Category Archives: BBC bias

‘The uncritical reproduction of scientific orthodoxy is a far more egregious error: it denies that error can be observed from without the consensus.’

There was a  huge fuss generated by the Hotheads of the pro AGW side of the climate debate over the Andrew Neil interview with Ed Davey, asking him if government climate and energy policy should be changed to take into account the new facts…such as a 16 year ‘pause’ in global warming.

The major bone of contention, or contrived argument against the interview, was that neither participant was a scientist.  The reality was that the critics didn’t like the line of questioning and therefore sought to claim Neil, as a mere journalist, cannot possibly be qualified to speak knowledgeably on the subject and Davey, as a politician is similarly challenged.

Hmmm…but isn’t that the job of both the journalist and the politician…to gather information or advice, analyse it and come to some conclusion…and in the case of the politician to make far reaching decisions based upon his understanding of that science.

The ‘Hotheads’ are not so critical of Davey when he makes decisions that go in their favour…then he is wise and knowledgeable.

The ‘Hotheads’ are not so critical of journalists like Harrabin or Black who seem to toe the ‘party line’.

 My criticism of the BBC in this case is to ask why is it that a political journalist is asking questions about climate policy that the BBC’s own environmental journalists should be asking…but don’t.

Could it be that Harrabin has spent years, in collusion with Dr Joe Smith, attempting, very successfully, to prevent any such questions and consequent debate being raised.

There is an excellent article on this conflict of interests here (via Bishop Hill)

The emphasis on expertise is either hopelessly naive or it is an attempt to delimit permissible areas of debate for strategic ends. Heaven forefend that politicians should be interrogated, lest it turn out that far-reaching and expensive policies turn out to have been, if not drafted by people who do not have a grasp of their subject, executed by them.

In spite of all the criticism levelled against him, then, Andrew Neil, in just one show, has done more to promote an active understanding of climate science and its controversies than has been done by the Carbon Brief blog, academics at the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism and elsewhere, Bad Science warriors, and a legion of Tweeters who claim to speak for science have done in their entire existences. Along the way, it is possible that Neil made some inconsequential technical mistakes. But by contrast, the uncritical reproduction of scientific orthodoxy is a far more egregious error: it denies that error can be observed from without the consensus. So much for ‘science’.

Perhaps the BBC might like to rethink its policy of not engaging ‘sceptics’.

In the comments for this article Mike Hulme, from the UEA, so no climate sceptic, said this about the ‘consensus’ (via Bishop Hill)….

I know we’ve done a lot on Zimmerman already but I couldn’t let this pass without a blogpost.

Take a look at the considered opinion of BBC News Channel journalist Robert Rea on the day of the Zimmerman verdict. Rea claims Zimmerman only shot Martin because he was black, and it was shameful that he wasn’t found guilty by the jury. All twelve of them.

@Chelsea_Lass had he been blond and blue-eyed, Zimmerman wouldn't have shot him. He did so because Trayvon was black. Shameful verdict

— Robert Rea (@robertrea) July 14, 2013

@Chelsea_Lass and what's worse is it wasn't the Law that cleared Zimmerman. The Law put him on trial. It was a jury. 12 ordinary people

— Robert Rea (@robertrea) July 14, 2013

The jurors sat through all the evidence and concluded that Zimmerman was not guilty.

Rea’s grasp of the proceedings is such that he didn’t even know there were only six jurors.

His reaction is typical of many – an emotional response to a superficial narrative promoted by an agenda-driven media. That he can work in a BBC newsroom and be so ignorant of simple details of the trial is embarrassing, and doesn’t say much for the BBC’s own coverage of the court case. Of course, not knowing what went on in the courtroom didn’t prevent him from denouncing the jury for coming to the wrong verdict. It was just obvious the verdict was wrong, wasn’t it? It was the accepted wisdom in the newsroom.

This trial-be-damned Justice-4-Trayvon emoting has characterised the tweets of those BBC journalists I’ve seen commenting on the case. Just this morning I stumbled on a couple more from the day of the verdict.

BBC journalist Jo Deahl:

George Zimmerman. I know it's been said all day but… Really? REALLY?

— Jo Deahl (@elvisismyguru) July 14, 2013

BBC Radio 5 Live Breakfast Show producer Laura Harmes:

So sad at Trayvon Martin verdict. Forget race, how can it be right that an unarmed boy gets pursued and shot dead and his killer walks free?

— Laura Harmes (@lauraharmes) July 14, 2013

@ageywage @NatashaSHenry it appears it is. My point was look at the basic facts of the case. A man killing an innocent boy.

— Laura Harmes (@lauraharmes) July 14, 2013

@Westofthelaw I'm not sure Zimmerman being Hispanic is relevant. It's about how white jury felt towards Trayvon.

— Laura Harmes (@lauraharmes) July 16, 2013

Further ignorance of, and disdain for, the jury there. And once again an emotional superficial understanding of the case.

A few days ago Richard Lawson, senior producer at Radio 5 Live, blocked me on Twitter for the following tweet:

@richardlawson79 No, "the world" is not aghast. It just seems that way if you work for the Guardian or the BBC. #groupthink

— DB (@4d2b) July 20, 2013

I’ve read lots of tweets by BBC hacks expressing sadness and anger over the verdict, and seen lots of links from them to articles in lefty publications reinforcing those emotions. I’ve yet to find a BBC journalist who tweeted that the Zimmerman verdict was right and proper.

Until evidence to the contrary emerges I’ll stick with my verdict: groupthink.

Blimey, the last Open Thread is already overflowing SO here is a new one for you! Off you go…detail the bias.

Had to laugh at the BBC this morning doing its very best to cast cold water on further signs of at least some modest economic recovery.  First the bad news for the comrades..

The UK economy grew by 0.6% in the three months to June, according to official figures.  The figure was in line with market expectations, and is up from 0.3% growth in the previous quarter.

Thankfully, renowned economist Nick Robinson is here to tell us that it is  “Growth but not as we know it”  As if that was not enough then we have this ” The view from the shop floor” On the Today programme, caution was thrown to the wind and a veritable barrel of cold water was thrown over the positive news. It’s going so WRONG for Labour’s meme that we are all doomed and so the BBC has to resort to dousing every green shoot of recovery with its own toxic pesticide.

The BBC’s ‘News Quiz’ is hardly worth posting on…it’s so evidently designed purely as a vehicle for leftie comedians, so called, to vent their spleens against the evil Tories that not much needs to be said about it.

Last Saturday’s effort toed the Party line and the first attack was on Lynton Crosby…then there was a completely joke free rant about the  welfare cap and a claim that IDS had invented some ‘bogus figures’…the rest of the programme seemed to be made up of reading out allegedly humorous newspaper clippings which  listeners had sent in.

All great fun.

It couldn’t be that they have a list of things they want to rant about and if they possibly can they will try and fit in a joke, but if they can’t, well, never mind? 

Toksvig and crew couldn’t resist mentioning the Daily Mail of course, and not forgetting Nigel Farage…subtly linking him to the Nazis as is the usual BBC practice.

Toksvig states, for the benefit of Daily Mail readers, small minded and insular beings that they are,  that immigrants actually pay more tax than native Brits….so there!!!

Really?  There’s a special immigrant tax rate is there?  or maybe they’re just more upstanding and moral than the rest of us…they pay what they think they ought to pay in a fair and just society….as set out by the sainted Margaret Hodge?!

So let’s get this straight…..

The Labour Party concoct a story that Tory advisor Lynton Crosby advised ‘profiteering’ private health companies on how to exploit failures in the NHS.

The Guardian splash the story on its front page.

The BBC picks up the Guardian story and runs with it claiming that Cameron faces questions after ‘it emerges’ his election strategist advised private health companies how to profit from NHS reforms.

Guido Fawkes then fact checks and finds that it was in fact a Labour leaning group that made the presentation, Crosby merely provided research to that group.

The Guardian back tracks and changes its story.

The BBC, having run a story that conveniently attacks and undermines a person that represents a danger to its fellow travellers in the Labour Party, is still running the same story at 18:00.

Suddenly the BBC too changes its reporting…but it doesn’t put up a fresh story it edits the old one…changing it entirely….keeping the same web link and an old time stamp…14:59…therefore preventing anyone from seeing the previous, and very erroneous version….unless you had seen it before and were able to link to it via any other website which had picked up the original version.

Sooooo…the BBC runs a smear story, one that it clearly didn’t factcheck, one that it took complete from the Guardian without asking is this true? The fact that the presentation was in 2010 when Crosby was not working for the Tories should immediately have cast doubt on this story…but the BBC ran it full on all day.

Why did they run it?  Because the story was too good to not be true….building on the narrative that Labour and the BBC have been creating for a week or so now to distract from Miliband’s Unite problems.

When the facts became publicly known, thanks to Guido, the BBC did a stealth edit and covered its tracks making it difficult to locate the original version of the report…even the ‘Way Back When Machine’ and ‘News Sniffer’ cannot link to it.

The BBC did a hatchet job on an important figure in the Tories’ election strategy…..the BBC made a deliberate attempt to undermine and discredit someone who is a key player in the Tories’ political battle against Labour….potentially derailing the Tories’ election plans and possibly even the outcome of the election…they hope.

The BBC has been caught red handed interfering in the political process with a clear attempt to rig the election in Labour’s favour.

Gotta love the BBC for their relentless pursuit of Lynton Crosby. Ed Miliband must so appreciate Beeb attempts to smear and blacken the reputation of this man, who whether one likes it or not, has helped turn around Conservative fortunes in recent times. I don’t expect Crosby is lily white, but I don’t expect any in his position in previous times were any less discoloured – say from 1997 to 2010?

Going on a seven day hunger strike in support of Gitmo resident Shaker Aamer is perhaps accidental comedy genius from alleged comedian Frankie Boyle. I was reading this BBC report on Frankie’s “Bobby Sands” moment. All this classic elements are in it; It says he is a UK resident but minimises the fact he is a Saudi national. You have to wade through paragraphs of dirge to get to the bit where we are told WHY he is detained in Gitmo.  The US says he led a unit of Taliban fighters against Nato troops and had met Osama Bin Laden. BBC are then quick to insert that “But Mr Aamer has always said he was in Afghanistan with his family doing charity work.”  As you do. Aamer is the new Binyam Mohammed and I am sure you will recall how the BBC lionised him. If you recall, Binyam was another unfortunate Muslim who was captured by US forces having  travelled to Taliban controlled Afghanistan, around the same time as Shaker Aamer and just prior to the invasion, in order to … clear his drug addled head and experience a Muslim country first hand. I guess these unlucky Muslims must be thankful the BBC are so keen to believe what they allege and give Frankie the publicity he graves. Let’s hope Boyle can make the 7th day.

Yup, I see how bulging with comments Monday’s thread is so here’s a new one for you.  Enjoy filling it!

Andrew Neil, that well known climate scientist, has stirred up a hornet’s nest by daring to question government policy on climate…based as it is on ever increasing temperatures….but there are obvious doubts about that now due to the long hiatus in rising temperatures:

The Sunday Politics interview with Energy and Climate Change Secretary Ed Davey on July 14 provoked widespread reaction in the twittersphere and elsewhere, which was only to be expected given the interview was about the latest developments in global warming and the implications for government policy.

The main purpose of the interview was to establish if the government thought the recent and continuing pause in global temperatures meant it should re-think its policies in response to global warming.

This is a vital policy issue since the strategy of this government and the previous Labour government to decarbonise the economy involves multi-billion pound spending decisions, paid for by consumers and taxpayers, which might not have been taken (at least to the same degree or with the same haste) if global warming was not quite the imminent threat it has been depicted.

Our focus was on a global temperature plateau which could be a challenge to the forecasts of climate models which have determined government policy. The plateau could continue for the foreseeable future or melt away as temperatures resume their upward trajectory.

What was possibly even more interesting was this:

It might also be argued that challenging interviews on matters in which there is an overwhelming consensus in Westminster – but not necessarily among voters who pay for both the licence fee and the government’s energy policies – is a particularly legitimate purpose of public-service broadcasting.

So it is the job of public-service broadcasters to challenge the overwhelming consensus?

You could have fooled me and many others who thought the BBC had decided that the science was ‘settled’ and that no more questions needed to be asked…full ahead with green taxes and hair shirts.

I guess when you take money from organisations that promote man made global warming your journalism might be compromised.

And the fact that BBC journalists have few scientific qualifications between them and yet feel compelled to denounce ‘mere bloggers’ as unqualified to comment on climate change…many of whom are actually far  more scientifically qualified that the BBC journalists.