The Mail reports:

BBC spends £500k to ask 33,000 Asians 5,000 miles from UK what they think of climate change: Corporation savaged for ‘astonishing’ campaign survey on global warming

The BBC has spent hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money asking 33,000 people in Asian countries how climate change is affecting them.

The £519,000 campaigning survey by little-known BBC Media Action is designed to persuade the world to adopt more hard-line policies to combat global warming.

It was immediately condemned yesterday as a flagrant abuse of the Corporation’s rules on impartiality and ‘a spectacular waste of money’ by a top academic expert.

BBC Media Action used to be called the BBC World Service Trust…..it is designed to train journalists and broadcasters in foreign countires how to effectivekly use the media to promote a particular message…in this case the cause and the message has been decided by the BBC itself…global warming and how it must be reacted to.

Here is the blurb from the old World Service Trust that shows how they use the Media, including inserting subliminal messages into drama and other non-documentary programming, to get across a message in order to change attitudes and perceptions and then behaviour…all very Big Brother:

BBC World Service Trust(where the BBC does not think you are looking…so they print the truth):

• ‘Media’ matters because it underpins how societies respond to the problems they face. This makes media not only relevant to the most urgent problems of poverty and marginalisation – it makes it critical to solutions designed to address them.
• It matters too because it is a critical part of strategies to [alter and control behaviour.]
• The media, and increasingly new technologies, is increasingly how humans communicate with each other.
• How well we communicate with each other has a good deal to do with how successful we’re likely to be in confronting the massive problems we face (and the masses.)

Making informed choices

• Media enables people to access information on issues that shape their lives, without which they cannot make choices.
• Media enables people to hold their governments to account and provides a critical check on government corruption
• Media and communication enables people and communities to understand, debate and reach decisions on the issues that confront them

Media and communication can be immense and powerful instruments for change and empowerment in society

• Media can be an important part of the solution to development challenges. But they can also be a part of the problem
• Media can be used as instruments of oppression, manipulation and hate
• Truth can be distorted as well as illuminated, malpractice hidden as well as revealed.
• The character of a country’s media tends to determine the character of a country’s democracy and society. It underpins how people learn, understand and shape change.

Engaging at high levels to gain influence:

• Our initiatives and corresponding audience research seek to engage at four different ‘levels’:
• The sector level with policy and decision-makers
• The organisation level with state, commercial and not-for-profit entities
• The practitioner level with professionals and opinion leaders; and
• The individual level with various target audiences

Facts
75-250 million people across Africa will face water shortages
Crop yields may increase by 20% in East and Southeast Asia, but decrease by up to 30% in Central and South Asia
Agriculture fed by rainfall could drop by 50% in some parts of Africa
20-30% of all plant and animal species will be at increased risk of extinction
Glaciers and snow cover will decline, reducing water availability in countries supplied by melt water
Africa is likely to be the continent most vulnerable to climate change.

Our approach
It is essential that people in developing countries receive accurate information about climate change and other environmental changes such as deforestation, soil erosion and pollution

In India, we worked in partnership with national and international NGOs to mobilise public opinion around the environment by improving the media’s coverage of the environmental issues, and helping environmental activists communicate their messages more effectively
In the Eastern Caribbean, we worked in partnership with media professionals, local authorities, and national and international NGOs to build public awareness of climate change and the need for national and regional environmental policies

Journalists learned how to better connect with their audiences by explaining the impact of these key environmental issues on their lives.
Senior editors also worked with international specialists to develop strategies for moving environmental issues up the news agenda.

The workshops covered:

• How corporate interests and party politics shape environmental news coverage
• The ethics of journalism – including objectivity and reporting a plurality of views
• Finding and authenticating sources

• The process of designing a mass media programme or campaign begins with a ‘messaging workshop’, where the results of formative research are analysed to produce a ‘messaging brief’. The brief describes which messages need to be communicated to achieve key behaviour change.

• Identify formats

• The next step is to find out which formats – drama, discussion programmes, public service announcements – can be most effectively used to deliver information and stimulate discussion.

Drama can be a powerful mechanism for development. It can build an emotional connection with target audiences over a period of time, while modelling situations or behaviours.

Viewers or listeners become attached to characters and share in their experiences, sometimes discussing them with people around them, reflecting on their situations and actions and how they might respond if it were them.
Reinforcing the message
In building a campaign we generally use a range of formats, because they cross-promote one another and reinforce messages. Additional materials – such as posters and comics – may also be used to echo the messages and stories conveyed by other media outputs.

This is from BBC Media Action…all a bit ironic, all that talk of ‘freedom of speech’ and ‘holding power to account’,  when the BBC itself closes down debate in the UK and does huge damage to the democratic political processes of this country:

Does Peter Oborne not think the BBC is ethical, an organisation without a proper, working moral framework?  Does he think it needs such a firm grip at the tiller that Seb Coe couldn’t cope?

Lord Coe failed to instil a culture of honesty at Fifa. Why would he do better at the BBC?

This concerns Lord Coe’s record as head of Fifa’s Ethics Committee in 2007. Allegations of Fifa corruption were swirling around even then. BBC Panorama sought to question Lord Coe as to what the ethics committee, which he chaired, was doing about it. He refused to answer or even detail his responsibilities. I urge anybody wishing to assess the suitability of Lord Coe as Chairman of the BBC Trust to watch him avoiding questions about Fifa’s corruption scandal when Panorama’s Andrew Jennings door-stepped him.

Had Coe had adopted a more transparent and forceful approach as chair of the ethics committee, Fifa might not be in the mess it is in now. He clearly failed to instill a culture of honesty at Fifa, as the sordid tale of bribery associated with the later Qatari World Cup bid shows.

As the chairman of the BBC Trust, one of Lord Coe’s central obligations would be to set a moral framework at the BBC. His record at Fifa suggests that this would be beyond him.

The BBC were all too keen to report the words of a couple of Polish politicians when they were insulting Cameron….the BBC is not so keen to report our very own, home grown ‘LibDem Friends of Palestine’s’ little homage to Ed Miliband (via Harry’s Place):

Lib Dem Friends of Palestine promote Atzmon

Even though Gilad Atzmon’s vile views have been widely condemned by anti-racists, including many pro-Palestinian activists, Lib Dem Friends of Palestine have promoted his racist attack on Ed Miliband’s speech to the LFI on their Facebook page.

As the Brits were expressing their disapproval of ‘Red Ed’ and his clumsy politics, the Labour leader found the time to socialise with the Jewish Lobby. The following is Ed Miliband’s speech to LFI (Labour Friends Of Israel), the same Zionist Lobby group that funded Blair’s government as it drove Britain into a criminal war in Iraq.

In his speech, Ed Miliband affirms his deep Zionist affiliation. The verdict on his reign is clear, Miliband should never have been the leader of a major British political party. He would have been better suited for a position as a local Rabbi or a part time job as an Israeli consular.

Britain doesn’t need a ‘Friend of Israel’ in Number 10 Downing Street. It needs friend of the British people, an ally of truth and justice and not a Zionist merchant. It needs a humanist and a universalist, instead of an imbecilic tribal operator who sees the world from a kosher perspective driven by the primacy of Jewish suffering.

The following speech serves to convince every proud Brit that the time is ripe to cleanse British public life of Zionists and Jerusalemites. Britain needs to search for its path back to Athens, ethics and the universal so that it can reminds itself its greatness and its role in Western civilization.

 

 

If that had been said about a Muslim leader of a political party the BBC would have been all over the story.

Ever wondered why your complaints to the BBC about their coverage of climate change and immigration go nowhere?

Bishop Hill could have the answer to one of those…and the BBC register of interests the other.

Here Bishop Hill brings us a leak, via the Guardian, of the result of a complaint to the BBC about Lord Lawson being ‘allowed’ to speak on the BBC  (Transcript of interview)

New BBC policy: right is wrong, wrong is right

Reviewing the broadcast, the BBC’s head of editorial complaints, Fraser Steel, took a dim view. “Lord Lawson’s views are not supported by the evidence from computer modelling and scientific research,” Steel says, “and I don’t believe this was made sufficiently clear to the audience …

So probably not much good complaining about the lack of contrasting views about the ‘science’ to Fraser Steel:

• Fraser has overall responsibility for the BBC’s Editorial Complaints Unit, which investigates complaints about serious breaches of editorial standards where the complainant is not satisfied with previous replies from the BBC, or where a complaint has been taken up by the external regulator Ofcom.
• He is required to investigate impartially and independently. His findings are subject to appeal to the BBC Trust, but cannot be overruled by the BBC Executive.

Well worth his £90,000 remuneration.

Though he seems to think he’s not busy enough and has taken a second job…….

UK Immigration Services has over 15 years experience offering legal advice on UK immigration rules including assistance with UK citizenship applications.

• We are members of the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants(JCWI) who campaign for justice in immigration and asylum law.
• Easy to find, 10 minutes from Heathrow Airport and 45 minutes from Central London.

How on earth can someone working for the BBC, especially as the head of the complaints department, many of which will be about the BBC’s immigration coverage, and also working for an immigration advisory and campaign group, be considered by any stretch of the imagination, impartial?

Apart from the fact that his decision on climate change is clearly ill-informed about the ‘science’ and therefore his judgement questionable, he clearly has a vested interest in keeping immigrants ‘flocking’ here and using the services of his company.

Here you go, a brand new Open Thread ready to see us off into the wide blue yonder of the weekend. Here is where you can share the BIAS from the State Broadcaster.

Paxman has jumped ship and fired off a torpedo as he did so.

Newsnight is ‘made by 13-year-olds’, says Jeremy Paxman

The former host says his Conservative leanings made him a lone voice on the show as the younger producers wanted to change the world

If you hadn’t heard PMQs for yourself and only relied upon the BBC’s wash up of it afterwards you might not have realised that Miliband was completely steamrollered and failed utterly to make a dent in Cameron’s defence.

The central plank of Miliband’s attack was that the Cabinet Permanent Secretary, Gus O’Donnell, must have warned Cameron about the accusations against Coulson, Miliband also claimed that Coulson hadn’t been security vetted and if he had of been he would not have passed muster and therefore not have been given the job of communications director.

Miliband said there was now a very important question that the whole country wanted an answer to…did Sir Gus O’Donnell raise any concerns about Andy Coulson?

The BBC, in the shape of Andrew Neil and Nick Robinson, decided Cameron was lying when he said O’Donnell had not raised such concerns.

Robinson bizarrely tried to claim that Cameron’s defence, claiming that the revelations in Leveson cleared him, was similar to Blair trying to use the Hutton Inquiry to defend himself….as the BBC is of the opinion that the Hutton Inquiry was an Establishment whitewash presumably Robinson thinks Leveson is as well as Leveson certanly does clear Cameron.

Robinson went on to say Cameron had one problem…when Miliband asked him twice about whether there was civil service advice about Coulson Cameron insisted that that too had been raised in Leveson with Gus O’Donnell…Robinson says ‘I’ve checked and I can find no evidence that that was raised…what was unwise of the Prime Minister was to claim that Leveson cleared him of this..it seems to me he didn’t.’

Unfortunately anyone with the ability to run a word search of the witness statement of Gus O’Donnell to Leveson would have found that he did clear Cameron:

Question 30 – Please set out in full for the inquiry details of your role, if any, in relation to the appointment by the Prime Minster of Andy Coulson to a post in No.10. Your account should include a full explanation of the basis on which you were asked to advise.  Mr Coulson was brought in as a special adviser to the Prime Minister.

I was not involved in the process of appointing Mr Coulson. Mr Coulson was cleared to SC (security clearance) level and was undergoing DV (developed vetting) clearance at the time of his resignation

Gus O’Donnell had no involvement in the appointment of Mr Coulson…pretty clear.

In other words Miliband’s attack, and Robinson’s ‘analysis’, is completely undermined by the actual evidence….Miliband himself claimed that O’Donnell had said nothing about Coulson at the Leveson Inquiry…clearly he did.

Robinson seems more intent on generating some sort of ‘scoop’ and whipping up a storm against Cameron rather than getting the real story…the real story which in fact provides a better scoop…..smashing Miliband’s attack.  Robinson is more concerned with supposition and speculation despite admitting he had no evidence to back that up…I paraphrase his words here:

Now it seems extremely likely, though I haven’t got the evidence, that civil servants said ‘you do know there are some questions about Coulson?’…it seems to me to be extremely likely that that happened..I don’t know we weren’t there…..’I’ve checked and I can find no evidence that that [Leveson asked O’Donnell about Coulson]  was raised…what was unwise of the Prime Minister was to claim that Leveson cleared him of this…it seems to me he didn’t.’

Pure speculation on Robinson’s part…if he’d bothered to check the statement he would have  realised that not only had O’Donnell cleared Cameron but that Coulson was vetted.

More excellent journalism from the impartial, accurate and accountable BBC.

Robinson goes on to attack ‘another interesting tactic he [cameron] uses’….Robinson says Cameron said he got the same assurances about hacking that the police and the PCC got…and neither had felt the need to act upon those, and therefore this shows he was right not to be concerned either.

Robinson says thatCaeron is muddling his times because at the time the allegations were made the police hadn’t looked into this.

Robinson claims that this undermines Cameron’s defence…however logically it reinforces it…If the police and PCC came to this late in the day, with more time to look at evidence and with possibly more evidence, and yet still decided there was no case to answer, then that backs up Cameron’s decision made at a time when there was even less evidence.

We then had a Labour Spad telling us that it was totally implausible that Coulson wasn’t vetted…and they have failed to answer why Coulson wasn’t subject to that degree of scrutiny.

But as we saw from O’Donnell’s statement Coulson had an initial ‘SC’ level of vetting which allowed him to see secret, and sometimes top secret, material….and he was undergoing the DV process when he resigned.

Once again the BBC is allowing false information to be broadcast and false assertions made against Cameron without challenge.

Even at 17:00 the BBC were still claiming Coulson wasn’t vetted properly:

17:00: PMQs update – Labour is hoping to keep up the pressure on David Cameron by asking Sir David Normington, the former senior civil servant and Commissioner for Public Appointments, to investigate why Andy Coulson was not given top-level security clearance when he worked in Downing Street.

The Labour Spad then went on to claim that DV would have discovered that Coulson had been involved in hacking…..complete rubbish.

Shame though…that would have saved a £100 million trial…who knew eh?  If only we had taken the Guardian’s word for things we could have chucked Coulson in jail and saved oursleves £100 million.

The same Guardian that lied about the News of The World deleting Milly Dowler’s text messages.

The BBC, whilst forensically delving into PMQs remarkably avoids the point raised by Philip Davies, Tory MP, (24 mins 50 secs) that when he was on the Culture, Media and Sport Committee’s inquiry into Press standards, privacy and libel   no concerns had been raised about Coulson by any party, and that Nick Davies of the Guardian came to the Committee and revealed that he had never seen any evidence that directly linked Coulson to phone hacking and that the Committee concluded that:

‘have, however, not seen any evidence that the then Editor, Andy Coulson, knew, but consider he was right to resign.’

Always curious, and telling, what the BBC dodges around.

Miliband’s claims are comprehensively trashed by O’Donnell’s statement to Leveson…the statement that neither Andrew Neil nor Nick Robinson could find.

Very quick post on Cameron and whether Gus O’Donnell advised him not to appoint Coulson…..note also that Coulson was security vetted…..

From Leveson…..Gus O’Donnell says he had no part in Coulson’s appointment…the BBC have been trying to say he did and are claiming they couldn’t find this…..

Question 30 – Please set out in full for the inquiry details of your role, if any, in relation to the appointment by the Prime Minster of Andy Coulson to a post in No.10. Your account should include a full explanation of the basis on which you were asked to advise. 

‘Mr Coulson was brought in as a special adviser to the Prime Minister. I was not involved in the process of appointing Mr Coulson. Mr Coulson was cleared to SC (security clearance) level and was undergoing DV (developed vetting) clearance at the time of his resignation’

As Coulson was SC cleared he could perfectly well be employed:

Lenny Henry was never very funny but it seems that he IS now the Cultural Kommisar for Ethnicity on the BBC

ACTOR and comedian Lenny Henry yesterday slammed the BBC’s £2.1million plan to foster ethnic talent.

The corporation’s director-general Tony Hall announced a new “diversity creative talentfund” last week to help “fast track” shows by minorities. But referring to 12 Years A Slave star Chiwetel Ejiofor and Idris Elba, from TV crime drama Luther, Mr Henry said: “They didn’t need more training, they just needed a break.”

Earlier this year, he complained that the number of ethnic workers in ­British TV had plunged by a third between 2006 and 2012 to just 5.4 per cent of the broadcast workforce. He called for new laws and targets to reverse that decline. Mr Henry told the Commons’ Culture, Media and Sport committee yesterday the UK had been haemorrhaging talent to America because of a mistaken belief that black ethnic minority actors “don’t have enough star power to drive a feature film or a long-running TV series”. Talking about Mr Hall’s plan, he said: “Development is great but there are people absolutely trained and ready to rock. “The inference seems to be ‘oh you’re not ready yet, here’s a little bit of development money, go away and practise a bit more until you’re ready’.”

So Henry wants to see racial discrimination as the best way of avoiding racial discrimination. It just depends which race you are discriminating against I suppose?

Anyone else catch the “debate” on The Media Show on BBC Radio 4 later afternoon on the “phone hacking scandal”? Superb balance as always with Nick Davies, Guardian journalist; Peter Preston, former editor of the Guardian;Harriet Harman, Labour’s Deputy Leader, Neil Wallis, former Deputy Editor of the News of the World; Lord Norman Fowler, former chairman of the House of Lords select committee on communications; journalist and Executive Director of Hacked Off, the strident Joan Smith; Alleged Conservative Fowler was happy enough to blame Thatcher for the cosying up to the Murdoch empire, so earning his pay for the day. The conclusion was that we “need” Leveson unexpurgated and nothing short of Leveson will do.