Saturday
Apr022011
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill An uncritical love affair with environmentalism
BBC newsreader Michael Buerk has savaged the corporation in a review of a book by former colleague Peter Sissons.
He accuses the Beeb of being "left-wing", "shallow" and of having "an uncritical love affair with environmentalism".
It's not news is it?
Reader Comments (41)
The BBC's response:
"The BBC said: ‘While Michael is entitled to his opinion, it has been some time since he has worked for BBC News so it’s interesting he feels in a position to comment. We certainly do not recognise the picture he has painted and nor would his colleagues."
The same complacency in the answer as there was in the accusation.The BBC he describes is precisely the BBC I recognise.
The time will come when the people on the right decide that it's not appropriate to fund an organisation that excoriates them and works against them at every turn, and if they're in government and decide to privatise the BBC, well the most likely buyer will be Murdoch. The we'll hear awailing and awoeing form the very people who've ignored the fact that the electorate is roughly 50-50 between left and right and pursued their one left wing politically correct interests in the programming and news.
Do you remember his remark a few months ago about "pedophiles and climate deniers"? Well at the time I did have this sneaking feeling of irony, which this latest episode seems to confirm. Must have been something they were all talking about before the programme started. Let's hope his position will be a "tipping point" in the attitudes of a few other B.B.C folk, especially if they try to chuck him out.
Mr. Geronimo you are indulging in wishful thinking about the BBC. The 50/50 even if true as numbers, doesn't represent reality. The left 50 is vigorous while the right 50 is slothful. No British government has the stomach to sell off the BBC. Britain is not America and there will never be a Tea Party in Britain.
"We certainly do not recognise the picture he has painted "
Ummm. Wasn't that his point?
White and two sugars please George and the Middle East presumably will never be democratic. You can push some of the people some of the time, but....
There's less to the Beeb than meets the eye and ear, perhaps tis time to defund it and go private with the beast.
"it’s interesting he feels in a position to comment"
Meaning that most people in his position wouldn't be brave enough?
Amazing how the automatic response is always outright denial. Wouldn't it be wonderful instead to hear that as two experienced high-profile newscasters have highlighted a whole raft of problems, some effort will be made to investigate their causes and apply the necessary corrections? Booking my flight on Swine Air now...
George you're probably right, in fact I don't want the beeb to be dismantled I want it improved. However politics are fashionable, and the politicians will follow whatever they think will keep them in power, so there's always hope!
It doesn't matter how one criticises the BBC, via programmes like Feedback or any other way, the response is always the same; the BBC is right and the viewers and listeners are wrong. The BBC will take no criticism from those who fund it. Whatever happened to "he who pays the piper......?
Glad to hear, as John in France pointed out above, that Buerk's comment a few weeks back on the Moral Maze, apparently linking 'climate change' 'deniers' with paedophiles does indeed seem to have been ironic and rather clever, given the minor storm it created.
No offence to Peter Sissons but as an ex-employee his criticism could only ever have a limited effect. Buerk is another case entirely, especially as he presents one of R4's most respected programmes.
Sissons, Neil, Buerk, Paxman (although apart from his well-known comment confirming the BBC bias on CAGW he's not truly showed his hand and who can really blame him?). I have a sneaking feeling that deep down John Humphrys might not be a true believer either. It will be fascinating to see if his position changes when he retires.
Interesting times.
Could this be the start of an internecine battle ? I hope so.
"it’s interesting he feels in a position to comment"
sounds more like a thinly veiled threat to others to toe the line.
Did they Grauniad file a report on this story yet?
I won't be holding my breath whilst waiting.
matthu
Yes, that's how I read it.
That and the usual delegitimise-the-critic tactic so familiar from the climate 'debate'.
Here is the original text in StandPoint mag.
Mr. Martyn, it is hard for projectionists to swallow but the Middle East will never be democratic. If by democracy you mean only elections then Iran is already a democracy. But that is a primitive view.
Of course the first BBC journo to break ranks was Robin Aitken a couple of years ago.
His book "Can we trust the BBC?" was an eye opener - but at the time, nobody else at the Beeb came out in support.
My favourite passage is the one where he finally decides to take a stand with management on BBC bias:-
....But in 1998 I finally decided to voice my concerns. I was in my 40s, experienced and confident enough to say what I believed.
Also, I had the perfect place to do it. My colleagues had elected me to the BBC Forum, designed to improve communication between management and staff.
At one meeting, director-general John Birt seemed nonplussed when I raised the issue of Left-wing bias.
He asked Jenny Abramsky, a senior news executive, to answer. Her reply was short and dismissive; my fears, she said, were unfounded. I was wrong to raise them.
In 1999 the news was dominated by Nato's war against Serbia. The BBC was supportive, in contrast to its sceptical attitude to the Falklands and the first Gulf wars.
Why the difference? At the time Tony Blair enjoyed uncritical support within the BBC, as did President Bill Clinton.
At a Forum meeting in December 2000, I suggested to Greg Dyke, the new director-general, that there should be an internal inquiry into bias.
Dyke, a Labour Party donor and member along with BBC chairman Gavyn Davies, mumbled a muddled reply. As he left the meeting, I overheard him demand angrily of his PA: "Who was that f****r?"
Says it all really.
Is the new Chairman of the BBC ( ex Governor of Hong Kong , I think) likely to have any effect on the organisation ??
From day one the BBC have showed a flagrant disregard for balance, free speech and democracy on climate issues.
They must realise by now that the AGW theory is in big trouble...likewise their reputation.
Mr. holbrook from where I am sitting the AGW is doing just fine. Liberal parties are mouthing all the right supporting words. I can't read a big company like a bank annual report without nauseating words about the environment. Big companies continue to hand money to the Suzuki foundation.
The Bishop, WUWT and the others are banging away bravely. But they are largely ignored. Why is that? Because the skeptics have taken their eye from the ball. The ball is "does CO2 cause global warming". It is not temperature series, urban this or that, commissions, IOCC, peer review, the science, ad infinitum.
If CO2 doesn't get a clean bill of health it is game over.
I tend to agree with George Steiner.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas in an enclosed greenhouse.
The atmosphere is not an enclosed greenhouse.
Nobody can say what if any influence CO2 has on an atmosphere open to space.
Here's a little example I noticed this morning of an upcoming "Low Carbon Fashion Design & Theatre" event at a University near me:-
http://www.transitionbath.org/how-can-my-creative-arts-vocation-create-positive-change
"Climate Change" has now become the ubiquitous begging bowl label for every tiny crevice in the non-productive, tax-leeching sectors of society.
From the Ecclesiastical Uncle, an old retired bureaucrat in a field only remotely related to climate, with minimal qualifications and only half a mind.
Evidently, the BBC response quoted by geron1mo Apr 2 2011 2.45pm was a knee jerk reaction, I guess from a press office. Any such quick response agreeing with the views expressed in Sisson’s book and Buerk’s review would be bizarre indeed. So would silence.
However, Sisson’s book and Buerk’s comments appear to reflect the need for more serious long-term consideration and may, I suppose, go some way to bring it about.
Becoming curious, I investigated what the BBC publishes about its governance on the internet, and there confirmed the Byzantine structure intended to ensure neutrality and lack of bias that is familiar, I think, to the Bishop and many of his contributors. My take is that such a structure can not be anything but slow and perpetually out of date. However, if an appropriate first step were taken (and I have no idea what that might be) there did not seem anything to prevent the BBC from taking on some of Sisson’s and Buerk’s criticisms, albeit slothfully, so it would be months or years before any sort of response would be apparent.
Of particular interest to climate change skeptics was a report I found of a complaint about a wind turbine to be constructed in the Orkneys. (www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/appeals/esc_bulletins/2011/feb.txt) This was in two parts; (i) the report on the Orkney wind turbine itself, and (ii) the issue of the BBC’s coverage of wind turbines in general. (My paraphrasing) Both were rejected. However, the account included the following statement: “The Committee considered that, although a full impartiality assessment across the whole of the BBC’s output on this specific topic was not appropriate, there might be a wider point to explore regarding the BBC’s approach to topics where there are scientific arguments on either side of a debate. The Committee would shortly be receiving the results of the Trust’s impartiality review of the BBC’s coverage of science and this would be a point to explore with the author of the review.” I think I recall that this review has been anticipated by the Bishop and/or some of his contributors, and that dire predictions were made about it. Not knowing anything better, I maintain an open mind and cautiously permit myself to hope for the best – in due course.
Key questions are: Who is performing this review? What are their instructions on the scope of the work? What constraints are there on their deliberations? Will the deliberations be published? Can the review itself be the subject of a complaint?
It appears that the BBC can only respond to complaints of inadequate coverage by climate change skeptics by widening the range of views it reports as suggested by the review, or by coming to perceive that skeptical views are, or nearly are, mainstream.
On the narrow subject of the rejection of the Orkney complaints, I regret that after sleeping on it, I find myself sympathetic to the findings. Of most interest here is the general question rather than the Orkney Island coverage. In this respect I conclude that the BBC’s coverage probably generally reflects the majority view (as represented by our MPs, the President of the Royal Society etc) however misguided that may be. This seems to be what the BBC is required to do.
And, contrary to the reports the Bishop cites, I do not think that the BBC is left wing. I have lived my life on the diet the BBC have fed me, and am not aware that my acquaintances regard me as being on the left!
Also, contrary to sentiments of some contributors, I would not abolish the BBC. I would not like to see a MSM vehicle, maybe similar to those operated by the Dirty Digger, substituted. Reform to make the BBC more flexible and responsive, and maybe more inclusive, rather than replacement, should be the aim.
IMHO!
Sadly I agree with George Steiner. Back to basics then: the governor on the warming effect of CO2 depends on the availability of Infra Red rays in three narrow bands, not on how much CO2 there is. There isn't enough IR radiation to go round after about 100ppm CO2.
It's a bit like the result of the one child policy in China: 100 million Chinese men (CO2) looking around for too few existent girls (IR radiation at the right bands). The number of babies (warming) depends on how many girls there are, not on how many men there are. The warmist claim is like saying that 100 million men will cause a population explosion. Something like that.
Someone else might be able to come up with a more witty analogy. That basic bit of physics is the only thing that matters. All the rest is distracting noise and politics and stealing money from taxpayers and religion.
From the Ecclesiastical Uncle, an old retired bureaucrat in a field only remotely related to climate, with minimal qualifications and only half a mind.
Evidently, the BBC response quoted by geron1mo Apr 2 2011 2.45pm was a knee jerk reaction, I guess from a press office. Any such quick response agreeing with the views expressed in Sisson’s book and Buerk’s review would be bizarre indeed. So would silence.
However, Sisson’s book and Buerk’s comments appear to reflect the need for more serious long-term consideration and may, I suppose, go some way to bring it about.
Becoming curious, I investigated what the BBC publishes about its governance on the internet, and there confirmed the Byzantine structure intended to ensure neutrality and lack of bias that is familiar, I think, to the Bishop and many of his contributors. My take is that such a structure can not be anything but slow and perpetually out of date. However, if an appropriate first step were taken (and I have no idea what that might be) there did not seem anything to prevent the BBC from taking on some of Sisson’s and Buerk’s criticisms, albeit slothfully, so it would be months or years before any sort of response would be apparent.
Of particular interest to climate change skeptics was a report I found of a complaint about a wind turbine to be constructed in the Orkneys. (www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/appeals/esc_bulletins/2011/feb.txt) This was in two parts; (i) the report on the Orkney wind turbine itself, and (ii) the issue of the BBC’s coverage of wind turbines in general. (My paraphrasing) Both were rejected. However, the account included the following statement: “The Committee considered that, although a full impartiality assessment across the whole of the BBC’s output on this specific topic was not appropriate, there might be a wider point to explore regarding the BBC’s approach to topics where there are scientific arguments on either side of a debate. The Committee would shortly be receiving the results of the Trust’s impartiality review of the BBC’s coverage of science and this would be a point to explore with the author of the review.” I think I recall that this review has been anticipated by the Bishop and/or some of his contributors, and that dire predictions were made about it. Not knowing anything better, I maintain an open mind and cautiously permit myself to hope for the best – in due course.
Key questions are: Who is performing this review? What are their instructions on the scope of the work? What constraints are there on their deliberations? Will the deliberations be published? Can the review itself be the subject of a complaint?
It appears that the BBC can only respond to complaints of inadequate coverage by climate change skeptics by widening the range of views it reports as suggested by the review, or by coming to perceive that skeptical views are, or nearly are, mainstream.
On the narrow subject of the rejection of the Orkney complaints, I regret that after sleeping on it, I find myself sympathetic to the findings. Of most interest here is the general question rather than the Orkney Island coverage. In this respect I conclude that the BBC’s coverage probably generally reflects the majority view (as represented by our MPs, the President of the Royal Society etc) however misguided that may be. This seems to be what the BBC is required to do.
And, contrary to the reports the Bishop cites, I do not think that the BBC is left wing. I have lived my life on the diet the BBC have fed me, and am not aware that my acquaintances regard me as being on the left!
Also, contrary to sentiments of some contributors, I would not abolish the BBC. I would not like to see a MSM vehicle, maybe similar to those operated by the Dirty Digger, substituted. Reform to make the BBC more flexible and responsive, and maybe more inclusive, rather than replacement, should be the aim.
IMHO!
Apologies for being rather off topic above, but the BBC's attitude to AGW drives me nuts. Michael Burke is a breath of fresh air. The BBC should be turned out to earn a living in the real world, not supported by the taxpayer whom they are royally ripping off with their narrow views. The BBC is a leftie AGW dictatorship. You can at least choose not to buy the Guardian.
I have lived my life on the diet the BBC have fed me, and am not aware that my acquaintances regard me as being on the left!
Dear Uncle, I fear that this statement epitomises what the BBC and its staff believe. They would also be horrified to be described as "left wing" when in their heart of hearts they know that they are in fact in the centre politically. However the problem is that the only people with whom they associate are of the same persuasion and they never come into contact with the great unwashed that make up the majority of the population and whose views deviate rather dramatically from their own.
I would hazard a guess dear uncle that you read the Guardian?
" Of most interest here is the general question rather than the Orkney Island coverage. In this respect I conclude that the BBC’s coverage probably generally reflects the majority view (as represented by our MPs, the President of the Royal Society etc) however misguided that may be. This seems to be what the BBC is required to do. "
I haven't read their charter but I very much doubt that the BBC is required to reflect only the majority views in its output. Then of course I don't know which majority you're talking about. They don't, quite rightly in my view, stop pressure groups, and the opposition putting their case against government proposals ( it does depend on the government, they do it with more brio if a Tory government is in power). They do suppress debate on immigration, but allow it on unemployment. While it's true that the BBC doesn't take positions publicly it clearly manages its output to reflect the Of most interest here is the general question rather than the Orkney Island coverage. In this respect I conclude that the BBC’s coverage probably generally reflects the majority view (as represented by our MPs, the President of the Royal Society etc) however misguided that may be. This seems to be what the BBC is required to do.
political views of its employees
So his on air comparison of sceptics with paedophiles really was satirising the BBC.
The BBC is not required to merely represent the "great and good"> The specific term their Charter uses is that they are legally required to shoe "due balance". The BBC have officially said that 10s of thousands of hours promoting alarmism and zero for scepticism is "due balance". Newspeak is alive and well.There really is no lie that the BBC will not tell.
The BBC is facing an existential crisis as the Scottish and Wesh nations distance themselves from the 'British' political identity.
Census Question 15 put this issue into play in the minds of everybody living on the island.
Watch English voices join Scottish and Welsh voices asking whose interests the 'British' actually represent, apart from their own?
Technology has made it obsolete, and it is now a Golem, a Dead Man Walking. After the supernova explosion into multimedia/multichannel/multiculture/multiweb ....... the implosion started with the great retreat from online services. Give it 5 years and it will turn into a white dwarf, spinning to oblivion.
EU
" I would not abolish the BBC. I would not like to see a MSM vehicle, maybe similar to those operated by the Dirty Digger, substituted. Reform to make the BBC more flexible and responsive, and maybe more inclusive, rather than replacement, should be the aim."
I agree with that. It is to be hoped that if and when the great AGW edifice crashes and burns, they will have to rethink their approach, as the supporters have scaled such heights of hubris that they are visible to all.
Amazingly, one thing I have noticed on the warmist blogs is the frequent accusation of BBC bias the other way. The Beeb has only to breath a faintly sceptical word and they become hysterical (the appearance of Johnny Ball on Andrew Neil's programme turned some of them apoplectic), thus reinforcing the Beeb's notion that it is being even-handed.
It certainly doesn't see things they way we do!
All government controlled institutions come to be run by people whose job is to promote bigger government because such people get promoted by the controllers. The BBC is nop exception. It is thus not an accident that the BBC is always on the side of more government spending, hiring, regulations, scare stories etc but inevitable.
I would like to see the BBC replaced by an organisation that simply auctioned off airtime, by the hour and for the purchasers to be paid either by advertising or a licence fee. That would mean they had the free market drive to attract audiences. I would not mind if the replacement organisation was called "the BBC".
BBC - EU - CAGW - All part of a creeping, subversive Socialist agenda. Not discouraged by Cameron and his crew of closet Lefties. Fancy putting Petain forward as chairman of the BBC governors - I ask you!
From the Ecclesiastical Uncle, an old retired bureaucrat in a field only remotely related to climate, with minimal qualifications and only half a mind.
Re Arthur Dent Apr3 2011, 12.23pm. I totally agree that Arthur’s fear about BBS attitudes is probably correct
But Arthur loses, I fear, about my reading habits. I read no newspapers regularly, or even occasionally, apart from a glance at the FT about once a month or less. IMHO, the papers have become progressively more trivial and are now a total waste of time. The same is true of the BBC, but less so, and for the last tens of years it has been my only source of news.
Also I am very surprised that Arthur should suppose that I could be a reader of the Guardian given my report of the views that my acquaintances have of me.
Re Geronimo ditto 2.45pm. After transposing the words at the end of the post to what I think is their intended location, I think I have the message that is intended. Nevertheless I am not sure I have Geronimo’s point exactly.
Firstly, I confess I have little experience with media folk and suppose that they may be more likely to distort the bureaucratic procedures that I, an ex-bureaucrat in a different environment, would expect from the description the BBC give of their operating procedures.
With respect to the BBC’s purposes, I have now (skim) read the Charter and find it has a duty to the public (and its license holders). Accordingly, I do not have much difficulty in bringing that requirement into line with my previous assessment of its decisions over the Orkney wind turbine case, given the qualifications to the word ‘majority’ in the parentheses, which I now think sufficiently indicates the majority I was talking about. However, it may be that the elasticity of my thinking exceeds permissible bounds.
Re James P, ditto 5.27pm. It seems that James P and I see things in much the same way. The reaction of the warmists to BBC comments on CAGW skeptics is interesting news. The BBC clearly has a very narrow path to tread on this and many other matters, which does much to explain its Byzantine structure. Its ponderous responses naturally follow.
The BBC has always "done propaganda" - what truly rankles though is the substitution of ill informed (and self interested) partisan braying for honest reportage.
It is obvious to me that the entire infotainmemt sausage machine is being fed with a skewed stuffing recipe.
Their AGW partisanship is one thing that patently gets folk here miffed, I'd add that the one thing the BBC does par excellence is bias by deliberate, calculated omission.
The BBC staffer that responded to Michael Beurk's criticism must have been attempting irony; I have never worked for the BBC and I consider it to be not only markedly biased to the left (which enables the automatic Left spin on everything) but to be utterly self-absorbed and inward-looking. I am continually mystified as to how the Beeb can promote Top Gear and F1 (both of which I am an enthusiastic and unashamed fan of) and still be as it is. Perhaps the income both generate for the corporation, particularly Top Gear, allow the reconciliation of disparate views.
If the BBC were interested in maximising viewers Top Gear would be on BBC and Clarkson not Jonathan Woss would be on £8 million. They snipe at their own programme whenever possible (ie the "nerws" reports on his Spanish remarks.
They can't cancel it because it is so overwhelmingly popualr but they would clearly like to,
"While Michael is entitled to his opinion, it has been some time since he has worked for BBC News so it’s interesting he feels in a position to comment. We certainly do not recognise the picture he has painted and nor would his colleagues."
BBC employees are entitled to their own opinions, once we've told them what they will be.
SemiTone (Apr 3, 2011 at 3:20 PM) wrote:
"Give it [the BBC] 5 years and it will turn into a white dwarf"
Red Dwarf, surely.
:)