBC’s chosen face rather than archiving its content.

What the search did bring up was this article. What is interesting in a way is not the article as much as the way it is described in the “archive” (for want of a better word). Despite the word not being used in the main article, the archive tells how “Peter Hain is taunted by Tories”. The article itself is very loaded, with the nasty Tories to the fore- putting Mr Hain “on the rack” and “under fire” and needing to be warned by the Speaker etc etc. All over “incompetence”, we are told. Needless to say, the matter was not considered only one of incompetence, otherwise Hain would still be in position (according to the statements of Gordon Brown) rather than preparing to face his police investigation. Nice covering Beeb! Somehow it seems to me if they could stop the legal processes taking place in this case, they would, and if they can spike them in any way, they will.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Hain Resignation Observations

By | |
85 Comments

I’ve just heard the BBC anchor respond “absolutely” to a Labour talking head’s suggestion that we need to remember Peter Hain’s “great achievements” as Work and Pensions Secretary. I am sure this is not an isolated incident of BBC sympathy. Would you care to add your thoughts in this thread? BBC story and coverage HERE.

Oh, and of course, this blog offers kudos to Guido on his great success.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

General BBC-related comment thread:

By | |
316 Comments

Please use this thread for comments about the BBC’s current programming and activities. This post will remain at or near the top of the blog – scroll down for new topic-specific posts. N.B. this is not an invitation for general off-topic comments, rants or chit-chat. Thoughtful comments are encouraged. Comments may be moderated.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Fair and balanced

By | | ,
15 Comments

– the BBC gets in its response to the US Federal Bank’s rate cut.

“One analyst said the Fed was “obviously panicked” by the threat of recession.

“Unfortunately they have no power to reverse what in my opinion is the worst post-war recession,” said Michael Metz, chief investment strategist at Oppenheimer in New York.”

Doubtless this article [actually, as I write it has been; initially it ended with Mr Metz’s quote] will be updated, but the BBC has a strange kind of spitefulness ready for such measures- lest anyone should get the idea that the US financial system cares or is competent or anything bizarre like that. The final comment struck me as especially odd, given that only a month ago, Alan Greenspan put the risk of recession at 50%.

The BBC also say that the move is a “complete surprise”, which, er, well, surprised me having read this call for action early today. I therefore, unlike the BBC, was not surprised. Larry Kudlow also says “Much of this is panic over a U.S. recession threat that has yet to clearly materialize.“

In this world of multiple sources we can see the BBC bias in sharp relief.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.