‘The media are indispensable to any attempt to answer a key challenge, that is, what might it mean for people to hear about and discuss climate in such a way that they decide to behave “dutifully”? ‘

‘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…..…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.’  BBC World Service Trust

BBC Trust statement.… ‘Impartiality is about breadth of view, and can be breached by omission’. (2007)

This is a ‘short’ heads up, a trailer if you like, for a longer post examining the BBC’s innumerable connections with the Green pressure and lobby groups, the scientists and the politicians, all with their own agendas and vested interests in selling us man-made global warming.

We were recently reminded about Dr Joe Smith’s (co-founder of the CMEP with the BBC’s Roger Harrabin) paper from 2005 which was essentially a ‘report’
detailing the discussions taking place within the CMEP seminars held at the BBC.

Held incidentally at the instigation, or authorised by, the new DG…Tony Hall when he was Director of News.

The presentation is 20 odd pages long and indicates that the BBC has long held the view that Climate Change is man made….but felt obliged to give the sceptics a voice.  That all changed, or rather was admitted openly, in 2007 when the BBC announced that the science was settled and sceptics would no longer have very much of a voice on the BBC.

The BBC was essentially ‘captured’ by the green lobbyists and is now their mouthpiece campaigning on their behalf to win the Public’s acceptance of AGW….it was a massive coup for them that put one of the most powerful and trusted voices in the media world on their side of the argument…and the science is still an argument however much the BBC et al deny it.

This is what Smith tells us about the power of the BBC:

The “capacity to define potential risks and hazards is broadly aligned with the distribution of power among ‘credible,’ ‘authoritative,’ and ‘legitimate’ definers of ‘reality’ across the media field.” ……[the BBC is] widely seen as an international leader in terms of balance, independence, and clarity. It is viewed as hegemonic within British broadcasting, helping to dictate the limits of what might be considered “news” in mainstream reporting.

The BBC ‘dictates the limits of what might be considered news’……in other words  if it reports something then it is likely that the rest of the media will follow their lead…and the Public will listen to that ‘trusted voice’.

They’d better be right then hadn’t they?

We now know that the seminars that ‘persuaded’ the BBC to adopt that stance on climate change were not based on what top, ‘expert’,  scientists were saying in them…there were few climate scientists there…we know that Professor Steve Jones who conducted a science review in 2010  for the BBC was hardly the impartial adjudicator of BBC science that such a review would demand…his career had stalled with no one willing to fund him and any of his research ideas…he was ‘rescued’ from obscurity and failure by the BBC who put him to work and paid him handsomely.

We know the science does not yet prove any link between CO2 and global warming…in fact it shows the opposite….warming leads to a rise in CO2.

But here is something else…one of those lobbyists, the International Broadcasting Trust, put in a submission  to influence (‘Our lobbying work has produced significant results. Both the BBC and Channel 4 now have remits which place internationalism at the heart of their output.‘) the BBC’s science review by Steve Jones and to attempt to change the way the BBC reports climate change…as did the sceptics such as ‘Bishop Hill’

It’s a funny thing but having read Dr Joe Smith’s 2005 presentation and then read the IBT 2010 submission it is apparent that they are almost identical…not word for word….but idea for idea, philosophy for philosophy and demand for demand in the way that they would like the BBC to report climate science.

There are at least 10 major points of similarity that stand out…..the conclusion I have come to is that either Joe Smith, or possibly Harrabin, wrote this submission for the IBT or someone at the IBT has taken Smith’s work almost verbatim, and submitted it to the BBC.

I would suggest that Smith wrote it…it is practically the CMEP ‘syllabus’….and Smith has a track record in working unacknowledged ‘behind the scenes’ on BBC projects and programmes that promote the idea of man-made climate change.

Those ten points are:
1.  Journalists must resist framing the debate by putting up pro AGW advocates against climate sceptics.

2.  Such an approach creates an impression of balance but  in fact demonstrates that ‘balance is bias’ …against the consensus and therefore wrong.

3.  It is important to train new, young journalists in a new approach to climate change because they will then either take that with them to the higher ranks of the BBC or move to other media organisations where they can then have influence over how the science is covered.

4.  Journalists must now present the science as a long term ‘process’ and not look for a ‘result’….do not debate the science…facts are not necessary.

5.  It is the Media’s role and responsibility to ensure the Public get the correct message about the science so that they then proceed to behave ‘dutifully’ in response.

6.  Sceptics lack the knowledge and scientific background to be qualified to challenge the consensus.

7.  Climate sceptics put in danger both Democracy and the Planet…..turn the debate into a ‘morality play’….guilt is good.

8.  There needs to be a new kind of reporting….as said science as a ‘process’ but also introduce new voices….ignore the science, look at the consequences of global warming and the necessary responses….bring on economists, historians, politicians, social scientists and businessmen who will ensure the Public are made fully aware of the dangers of climate change according to the consensus.

9.  Blur the boundaries between news and current affairs and other broadcast categories…drama, history, wildlife documentaries, anything that will further opportunities to influence the viewer’s perceptions and understanding of climate change.

10.  There are no more facts to be found…the science is settled…..that is now the ‘Orthodoxy’.

Here is a very small part of Smith’s 2005 paper followed by a similar abridgement of the IBT submission from 2010:

Dr Joe Smith:

This article explores the role of broadcast news media decision makers in shaping public understanding
and debate of climate change risks.   It focuses on media source strategies, on climate change  storytelling in news, and the “myth of detachment” sustained by many news decision makers.

Particularly significant is the disjuncture between ways of talking about uncertainty within science and policy discourse and media constructions of objectivity, truth, and balance.

The “capacity to define potential risks and hazards is broadly aligned with the distribution of power among ‘credible,’ ‘authoritative,’ and ‘legitimate’ definers of ‘reality’ across the media field.”    

[The BBC] is recognized as an important reservoir of journalistic talent; it is both a training ground for the early stages in many media careers and a destination for top journalists and editors. These conditions have led to the BBC being widely seen as an international leader in terms of balance, independence, and clarity. It is viewed as hegemonic within British broadcasting, helping to dictate the limits of what might be considered “news” in mainstream reporting.

The self-perception of news media is that they cast, direct, and stage-manage the public’s notion of life beyond immediate lived experience. Certainly, there is little arguing that the mass media are a key location for the social production—including the definition and evaluation—of risks. Hence the broadcast media’s treatment of climate change becomes central to any  attempt to unpick risk communication surrounding the issue.

Publics depend on news media to expand their knowledge about the world beyond the immediate horizons of lived experience.

Nevertheless, the balanced presentation of “pro” and skeptical climate change scientists was a persistent feature of climate change coverage into the late 1990s in Britain, and is still intermittently applied in the casting of broadcast news……research shows it to persist in the U.S…….. “[t]he continuous juggling act journalists engage in often militates against meaningful, accurate, and urgent coverage of the issue of global warming.”

[T]he communication and debate of climate change dangers will demand narratives that splice together uncertainty, social risks, and choices .

Editors acknowledge that climate change risks and responses demand public understanding and debate, and that they are inherently political.

Climate change can no longer be dealt with purely as a story about the reliability or otherwise of scientific data. Specialists have argued throughout the series of seminars since 1997 that it reaches into international affairs, food, mainstream politics, farming, transport, health, energy, taxation issues, and more.

Furthermore, not only program editors (the senior editor), but also their colleagues who are responsible for “out of hours” and minute-by-minute decisions, such as duty and news editors, need to be able to appreciate climate-change relevant strands within these categories.

The climate change dimension of the story can be set within established domestic news frames, the patterns of decisions about media content that organize, shape, (and limit) interpretations that are known to register with audiences. These might include: government competence, security of homes and insurance risks, and vulnerable social groups.  

It is important to note that the BBC and other media participants have been drawn almost exclusively from senior editorial staffs that do not have specialist expertise or experience in environment and development issues.  They have in almost all cases been invited to attend
by the BBC Director of News and are hence not self-selecting as “supportive” or “committed to” the issues under discussion.

Journalists have demanded to know what facts there are—or to demand “when are we going to get to the truth on climate change” and do not carry with them a sense that science is primarily a process of contestation.

This limited understanding of science compared with other fields of contemporary discourse among media professionals has frequently been acknowledged in discussions within the workshops—an admission that would be unthinkable for these media professionals in spheres such as economics or politics.  This is reflected in ignorance of even the most fundamental
aspects of science practice such as peer review.

Material and story ideas will not only be drawn directly from primary sources; the cue for a story will often come from other media outlets. The workshop discussions support U.S. research showing that even in technically difficult fields journalists turn to other journalistic sources in working up stories.

The intense competition among specialists within news organizations can compound narrow and repetitive patterns of reporting.

The confident assumption that there are facts to be found and communicated leaves editors poorly equipped to understand and negotiate the character of uncertainty within climate change science and policy, let alone facilitate exploration of the “postnormal” model of science and public participation that is increasingly emerging as an orthodoxy in science communication.

Disagreement about facts does not bar a story from getting on air. Far from it: but it will have to then conform to a rigid formula of presenting claim and counterclaim that is unsuited to the slowly unfolding exploration of narrowing bands of distribution of opinion that the science and policy of climate change implies. This is in pursuit of another professional obligation: a  commitment to balance and impartiality….…the trick with the BBC. . . is that we can say “here are the facts—unadulterated.” Where there is a political argument then we’ll try to make clear what the political arguments are.

Boykoff and Boykoff showed how reporting practices result in “balance as bias.” Their work concluded that “[t]he failed discursive translation between the scientific community and popular, mass-mediatized discourse is not random; rather the mis-translation is systematic and occurs for perfectly logical reasons rooted in journalistic norms, and values.”

When challenged about the limited nature of their climate change coverage editors are quick to see that the kind of purposeful social action demanded by the science and policy community carries them quickly out of questions about “good science” and into messy and editorially hazardous ethical-political terrain.

Discussions have shown a fear of being captured by the normative agenda implicit in  sustainability discourses via, e.g., ethical commitments to future and distant generations, and the nonhuman natural world.  As one journalist put it, to nods of assent from media colleagues: “you’ve got to understand this—we’re not here to tell the public how to behave—we’re there to tell them what’s happening”

There are signs from within the working groups at the seminars that those editorial decision makers who are sufficiently informed about climate change to appreciate the policy consequences of most mitigation and adaptation responses fear that to “buy-in” to climate change is to accept a predetermined set of value positions. Taking such a series of steps threatens not only the professional reputation of an editor but, in a highly fluid and insecure profession, his or her hardwon position…..climate change is value threatening and an ideological hazard is as true of news editors as it is of anyone. Editors are very wary of
values-based agendas, and insist that they are careful to avoid a close association between their outputs and a particular philosophical perspective on the world.

Non-media participants have questioned this stance persistently. Comparisons have been drawn with the evident normative stance in editorial lines on terrorism, human rights, and child labour.  Participants, particularly, though not exclusively, those from NGOs, have gone further, charging the U.K. news media with uncritically promoting the globalization of a narrow Western model of democracy, neo-liberal commitments to free trade, or the right to unlimited fossil-fuelled personal mobility. While there are signs that editors view “the facts about climate change” as something they should communicate to publics they are, to the frustration of many of the specialist participants, much more cautious about their role in signalling societal/policy paths in response to them.

Submission from the IBT:

The science and conclusions drawn from it have far reaching ethical and political implications.
There is an urgent need to improve debate .…on how to adapt to and mitigate the threat of climate [as it is now accepted as settled science].

In this paper we look In detail at the way in which climate change has been reported across the BBC and we make a series of practical proposals which we believe could not only enhance the BBC’s coverage but offer new opportunities for innovation [in the way climate change is presented by the BBC].
This submission focuses on broadcaster impartiality and must consider the media’s role and responsibilities with regard to wider science-policy-politics relations.

Journalists and programme makers should resist ‘debate framings…putting up opposing pro and sceptic climate change science opinion…[that gives a false impression of a balanced debate between supposedly equally informed and qualified players]

Programme makers should be more self-critical about their tendency to ‘ventriloquize’ public feeling…[and work to avoid representing ‘ill-informed’, i.e. sceptical, opinion.]

Programme makers must support the notion of the development of climate science as more of a ‘process’ than look for a ‘result’….[i.e. in other words the science Is not settled.…there is no ‘result…no proof of a link between CO2 and global warming.]

There are numerous online comments and complaints that charge the BBC with bias…there are signs that the BBC’s editorial and journalistic framing of the subject has been influenced by such comments and newspaper coverage as well as a swing in the public mood…really?

Climate disinformation online is a form of cultural and political malware every bit as threatening to our new media freedoms that harms not only democracy but also our planet.

Denier/sceptic/contrarian positions are backed by conservative think tanks, politically powerful bodies funded by wealthy foundations and corporations and the blogosphere provides almost unlimited capacity to communicate disagreement, controversy and conspiracy theories.

Public service broadcasters should be wary of influence by shifts in public opinion or wider media commentary.

The BBC is returning to a two sided discourse as if that represents an even handed account….such framings were common until the late 90’s [When the CMEP started its work?] and the BBC began to reflect what the ‘vast majority of scientists with authoritative knowledge believed’.

In the case of this programme the debate framing appears to be a carefully deployed editorial device intended to ‘invite in’ a body of the public who appear alienated from and mistrustful towards the scientific and policy communities that are arguing for action on climate change.  in effect the programme served as a restatement of the well-established scientific consensus…[and demonstrated no one really disagreed with that…even well known ‘sceptics’]

It will be a backward step to allow programme makers to go back to  a balancing of sceptical voices with those of the scientific consensus.…serving only to distort public understanding of the state of the science and the planet.

We recommend that programme makers and journalists resist debate framing that carry the implication of a balanced debate between informed players….essentially this is ‘balance as bias’.

Climate change is not just difficult and complex, with long term consequences and deep seated uncertainties, it has also become an orthodoxy.

There is a tendency to lose sight of the fact that the IPCC is a long term review process reliant on a broad and diverse science base where significant uncertainties remain in many branches of the science.

There are opportunities to use a new kind of reporting of climate change science to spearhead a fresh approach…..to communicate that science is a process not a result…demanding a commitment to new approaches to editing, conduct of interviews, scripting and presenting.

Opportunities should be sought to support younger media professionals and researchers given the role that the BBC plays in supporting the early stages of careers of people that go on to work elsewhere in the media and communications.

The quality of public debate would be greatly enhanced by identifying and encouraging new voices…..from social sciences, economics, philosophy, history, business, social entrepreneurs, political and policy talent.….[what of their knowledge and scientific qualifications?] shouldn’t there be others then who challenge such assertions…just as likely to be qualified to comment.

I’m away at the moment on a short break but have found the time for this new OPEN thread! I will keep an eye on things!

The BBC has produced a modernised version of anti-Semitism…you don’t have to be Jewish and rich…just be rich….. and they’ll come for you.

The Cavalry Ain’t Coming.

That’s right…the Cavalry ain’t coming despite what the BBC tells  you.

The BBC’s most fervent efforts go into building the mythology  of  the Socialist Cavalry riding to the rescue of the poor and downtrodden on the BBC’s favourite hobby horse…massive government subsidy…….more Gordon Brown? or should that be General Custer?

That hobby horse is housed in the Aegean Stables out of which the BBC shovel at us  a relentlessly unending supply of soiled socialist bilge.

The Rich are BAD people

Now we have an even more ambitious BBC project…..a veritable propaganda drive if you like…not just in Britain but in concert with 70 broadcasters from around the world…to be broadcast, of course, around the world….nothing like doing a job properly.

What’s the message?  The rich are getting richer and they’re doing it by stealing your money…they get richer and you get poorer…….it’s all so unfair.

Poorer?  They should mean of course ‘relatively’……because the facts aren’t what the BBC are telling us.

The BBC are lying to us.  No other way to say that.  They are lying in order to push a political agenda…a very simple one….that of attacking ‘The Rich‘.

Think not?  Then watch this programme in  particular…it is nothing more than a out and out attack, not just on the fact of people being rich, but on their very personality and character…..it is if you like a modern version of anti-Semitism…but transferred across to ALL Bankers and rich people not just Jews.

The Rich are detestable, cruel and nasty…the richer they get the meaner they get….they have lavish life styles, luxuriating in unimaginable wealth that is squandered in an orgy of self indulgent spending [wonder where all that ’spending’ ends up?].

The American Dream is over
The programme has two messages…as said the rich have become richer whilst everyone else’s income has stagnated if not fallen in the last 30 years.  The second thread is that  the American Dream is over….social mobility is over, if you’re born poor, you’re gonna stay poor.

That is also the message here in the UK.   (Thanks to Alex Feltham in the Comments who points us towards this which spells out what the reality is regarding social mobility )

Unfortunately for the BBC that might go down a storm in the well heeled Socialist salons of Hampstead but the facts on the ground say otherwise.

Economic figures both here and in the US show incomes have risen across the board in a remarkable fashion since the 70’s….yes the top 1% have risen faster…but that is relative…if you were earning in the 70’s and are still earning now you should feel by far better off now than then….if you knew nothing of the mega wealthy people you would probably be more than  content with your life.

A report from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) points out that income inequality in America has not risen dramatically over the past 20 years—when the top 1% of earners are excluded. With them, the picture is quite different.
CBO finds that, between 1979 and 2007, income grew by:
275 percent for the top 1 percent of households,
65 percent for the next 19 percent,
Just under 40 percent for the next 60 percent, and
18 percent for the bottom 20 percent.

So far from stagnating even the lowest paid have incomes which rose by nearly 20% and the vast majority saw their income rise by 40%.

In the UK incomes have risen dramatically across the income spectrum…..since Thatcher took over incomes have risen for nearly everyone…..but look at the graphs, they tell an interesting tale…..income has been distributed far more widely across the income levels now…more people earn far more.

And is the American Dream over?
The BBC et al would love you to think it was…why?  Because if it is  then all you have to rely on is ‘Big Brother’, the State cavalry riding to  your rescue propping you up and taking responsibility for your life….They just love Big Government.

The trick the BBC use is to sell us the line that their version of the  American Dream means that EVERYONE can be President (or head of Apple or General Motors etc)….not just Can but Will be President at the same time if they only try a bit harder.  That’s right….all 300 million Americans can be President…at the same time.

If you can’t do that then the Dream has failed you.

That’s not the American Dream…..people are more realistic……only one person can be President at a time, only so many doctors, lawyers, CEO‘s or whoever are needed in any society and economy…..the American Dream is that you have the ‘Opportunity’ to try for that if you want to…..it doesn’t promise you will succeed.

Look at this video from a man named Chris Gardner…he is a black man in the US….his life was destroyed, he was homeless with a young child….he saved himself and is now one of those nasty rich people…..he came from the exact same environment as one other famous, and black, success story…Oprah Winfrey….he is now so famous Will Smith made a film of his struggle…‘The Pursuit of Happyness’

The BBC want to deny you those opportunities…they want you to believe that those opportunities don’t exist anymore…well they do.  You just have to get off your backside and make it happen…..and not sit around waiting for the next unemployment payment…..which was Labour’s option when they gave up trying to educate and find work for the poorest in our society preferring instead, to the great delight of the BBC, to import massive numbers of cheap, low wage foreign workers.

This BBC programme is nothing more than an ugly polemic against rich people…..it is the type of propaganda and  class war rhetoric that the Soviets and the Khmer Rouge would use to justify the Gulags and the Killing Fields….it is if you like the ‘red wedge’ in the door of a civilised democracy that is being smashed open to let in the thugs of  bloody Revolution that some at the BBC so carelessly, or not so carelessly, incite….
Why Poverty? – 4. Park Avenue – Money, Power and the American Dream
‘Gibney’s film is a polemical look at the socio-economic political landscape of contemporary USA.
“There’s always been a gap between the wealthiest in our society and everyone else, but in the last 30 years something changed: that gap became the Grand Canyon,”
What chances do those at the bottom of the ladder have for upward mobility? Can someone who starts life on Park Avenue in the South Bronx end up living on Park Avenue in Manhattan?

A BBC Storyville film, produced in partnership with the Open University, Park Avenue screens as part of Why Poverty? – when the BBC and the OU, in conjunction with more than 70 broadcasters around the world, hosts a debate about contemporary poverty.‘

Em…why hasn’t the BBC apologised to Israeli Government…after all the BBC is quick enough to condemn them when they feel the need?

For the sake of clarity we expect that the BBC gets the reporting right….and the photographs, images and words used do not misrepresent the situation in Gaza or Israel.

We don’t expect ‘lies’ from the BBC.  But we get them.  Not all misrepresentations can be so easily explained away as ‘mistakes’.

The consequences of such lies are serious.

Right now across Europe Jews are being driven not just from their homes but from their countries…Sweden, France, Holland, Germany and even in Britain Jews are under attack.

These attacks are incited, given ‘sanction’ and ‘authority’, by the lies spread by news organisations such as the BBC which deliberately demonise Israeli actions and presents Palestinians  as innocent victims suffering under a savage and illegal Israeli occupation.

BBC News kills jews?

I think more than an apology is required.

I’m certain Danahar would rapidly deny that any of the BBC’s output could endanger anyone, let alone Jews, around the world.  His colleague, the BBC’s Science Editor David Shukman, might say otherwise……he has an article in the BBC News website’s ‘Science and Environment’ section entitled “Inside the world’s most ‘impossible’ science project“….this is what he suggests…..

“Given the hostility felt towards Israel, for instance, would any Arabs or Iranians ever consent to being pictured in the same room as Israeli scientists? If we were seen talking to one, would others boycott us? And, worst of all, would our filming put anyone in danger back home? Not everyone in Iran or Israel or the Arab countries likes the idea of their people fraternising with the other side.”

So Shukman doesn’t want to film Arab or Iranian scientists working with Jews…because if the film is seen in Iran or in Arab countries those scientists might be in danger….very considerate of him…….unlikely the same reaction would occur in Israel.

It’s just a shame the BBC are not so concerned about the effect their coverage of Israeli actions will have to further incite the rapidly growing atmosphere of anti-Semitism around the world.

Leveson avoided the task of examining the culture, practices and ethics of the BBC as it was outside his remit….If Cameron had any sense he would have changed that remit….and should now set up another ‘Leveson’ to look at the publicly funded BBC in particular.

‘This Inquiry  has covered the “culture, practices and ethics of the press” which obviously includes newspapers whether printed or online: it does not include broadcasters (ultimately regulated by Ofcom). Thus, although the Director General of the BBC, then Mark Thompson, gave evidence, he did so only to provide a comparison between the approach adopted internally by the BBC Trust along with the oversight from Ofcom. In those circumstances, although there have been many calls during the Inquiry for me to expand the terms of reference to investigate other organisations (most recently the BBC in the wake of the allegations against Sir Jimmy Savile), it is simply outside the Terms of Reference within which I am working.’

The BBC are outraged by the report…a ‘damning report’….. and know who to blame:

‘For editors, publishers and – not least – newspaper proprietors, this is a damning report.’

Never mind the politicians who ‘bought’ favourable coverage by whatever sordid little backroom deals they arranged…never mind the police officers or others who sold sensitive information…….there’s only one main target for the BBC…the man at the head of News International.

Some interesting points from Leveson:

Report rejects wrongdoing by the government around the BSKyB bid, with “no credible evidence of bias”. Must learn lessons around quasi-judicial processes. “We were right to stand by him.” [Says Cameron]

No evidence of a “deal” between David Cameron and News International to trade policy favours for positive news coverage

So two major BBC news stories….one generated from the dark recesses of the inventive mind of  Labour’s Peter Mandelson and which was accepted as ‘true’ by the BBC, the other a story that the BBC itself played a part in concocting about BSkyB….both stories wrong and unfounded.

Impartiality in its DNA?  I don’t think so.

The funny thing about Leveson was that New Labour and its extraordinary, incestuous, closeness to the Murdochs and their media empire goes almost unmentioned…Gordon Brown managing to evade any serious questions at all during the inquiry….it is Cameron who gets rapped over the knuckles for his closeness to ‘Murdoch’…though in fact to Rebekah Brooks…who happens to be the wife of his old school friend Charlie Brooks.

It was the very same Labour Party which had Murdoch Journalist and now Labour’s communications spinner (Senior Advisor (Communications and Strategy)), Tom Baldwin, plant stories in the Times on behalf of the Labour government:

Beware of The Times’ Tom Baldwin

Tom Baldwin is back in London, writing political stories for The Times. Before a stint as a reporter for the same newspaper in America he became notorious for writing stories that bore Downing Street’s imprint. His close connections to Alastair Campbell are still evident in the number of stories he has helped write in recent weeks about Blair’s chances of becoming EU President.

This is what the BBC has to say about that…..
New Labour is also criticised for introducing a culture of ‘spin’ in Government

Dynamite.

Guido Fawkes is less enamoured by Leveson and his plans for Press regulation:
‘The Leveson Report suggests Ofcom could soon wield considerable power over the press. It is recommended that the new regulatory body will be ‘validated’ by Ofcom, the government is to consider allowing Ofcom to regulate newspapers that refuse to join or even becoming the regulatory body itself if the new system fails. So who is the man in charge of Ofcom?
Ed Richards is a former adviser Gordon Brown, who worked in a small office with just the former PM and his PA. He was also a senior policy adviser to Tony Blair. The Guardian describe him as having a background “rooted in New Labour”. Now he could well be the guardian of the guardians. Do we really want Gordon Brown’s henchman in charge of regulating the press?’

Better late than never, Here you go.

Facts prove……

Interesting fact of the day…The BBC’s Question Time is biased towards the Right.

Is there bias on BBC Question Time?

Phil Burton-Cartledge has crunched the numbers on the political persuasions of the guests on the BBC’s flagship politics programme….. just shy of four years worth of data. Please note I have excluded Question Time’s annual forays to Northern Ireland from the figures.

As of 22 November, 362 individuals have occupied 704 panel slots. For those interested in gender and political participation, only 98 guests have been women. These between them have occupied 235 slots.

Actually I’m not sure what he says he has proved….apart from being an enormous waste of his time…I always assume QT is in the main ‘balanced’…audience aside….so to crunch the numbers on this over a four year period is sheer folly.

The main conclusion seems to be that Nigel Farrage gets on far too many times and that Union Barons hardly at all….and that’s so unfair because Union Barons are the true representatives of millins of hard working people…aren’t they?

Seems just another New Statesman effort, however slight, to ‘defend’ the BBC from charges of being a Lefty bunker.

Here’s an interesting comment on the article from the writer’s own blog:

‘The issue with journalists going on Question Time and spouting off completely destroys the laughable notion that still gets trotted about hacks being “neutral” – all news and editorial judgments are inherently subjective.

But rather than bleating about this, and imaging that Lord Leveson is going to deliver a fairer media through some sort of state-backed regulation, the the left would do better to develop more TV friendly independent minded journalists who are able to articulate the very many popular left positions clearly.

Anyway, great piece and should be spread far and wide every Thursday the minute a right-winger opens their cake hole to bleat about the Marxists controlling the BBC.’

I should of course add a  correction to that…..when they say ‘all news and editorial judgements are inherently subjective’.…they don’t mean the nice BBC.  Clear?

Here’s the thing…why did the author, ‘Phil the sociologist’, put this piece together?

Phil said…(in reference to the comment about right wingers bleating about the Marxist BBC)

Re: your final comment, I wrote it specifically for those annoying Question Time moments 😉 

So essentially it was written as a political piece designed purely to attempt to spike right wing claims of BBC bias…..all it really does is confirm what we always knew about sociologists…they’re a complete waste of time and money…..they come up with ‘research’ that you can hear in any pub any night of the week….as he says in his banner….‘Sociology with a socialist spin’

The rather shy ‘Phil’ is Phil Burton-Cartledge....Ex-ex-blogger, Stoke Labour Party vice chair, constituency secretary & bag carrier, co-founder of Democratic Futures. ….Phil received his PhD from Keele University in 2010. His thesis concerned the life history of revolutionary socialist activists. Phil is interested in political sociology and the sociology of social movements, and in social theory more generally’

Apparently this is Phil on Twitter:

This is him (bottom) in real life along with co-founder Gavin Bailey: Gavin completed his PhD at Keele University in 2011 and his doctoral research looked at the community activities of radical Islamist and far right activists:

The photo of ‘Phil’ raises questions about the truthfulness of this Tweet of his:

Phil BC ‏@philbc3

@The_Iron_Lad People like me were actively fighting the Nazis on the streets. Right wingers like you were trying to cut deals with them

Obviously takes a good photo.

Oh yes….can’t have you miss this from the comments, which I’m sure is totally untrue and the mere ramblings of a disgruntled ex-employee…..

‘Lest we forget, the great neutral arbiter Dimblebot himself has form as a nasty, penny pinching businessman. He and his brother owned a series of newspapers in south London until the late 90s where reporters had to buy their own notebooks and were reputedly paid less than the minimum wage based on their long working hours. These journalists only received a substantial payrise and celebrated wildly when the Dimbleboys sold it to the US multinational Newsquest – itself a hated firm not known for their high pay!‘

The BBC is enthusiastic about exposing the supposed sins of corporations that minimise their tax obligations….all quite legally….but sooooo immoral!

We know that for some people the BBC is prepared to look the other way….one such person being Labour’s Margaret Hodge who has a near 10% share holding in a company that pays barely any tax at all in this country…..

Labour’s millionairess Margaret Hodge’s family business pays very little tax:
The Labour MP has been one of the fiercest critics of tax avoidance by companies such as Starbucks, Google and Amazon. However, she is likely to face questions over the limited tax paid by Stemcor, the steel trading company in which she owns shares and which was founded by her father and is run by her brother.Analysis of Stemcor’s latest accounts show that the business paid tax of just £163,000 on revenues of more than £2.1bn in 2011. However it is not known whether the company – which made profits of £65m – used similar controversial tax avoidance measures criticised in the past by Mrs Hodge. Stemcor’s tax bill to the exchequer equates to just 0.01pc of the revenues it booked through its UK-based business.

This from Guido:

Priti Patel Demands Hodge Calls Stemcor to PAC

Priti Patel has written a strongly worded letter to Margaret Hodge demanding that she calls Stemcor in front of the Public Accounts Committee for a grilling –  as Chair of the PAC she would have to stand aside when Stem or gave evidence to avoid a conflict of interest because of her position as a shareholder with millions tied up in Stemcor. Her family firm has a multi-billion pound turnover yet paid a mere £157,000 in tax.

…and engages in ‘Transfer pricing’  which is relevant to what follows.

The BBC are running what amounts to a campaign against such companies…part of which is this programme….which is a very one sided and cynical look at mining corporation Glencore…..and note the slightly sinister admission that the BBC has joined up with over 70 other broadcasters to ‘push’ what amounts to propaganda, around the world……the BBC accuse the company of using ‘transfer pricing’, especially, to avoid tax…..

Why Poverty? – 3. Stealing Africa

Christoffer Guldbrandsen investigates the dark heart of the tax system employed by multi-nationals and asks how much profit is fair.

A BBC Storyville film, produced in partnership with the Open University, Stealing Africa screens as part of Why Poverty? – when the BBC, in conjunction with more than 70 broadcasters around the world, hosts a debate about contemporary poverty. The global cross-media event sees the same eight films screened in 180 countries to explore why, in the 21st Century, a billion people still live in poverty.

After all that it might just be a little embarrassing for the BBC, which rakes in at least £1.5 billion from its own commercial activities, to be revealed as a corporation that hides behind that tired old phrase ‘for the purposes of journalism, art or literature‘ in order to stop people seeing how much tax it does, or doesn’t pay.

Remember this is the organisation that went after Student Loans company boss, Ed Lester who was found to be using a tax scheme that meant he didn’t pay tax at source…

‘Revelations by Newsnight that the chief executive of the Student Loans Company was avoiding paying tens of thousands of pounds in tax in an arrangement signed off by senior ministers has led to a dramatic rethink by the government’

However when the BBC was caught out for doing exactly the same thing it has insisted that it was not a tax dodging scheme…

‘The BBC is to review the way hundreds of TV and radio freelance presenters are paid, after suggestions it is aiding tax avoidance schemes.

A commons committee heard claims that one long-term presenter was urged to receive payment off the books “or face a substantial pay cut”.

The BBC insisted the arrangements are not in place to avoid paying tax.’

Here is a freedom of Information request that was made earlier this year asking about some of the tax liablities of the BBC in America…the BBC refuses to disclose this figure…..

The BBC reply:

Ken Tindell
Via email to – [FOI #114766 email]

23 May 2012

Dear Dr Tindall,

Freedom of Information request – RFI20120464 

Thank you for your request to the BBC of 25 April 2012, seeking the following information under
the Freedom of Information Act 2000:

1. The total amount of revenue generated from advertising on the BBC news web site (or a wider
collection of BBC web sites if no specifics for the BBC news web site are available). 

2. What proportion of non-UK traffic of the web site / sites in (1) are from the USA.

3. How much US corporation tax is paid by the BBC on the advertising revenue in (1).

The information you have requested is excluded from the Act because it is held for the purposes
of ‘journalism, art or literature.’  The BBC is therefore not obliged to provide this information to
you and will not be doing so on this occasion.  Part VI of Schedule 1 to FOIA provides that
information held by the BBC and the other public service broadcasters is only covered by the Act
if it is held for ‘purposes other than those of journalism, art or literature”.  The BBC is not
required to supply information held for the purposes of creating the BBC’s output or information
that supports and is closely associated with these creative activities.1

You may not be aware that one of the main policy drivers behind the limited application of the Act
to public service broadcasters was to protect freedom of expression and the rights of the media
under Article 10 European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”).  The BBC, as a media
organisation, is under a duty to impart information and ideas on all matters of public interest and
the importance of this function has been recognised by the European Court of Human Rights.

1 For more information about how the Act applies to the BBC please see the enclosure which follows this letter.
Please note that this guidance is not intended to be a comprehensive legal interpretation of how the Act applies to the
BBC.

Maintaining our editorial independence is a crucial factor in enabling the media to fulfil this function.

The BBC’s Jon Donnison has some explaining to do (Via BBC Watch):

BBC’s Jon Donnison summoned to Government Press Office hearing

‘The BBC’s Jon Donnison, together with the head of the BBC Jerusalem Bureau and head of the Foreign Press Association, Paul Danahar, has been summoned by the Government Press Office in Israel to a hearing this coming Wednesday (November 28^th) on the subject of Donnison’s Tweet of a picture of a child casualty from Syria as though it were from Gaza – as first publicised by BBC Watch on November 19^th 2012.

Then he might also want to explain the rest of his work….such as minimising Israeli casualties and the threat to them, and using the BBC to highlight the death of a Palestinian colleague’s son to elicit sympathy for the Palestinians.

Perhaps he should be even more worried than just about losing his press credentials:

BBC sacks two workers for misusing Twitter

The BBC has fired two members of staff for misusing social media sites, including Twitter, it has emerged.

‘A further two workers have been disciplined following inappropriate behaviour on sites like Twitter and Facebook, the broadcaster has disclosed under a Freedom of Information request.