Bishop Hill Small world response
Joe Smith has responded to the Smaller World post a couple of days back in which I noted his involvement in some of the BBC shows that had fallen foul of the BBC's sponsorship rules and also in a series of BBC seminars that were also funded by environmental groups. Many thanks are due to Dr Smith for having made this effort.
The response takes the form of a full posting on Dr Smith's blog. This is the guts of it:
...the post and comments raise questions about the Earth Reporters series on which I was the Open University’s nominated academic adviser. Two of the programmes appear in a list that the BBC Trust have reviewed in terms of the nature of their sponsorship and the visibility at the beginning and end of the programme of any sponsorship arrangements. There isn’t much for me to say on this. Institutionally we were very happy with the programmes: they make for really handy documentaries on diverse environmental topics and very successfully help to bring individual examples of human ingenuity and doggedness to the fore in problem solving around the world. However the content of the programmes was not the Trusts’ concern: once they had established that they were not current affairs programmes they were looking at the nature of the crediting of the sponsorship on these and a large number of other programmes. The Open University have a forty year history of partnership with the BBC on the basis of shared public service objectives, and hence we are very uncomplicated partners as co-producers in this and many other instances of great programming (e.g. the wonderful Frozen Planet currently on BBC One in the UK). My institution does not get involved in the BBC’s consideration of how other parties are credited on e.g. BBC World – its just not our business. As an aside I can say in a personal capacity that I thought the BBC Trust’s judgements were spot on. It is critical that the BBC and its governance structures constantly walk the border to protect public recognition of the institution’s impartiality.
Reader Comments (13)
What impartiality? What public recognition? The BBC is so biased that it is in danger of falling over.
Damn!
Beat me to it Mr. Bratby - well said Sir!
Impartiality, like beauty, appears to be in the eye of the beholder.
Or can I suggest that where 21st century environmentalists are concerned, impartiality is what they deem it to be as long as it furthers the cause .... whatever that may happen to be at the time?
My initial reaction to this is that it doesn't leave us much further forward.
It would be nice to have confirmation that the Climate change seminar was attended not by scientists but by NGO people. I'll ask.
Joe Smith essentially says nothing. Why no list of attendees of the seminar or list of speakers? Just waffle.
Oops. Joe Smith's website doesn't take comments. Perhaps he'll respond here...
It would also be interesting to know if Joe Smith could throw any light on how the BBC Trust got the idea that the seminar was attended by scientists.
The BBC is impartial? I've just had a run in with Richard Black about why he referred to Roy Spencer's connection to a Christian group (Catholic-atheist mysel, but noted that the management of the BBC see christians in the same light as paedophiles these days and expect their readers to agree) as important to his science, but didn't see fit to tell his readers that Muller was going to make money out of the climate change scare.
Interesting exchang, but got nowhere, he was adamant that Spencer's was important and that Muller's wasn't.
Nov 18, 2011 at 6:36 PM | geronimo
I had a very similar experience a couple of months ago with Mr Black. The best I could manage was that there have been many excellent scientists with strong religious beliefs.
'BBC managers and editors have met in Cambridge with outside contributors in an on-going series known as the Real World seminars. They are designed to stimulate creative thinking about media coverage of world issues....In order to facilitate frank discussions the meetings are run according to the Chatham House Rule so individuals attend in response to a private invitation rather than to represent their organisations, and their comments cannot be reproduced in such a way as to allow attribution....Recent seminars have included experts from ...policy experts and field workers from agencies and NGOs -particularly from the developing world.....Roger´s sabbatical research investigated the challenges for news journalists of reporting on long-term slow-moving systemic trends like environmental change. We were asked by the head of BBC News Tony Hall to engage senior managers and editors in discussion on how to improve broadcast debate of long-term issues like these which do not always offer ready news “pegs”....We co- directed the early seminars. Roger undertook this as part of his BBC work and was not paid extra. He has been made an honorary Associate Press Fellow in the Press Fellowship Programme at Wolfson College, Cambridge, in recognition of his work.'
I have no particular axe to grind with the Open University or its academics. They are not our national broadcast trumpet. The BBC is. Why Chatham House Secrecy? Where is the balance from counter-consensual scientists? It is very clear that the a primary BBC environmental reporter with such passionate convictions is unsuitable to act as an impartial reporter on this topic.
picked up in australia...
19 Nov: Australian: Watchdog probes BBC programs with 'bias'
Another program broadcast by the BBC, a documentary on carbon credits made by Rockhopper TV in 2009, was funded by the Africa Carbon Livelihood Trust, whose managing director was the chief executive of Envirotrade, a company featured in the program and portrayed in a "positive way", the BBC found....
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/watchdog-probes-bbc-programs-with-bias/story-e6frg6so-1226199408015
Right Reverend Bishop on the Hill
I have already posed an FOI request to the BBC about the Climate Change seminar referred on c. P.42 of the BBC "From Seesaw to Wagonwheel" regarding the BBC's definitions of morality, sorry partiality, even more sorrow on my part, I meant IMpartiality. My memory recalls a response of excuses based around "the information is protected because it is held for 'journalism, art or literature'". I had requested Minutes of the Meeting along with the attendees, their qualifications and experience, and asked how the BBC decided it had a panel of "experts" from either side of the debate. Nothing except that "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 or literature"".
I'm certain other visitors to your blog have received similarly worded responses from our public [Biased} broadcaster, BBC.
I'm still trying to work out how a meeting of public people, held by our public broadcaster, in a public building under cover of secrecy, paid for by a public stipend of "licence fee" can be held for "journalism, art or literature" purposes, yet does not have to be advised to the public when so much money and inane climate policy hangs on the public broadcasting utterances of the BBC.[ Not to mention the BBC Pension Fund investments]
I still fail to see how my carefully-worded questions could possibly be misconstrued by any intelligent person as being based on "journalism, art or literature". Holding a (scientifically biased?) meeting to sound out government sponsored place men's opinions is far from being "journalism" let alone "arts or literature"! It's called "incest".
I also commented on the derivation of "From Seesaw to Wagonwheel" as a stupid title, suggesting that the public audience might obtain some confidence in the BBC and its "Impartiality" definitions if the title had been "From Wagonwheels to Seesaw", as this is the historical line of precedence! Instead we have a title dreamt up by some self-obsessed "arti-pants" which says it all!
That non-explanation is just cheap filler. It is non-responsive and misleading.