Bishop Hill More Harrabin
Dec 16, 2008 BBC I've previously blogged about the Cambridge Environment and Media Programme (which might be the Cambridge Media and Environment Programme; nobody seems sure). CEMP, as I'll call it, is run by the BBC's Roger Harrabin and Dr Joe Smith of the Open University, apparently to improve coverage of green issues in the media. As far as I can tell this involves using the BBC to promote environmentalism, but I recognise that my views may be prejudiced, so let me lay down the evidence I have recently uncovered.
CEMP's activities seem mainly to involve putting together BBC journalists and bigwigs and NGOs to discuss green issues. These meetings have lead to among other things the abortive Planet Relief day of BBC greenery.
CEMP is funded from a mixture of public and private sources - the BBC and the Tyndall Centre at the University of East Anglia both say they have contributed. What the private sources are, or indeed what the legal status of CEMP is remain unclear, but it is not a great stretch of the imagination to believe that these are in fact the self-same NGOs who get to meet the BBC bigwigs.
In response to a Freedom of Information request, Dr Smith indicated that in his view, his work with Roger Harrabin is private activity.
Put these factors together and you have a disturbing situation which raises some uncomfortable questions for the corporation. For example:
- Why is the BBC funding the private activities of one of its journalists?
- How can the BBC claim to be editorially independent when it is engaged in a joint venture with unidentified private organisations to shape its own content?
- Who is authorising this expenditure within the BBC?
- What is the BBC getting in return?
Lots of questions, but precious few answers at the moment. I'll keep digging, but any suggestions as to ways of attacking the problem will be gratefully received.
Bishop Hill
The full story of Roger Harrabin and the Cambridge Media and Environment Programme is now available as a download here.
Reader Comments (17)
"BBC News currently takes the view that their reporting needs to be calibrated to take into account the scientific consensus that global warming is man-made. The BBC's Editorial Guidelines, issued to all editorial staff, state that "we must ensure we avoid bias or an imbalance of views on controversial subjects" and, given the weight of scientific opinion, the challenge for us is to strike the right balance between
mainstream science and sceptics since to give them equal weight would imply that the argument is evenly balanced. The BBC Governors and BBC Management jointly commissioned a report, "From Seesaw to Wagon Wheel - Safeguarding Impartiality in the 21st Century", published in June 2007, which noted that: "There may be now a broad scientific consensus that climate change is definitely happening and that it is at least predominantly man-made… the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus."
I love the statement that "climate change is definitely happening." This was after I sent them the satellite temperature data showing the constant levels since 1998. Not giving equal space is not the same as always reporting evidence supporting AGW, like Pugh's unsuccessful canoe trip to the North Pole where the start was trumpeted, but his failure to get further than previous expeditions was not reported I have complained to the BBC Trust and await a reply.
Yes, I know about the BBC's claims that they no longer need to be impartial here, but that doesn't permit them to fund private activities of one of their journalists and it doesn't allow them to have their content dictated to them by green organisations, as appears to be happening now.
Giving equal space to 'sceptics' isn't the point. Does the BBC even give them a voice? When was the last time that a piece was run entirely from the 'sceptical' viewpoint?
Journalism that only sticks to the 'consensus' isn't journalism but a form of campaigning. The political 'consensus' in the UK is tested at a General Election but that doesn't mean the BBC ignores the political opposition until they get into power. They don't say "The election is settled." in the same way that years ago they said the science was settled.
The reason why the CMCP was established was to give Roger some academic credibility because although he claims to have been reporting on the environment for decades in reality he hasn't. I guess the BBC was hoping that no one would ask questions about it.
And why did the BBC see fit to create a new post for Roger, that of an 'analyst' when it has three environment correrpondents already? It doesn't have 'analysts' in other fields?
I suspect that the BBC news management know nothing about science but felt they wanted to 'own' the subject of global warming so they gave it to Roger who also knows nothing about science.
It is interesting that a former BBC science correspondent David Whitehouse - whom I think is a qualified scientist - takes a different view of global warming. I wonder what his views are on its current reporting?
What I find annoying is that the Corporation always accepts such expressions as 'this is due to climate change' or 'climate change is causing...' from anyone it interviews, regardless of qualifications, yet will never enlist a qualified opinion that might contradict or even debate the statements.
Anyone who wishes to contact the Trust please write to:
Complaints Manager
BBC Trust Unit
Room 211
35 Marylebone High Street
London
W1U 4AA
Another complaint that is gaining groud is the BBC's left wing bias.
Of course the real objection is that we are funding this crap. Personally I believe a mass boycott of the licence fee is the only solution.
It is well known that governments from the EU down fund lobbyists to lobby the funding organisation in subjects that they cannot be seen to approach without reason. There is also a lot of small print in the funding of green issues which doesn't allow for the alternative point of view to be expressed.
As an example, try and get anyone who is on an EU pension to express doubt in the man made global warming theory and you will fail. Their pension is at stake and no one is going to risk it!
As the BBC gets its funding in no small part from the EU, it might help to explain their point of view. It might be worth trying to find that small print and seeing if it can be publicised. However, the problem is that issues like these are too complex to explain in simple soundbites and so are generally ignored by anyone trying to sell papers. Its a lot easier to talk about future disasters and celebrity boob jobs!
If requests and complaints get nowhere, maybe a mole in CEMP could be the answer. Does anyone reading this blog live in Cambridge?
The whole system is corrupt, but I don't know what can be done about it.
As far as I can tell, CEMP is just Harrabin and Joe Smith. There's nothing to infiltrate.
http://www.bbcgreen.com/content/home
You can browse by subject or download the 200 something long pdf altogether from here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/
Go "undercover" and expose them.
Set up a paper fictitious "green group." Something like <b>The International Union of Green Scientists</b>. International is good, because it allows for all sorts of "Hitlers Diaries" scenarios.
Create bogus credentials and successes with the patina of believability. Letterheads, a website, major "endorsements"
Contact CEMP, and try to set up something with the BBC.
then EXPOSE THE TOOLS
It's the only way. I'm up for it and will help.
Al Beeb has another "green" site at http://www.loveearth.com/
although at first it appears to be just another moonbat web page, at the bottom of the page it says
"©BBC Worldwide Ltd. All rights reserved. The love earth logo is a trademark of the BBC."
who are they saving planet earth from ?
makes me wonder what else Al beeb has hidden away
You all might have seen that our government has just sold its one third share of our atomic weapons establishment to a US company. As you can imagine there have been a vast number of adverse comments. More than one commentator has suggested selling the BBC if our government is desperate to raise more money. I guess they have a point.