Category Archives: BBC bias

Guest article – Roger Harrabin to the rescue!

By | |
30 Comments

“It’s not often you get a top BBC journalist pooh-poohing the corporation’s top news programme, but that is what we saw a couple of days ago. The story begins with Monday’s Today programme, which told listeners in no uncertain terms that “there could be no insects left on Earth in a hundred years”. This story is based, of course, on the recently published scientific review of papers on insect populations that has been getting heavy play in the left-wing press this week.

The paper, published by two Australian researchers, claimed that insect populations across the globe are crashing and that disaster therefore loomed (most scientific papers these days seem to have similiar punchlines). However, within hours of the news splash on Monday, questions were already being asked about the reliability of the findings and since then, experts in the field have raised concerns too. One entomologist, Steven Falk, has since said “Will insects really disappear in 100 years? Of course not”, a position supported by Barnaby Smith of the Bumblebee Trust.

So it’s has been no surprise to find the mainstream media backsliding too. ITV’s Tom Clarke has written on the subject, saying that “making claims about the diversity or abundance of insects which aren’t necessarily supported by the facts risks undermining the power of the case”. Indeed.

But more amusingly, within a matter of hours of the Today programme’s hysteria-laden headlines, the BBC’s own Roger Harrabin had tweeted “Yes, insect decline is v worrying… but there will NOT be NO insects in 100 years, That’s loose talk – unless we’ve fried the planet by then. Cockroaches will outlive us.”

So there you have it: the BBC’s flagship news programme is engaging in “wild talk”. It’s official.

Andrew Montford is the deputy director of the Global Warming Policy Forum

A questionable amount of time….

By | |
46 Comments

….spent watching Question Time

I think people here who believe that the BBC reads this blog are correct. I think Fiona Bruce has come across comments on her lack of clarity of speech and has decided not to take criticism from right-wing Neanderthals at Biased BBC. Indeed, she appears to have doubled down on her diction and is now swallowing every sixth or seventh word.

And whoever is responsible for selecting the panel almost certainly read a comment about panel selection being a touch more fair than it was during Dimbleby’s tenure. Four dogmatic Remainers to one leaver supports the supposition that the BBC is grimly determined to spurn constructive criticism from this blog.

Still, QT is sometimes worth watching. Five minutes out of the hour yesterday were quite instructive. Pro-Brexit Conservative Michael Forsyth held his wicket well against a determined attack from Brexit-hater and journalist Hugo Rifkind.

34:12 minutes in:

Rifkind: Speaking of being wrong consistently, I was reading today the vote leave manifesto – I believe you’re on the board of vote leave …. and not once in there was the Irish border mentioned, not once in there were the words customs union mentioned. All the problems that have come up with Brexit were not foreseen by you….by your movement….

Forsyth: Sorry, on the customs union…

Rifkind: The words customs union are not in there.

Forsyth: Well of course they are not in there because we were wanting to leave the European Union, which means leaving the customs union….

Rifkind: You didn’t happen to mention that that was part of what you were leaving. It’s possible perhaps you hadn’t heard of it at the time.

[Appreciative audience laughter at Rifkind’s snide comment]

Forsyth: Well it’s possible you haven’t read …

[More laughter and some applause]

….It’s possible you haven’t read….

[More of same]

….It’s possible, Hugo, I’m surprised [inaudible] it’s possible that you have not read the Conservative Party manifesto, which gives a commitment – every single Tory MP was elected on a manifesto that said we will be leaving the Customs Union and we will be leaving the single market and…

Rifkind: This was after the referendum….

Forsyth: …and that is what people have voted for and I did a number of…

Bruce: Why is the border not mentioned in there?

Forsyth: Because it’s not an issue.

[More laughter and some cries from audience members wanting to interject]

Rifkind: Seems to be a bit of an issue.

Forsyth: It’s an issue by those people trying to reverse the result of the referendum. The EU said….

Bruce: What do you think of the response from the audience when you say that Michael. People are just laughing.

Forsyth: I, no, well I think they, it’s because they’ve been listening to the BBC, who’s made this an issue when it’s not an issue.

Bruce: Ohh, it’s our fault.

[You have that one right, Fiona. Jeering and applause from the audience; jeering no doubt directed at Forsythe]

Forsyth: I mean, the EU….

Bruce: How could I have not realised – it’s the BBC’s fault.

[Now she’s really milking this, to audience laughter]

Forsyth: Well I can help you. The EU….

Bruce: I might pass on that.

[What makes me think she doesn’t want to hear what the eminent Forsyth has to say about the EU]

Forsyth: The EU have said they don’t want a hard border, the Irish government have said they don’t want a hard border and the British government have said they don’t want a hard border so who exactly is going to put this hard border in place?

At this point Fiona Bruce decided to move on to another issue. Can’t dwell on a statement by a Conservative that makes a strong case for Brexit.

And the only border the EU believes in is one that keeps its dictatorial clique safe in its ivory tower in Brussels. The British government doesn’t seem to worry much about borders either – except when it’s denying entry to activists whose politics conflict with those of the PeeCee elite or, to its eternal shame, denying asylum to Pakistani Christians at risk of death at the hands of their Muslim compatriots.

And the BBC? Not much for borders either but a great fan of employment barriers to any political journalists who are not to the left of the political spectrum – and the further left, the better.