Bishop Hill The propaganda machine
Readers may remember that TVE, the organisation that had been involved in illicitly sponsored BBC shows, has apparently taken its website down. Commenters at Biased BBC noted that this appears to have happened on 24 October 2011.
There's a footnote in the BBC Trust report on the scandal about another of the organisations involved: FBC Media.
It has been reported that on 24 October 2011, FBC Media (UK) Ltd went into administration.
The same date.
Are FBC and TVE related in some way?
FBC Media appears to have journalist Alan Friedman as the sole director. The company was certainly in financial trouble, and it looks as if creditors are going to take a bath on FBC.
TVE, meanwhile, is a charity, owned and run by a parent charity called the Television Trust for the Environment (TVTE). TVE appears to produce the programmes and TVTE raises the funds. The parent appears to be in dire financial straits. There is no obvious connection to FBC though, so it may be that the BBC Trust's decision has simply pushed them over the edge at the same time as FBC.
But this is not the end of the story. Look at who's funding TVTE. Of their £1090k income, more than half is from the EU, with the rest mostly from the usual suspects - UNEP, Oxfam, FAO, UNFPA, UN etc etc. Now look at the accounts of TVE, the production company subsidiary. Of their total income of £1423k, only £48k (~3%) was from sales of TV programmes. The rest was donations, mostly from the parent charity, TVTE.
In other words, the content was being given away to TV stations in order to promote the interests of the international bureaucracies of the EU and UN. There are hints in the BBC Trust report, referring to programmes being purchased at nominal cost. But one doesn't quite get the right impression. And, as we saw yesterday, this may have been going on for fifteen years.
Reader Comments (27)
Lysenkoism aimed at promoting carbon trading, a form of neo-colonialism by World Government aka the Rothschild and Rockefeller banks.
What hits you is that these entities were perhaps not in any way being run on any commercial basis.
In reality are we not looking at state/NGO propoganda organisations? One under the label of a charity and the other under the guise of a commercial business?
I think this story will run for a good while and I suspect a lot of digging will produce much more of interest.
From the Trust Report, a link to some FBC info;
http://www.sarawakreport.org/fbc/
Amazing story, thanks.
RR
Given that the EU has spent the last 50 years (in its various incarnations) making sure that the electorate are kept in the dark as to what it is truly up to (and the UN is hardly any better) it shouldn't surprise anyone that the pair of them use what is in effect a front organisation to push any of their objectives.
Presumably TVE has (ostensiibly) been what it claims — a charity dedicated to creating TV programmes about the environment. What could be more innocent, or worthy?.
Except that we have learnt, and are still learning the hard way, exactly what 'environmentalism' means in the late 20th/early 21st century.
[PS 'worthy' in the Scots sense. Scottish readers will understand what I mean!]
i feel i could spend days on this thread, bish. for a start:
Television Trust for the Environment
International Contact:
Mark Harvey
Director of Development
Prince Albert Road
London NW1 4RZ
United Kingdom
http://www.chinadevelopmentbrief.com/dingo/Sector/Environment/2-12-0-206-0-0.html
would this be mr. harvey?
Workshop Title: Covering Climate Change – Crisis, What Crisis?
Workshop Coordinator: Mark Harvey, Internews Europe
Workshop description:
1. What are the main points you want to raise in the workshop?
The 2007 reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) , developed nations were inundated with coverage
across all sections of the media. In the developing world, however,
where the IPCC reports predicted that impacts would be most
severe, coverage was lacklustre....ETC
http://gfmd.info/images/uploads/9._Dec_14_.30_Internews_Europe_.pdf
GoodPlanet at the Danish Film Institute
Afternoon discussion: what medias can do to levy decisions with Vincent Brossel from Reporters without
borders (RSF) and Mark Harvey, Director of Development, Internews Europe
During the COP15 summit in Copenhagen, the GoodPlanet Foundation is organizing the
Environmental Film Festival, at the Danish Film Institute (DFI/Cinematek), from 8th to 18th December
2009. The Festival offers free screenings of various movies on climate change and environmental issues.
On this occasion, the GoodPlanet Foundation and its president Yann Arthus-Bertrand will welcome
many key personalities, including Al Gore and Wangari Maathai, both Nobel Peace Prize Laureates, and
Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, Chairman of the IPCC, Nobel Peace Prize...
http://www.ambafrance-dk.org/IMG/pdf/GoodPlanet_schedule_at_the_DFI_final_1201.pdf
Thanks RuhRoh, together with your link and this report, an interesting insight into how integrated global media works. News reports for hire...
Pat
Interesting. Internews Europe looks as though it is being driven by the EU and UN as well.
http://www.internews.eu/support-us
Daily Mail has three anti-wind farm pieces today:
turbines turned off... because high winds make them too noisy for nearby residents
Ex-Chancellor backs Philip over attack on wind farms...
Wind power is the most ruinous folly of our age ( (Melanie Phillips - who highlights IPCC's U-turn and the folly of the Climate Change Act).
sorry meant to post this in unthreaded...
Gee, these Warmists sure get themselves in an unholy tangle with all their government, academic, media and NGO tentacles.
Perhaps they should take a leaf out of the book of That Vicious Well-Financed Highly-Coordinated Denialist Machine that Michael Mann sees around every corner.
More doggerel came tumbling out just now after reading these new, and dismal revelations:
To Eco-Funders of the EU and Elsewhere
‘Astroturfers’ faking grassroots is a neat American usage
But what shall we call
Those who are in thrall
To giving eco-luvvies their potage?
In exchange for hours of slick trash
Of smoking old stacks
Of climate-change hacks
They give them a pile of our cash
I favour ‘Digital-fakirs’, it isn’t too crass
For their misuse of tax
From the sweat of our backs
Is used to raise snakes in the grass
Their toxins get into the media
To poison our discourse each day
(And knock us off course by the way
From a progress more civil and free)
The sorry list of funders as shown on Bishop Hill
Will do as they must
They take it on trust
That our thoughts can be herded like whales do with krill
But what if their actions are harmful, that hidden behind all the smug
Are views misinformed
And intentions deformed
Helping the grave of good discourse be dug?
You have to admire the way the left/progressives/statists have taken over foundations and various non-profits. As Donna Laframboise pointed out, the WWF, EDF, Greenpeace and Sierra Club have mutated into full blown political organizations. I am sure Oxfam and even the Red Cross have been penetrated and directed in the same way. Itis not really surprising given that there are only so many academic slots for these folks to occupy.
John Shade's fighting verse above should not be wasted in the innards of a Bishop Hill thread. Perhaps a YouTube video? (Surely there is some old, terrible--or "worthy"--Scottish piping tune that could be rehabilitated by those words. Or, with some editing, set them to the tune of "Montrose": "We'll serve thee in such noble ways, 'twas never heard before, old glory...")
Paid-for-content programming appears to have been a problem at the BBC for some years.
How did it take this long for the BBC Trust to act on what is clearly a breach of the BBC's charter and editorial rules on impartiality?
Someone must have known about this for quite a while, and you would strongly suspect flagged up such concerns with BBC editors and managers.
So who knew what and for how long, and what checks and procedures did BBC management have in place to detect paid-for-content programming?
Surely it is time that on matters of impartiality that OFCOM takes over from the BBC Trust.
Funny thing is if you didn't pay a TV tax you wouldn't give a monkeys.
Time to ask for your money back.
Auntie has been had. That nice young man selling cheap programmes door-to-door wasn’t a commercial programme maker at all, but a multinational NGO backed with Euro-lucre. It’s shameful how such people prey on the old and mentally fragile.
Given that Auntie is clearly not able to look after herself, it becomes even more urgent to discover who were the thirty mysterious “climate experts” who descended on her in 2007. Did she sign any papers? She won’t tell us, but maybe Inspector Plod might jog her memory?
OFCOM is hardly impartial. The "Office of Coming to get Murdoch" would be more appropriate.
See the decision to refer Sky's Pay TV movies to the competition commission, and stop Sky launching Picnic three years ago. Both decision ignored the evidence and bent the rules.
Wouldn't make any difference - OFCOM is stuffed with BBC/Nulab apparatchiks, led by Ed Richards (ex Blair/Brown adviser and BBC "Director of Strategy").
Only a licence fee revolt, like the one they had in New Zealand, would bring the Beeb into line.
Interestingly, in that case it only took 25% of people witholding their licence payment to bring the whole edifice down - so there is a glimmer of hope.
I think they slipped her something potent, to loosen her inhibitions, and the old trollop invited them into her boudoir for a thirtyonesome.
The recent financial crisis has made it clear that the government's of the EU, US, Canada and Australia have been heading towards bankruptcy for years. The politicians knew this, but most of the general population did not until it boiled over the Greece. Years of profligate spending and massive borrowing left Western governments with only two choices: (1) dramatically cut back on the size of government, or (2) find a way to raise massive amounts of new revenue. The trouble was that both of these choices would be hugely unpopular and would imperil the career of any politician who proposed them.
Beginning around the year 2000/2001, politicians from all parts of the political spectrum began to view a carbon tax as the answer to the problem. We would be told that the carbon tax was necessary, not to deal with years of overspending, but rather to "save the planet" -- thus avoiding having to disclose the economic mess that the politicians had created. To a politician, AGW was like manna from heaven.
To introduce the idea of a carbon tax and to get the citizenry to accept it, the politicians did two very crafty things: (1) they created incentives for scientists who manufactured papers that supported the conclusion that we needed a carbon tax and (2) they created a penalty-free zone for institutions that needed to bend the rules a bit to promote the agenda.
So if the UEA needed to circumvent FOIA, or if NASA needed to allow one of it employees to accept outside "prizes" and not report them, or if the BBC needed to have environmental pressure groups produce its "science" content in violation of it editorial rules -- all of this was ok in the penalty-free zone of AGW boosterism.
Let's see if anything actually comes of the revelations that Andrew has uncovered.
This may have been posted elsewhere but adding in case not. Reference to its origins.
"TVE works with partners worldwide to make films which inspire change. Founded by WWF, UNEP and Central Television in 1984, the charity aims to inspire viewers to lead a greener life, and it makes films on topics such as climate change, the role of women, conflict, health and human rights.
The charity's films are broadcast in 172 countries, reaching 302 million homes via global satellite broadcasts and more than half a billion people on national, regional and local channels worldwide. For more information visit www.tve.org."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/6510499/Celebrities-donate-prizes-for-charity-auction.html
Friends of TVE charity http://www.charitymarket.co.uk/v/v-&-o-vision
http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/Showcharity/RegisterOfCharities/CharityWithoutPartB.aspx?RegisteredCharityNumber=1036556&SubsidiaryNumber=0
Outgoings higher than income?
Bernie writes:
"It is not really surprising given that there are only so many academic slots for these folks to occupy."
Absolutely. The number of graduate programs that can no longer justify their existence is huge.
Nov 21, 2011 at 4:57 PM | mpaul
To a politician, AGW was like manna from heaven.
No it wasn't - politicians bought AGW from academic prostitutes.
Google's cache of the complete TVE site is available by entering site:http://www.tve.org/ as the search term. Acording to Wiki, TVE's website is currently under reconstruction.
Surely a charity run for a political purpose is a tax fraud.