Bishop Hill BBC reaction to Climategate
Nov 17, 2010 BBC Climate: CRU Climate: Russell I hadn't seen this before (H/T to a commenter on the earlier thread) - this is the BBC's Newswatch programme looking at criticisms of Climategate and climate coverage in general, a couple of weeks after the emails appeared in November 2009.
A couple of points to look out for. Firstly there is the BBC manager saying
I can categorically assure you there has not been any such decision [to downplay sceptic views] and any such decision would be entirely at odds with the culture of the organisation. Our job is to pick our way through what is a highly complex scientific discussion and also to do so with a sense of proportion - making sure the full range of voices in these areas are represented.
Just moments later, Richard Black directly contradicts this position by speaking about the decision taken at the seminar to do just that - to downplay sceptic views. Interesting to see reporters on the ground having such a different view of the effect of the seminar to their managers.
The second point that amused me was Richard Black saying that he didn't think the BBC had underplayed Climategate in quantitative terms. I thought this was a surprising thing to say, given that AFAIK Black's first article on Climategate appeared in July, after the publication of the results of the Russell "inquiry".
Reader Comments (15)
To be fair to Black he did mention it in passing (to dismiss it) as far back as February and from November to Fwbruary he was all tied up with Copenhagen.
From the interview, ref the corporate decision to downplay the dissident view ,..." I can categorically assure you that there has not been any such decision".......
Obviously the guy was not invited to Harrabins attempt lead editors by the nose! Actually, is "dissident" the same as denier or worse?....Oh well, of to Wiki again!
Sorry Bish I know you put the same comment on the blog article but I am a little confused with Roger Black saying the BBC Trust decided that the sceptics no longer deserved a voice.
Was Harrabins gathering the BBC Trust?
Output from Harrabin's gathering ("the seminar") appeared in a BBC Trust report ("From Seesaw to Wagonwheel").
Just a reminder that this BBC suppression of sceptics is not new, and was fermenting long before Climategate. Black's blog (linked below) is an example, not the blog itself, but the comment thread beneath. Note in particular Black's attempt to excuse the suppression of reporting the 2009 Heartland Conference and particularly the then EU President's (Vaclav Klaus) speech in comment 24.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2009/03/whale_week_climate.html
What Climategate is notable for, is finally dragging the reluctant BBC into having to admit to the actual existence of sceptics in their main news pages, rather than confine them to their blog pages. Black et al's trench war had in reality been in progress for years.
I am so fed up with the BBC's biased reporting that I don't bother to read anything reported by Black or Harrabin. Unfortunately, the BBC output is so riddled with AGW propaganda that it appears in everything from children's programmes to discussions about wine. They are biased in other areas too such as EU politics. They investigate their own bias, find themselves guilty then carry on as before.
As a result, I tend to watch and listen to the BBC less and less... yet it infuriates me that I still have to pay for them.
The BBC seems to have a flaw at its core in that they recruit people with a particular political and social mindset that permeates throughout. This influences many of their programmes and it shows.
You should really give Professor Richard Black Md. a break; just a week or so after the newswatch programme he brought fourth this gem of investigative journalism:
*COP15: Climate 'scepticism' and questions about sex: Why are virtually all climate "sceptics" men?*
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2009/12/cop15_questions_about_sex.html
It is either cynicism or delusion to assert that the BBC and other major media did not suppress minimize and dissemble about the climategate issue.
Public sevice is making wrong decisions on how to cover a topic.
They make the decisions on thier own conclusions on a topic instead of letting the wiers to make thier own based on the same facts and information.By this behavior they act as gatekeepers and desnt give thier wiewers tha chance to valuate te opposing arguments free som inerpritations from the PS journalsits.
They taken on an assignment that no one asked or allowed them.
A few days ago I was watching an episode of 'Spooks' on the ABC - about some terrorists passing judgment on the super rich and shooting them. Then right in the middle a piece about denying climate change.. Strange parallels to the 10:10 video methinks. Its almost like they have a tick list of specific subjects that must be mentioned...
The BBC really needs to drag itself out of the cesspit of biased reporting and get back to covering facts from both sides in equal measure. They are just looking silly to more and more people now and questions will get asked and actions taken.
S Cat above
couldnt agree more
The BH/Newbery factually inaccurate and evidence-lite submission to the BBC is also just a tad parsimonious in its use of quotations. There we read:
"The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts, and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus. "
But the report continues thus:
"But these dissenters (or even sceptics) will still be heard, as they should, because it is not the BBC’s role to close down this debate. They cannot be simply dismissed as ‘flat-earthers’ or ‘deniers’, who ‘should not be given a platform’ by the BBC. Impartiality always requires a breadth of view: for as long as minority opinions are coherently and honestly expressed, the BBC must give them appropriate space."
Selective quotation anyone?
Hardly the policy of an organisation hell bent on censorship.
The BH/Newbery factually inaccurate and evidence-lite submission to the BBC is also just a tad parsimonious in its use of quotations. There we read:
"The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts, and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus. "
But the report continues thus:
"But these dissenters (or even sceptics) will still be heard, as they should, because it is not the BBC’s role to close down this debate. They cannot be simply dismissed as ‘flat-earthers’ or ‘deniers’, who ‘should not be given a platform’ by the BBC. Impartiality always requires a breadth of view: for as long as minority opinions are coherently and honestly expressed, the BBC must give them appropriate space."
Selective quotation anyone?
Hardly the policy of an organisation hell bent on censorship.
We do not accuse them of censorship. Only of minimising the views of sceptics, of doing this based on the opinions of NGO activists and of misrepresenting the opinions they had sought.
It would also help if you provided some examples of factual innaccuracy. And you could also correct your allegation re censorship, since we said no such thing.