Bishop Hill Science Media Centre and the BBC guidelines
Feb 17, 2012 BBC Also in the BBC guidelines comes this
3.4.6 We should only broadcast material from third parties who may have a personal or professional interest in its subject matter if there is a clear editorial justification. The material should be labelled. This includes material from the emergency services, charities, and environmental groups. We should be reluctant to use video and audio news releases or other similar material. We do not normally use any extracts from such releases if we are capable of gathering the material ourselves. The editorial significance of the material, rather than simply its impact, must be considered before it is used. If it is editorially justified to use it then we must explain the circumstances and clearly label the source of the material in our output.
and this:
4.4.20 Similarly, the BBC must remain independent and distanced from government initiatives, campaigners, charities and their agendas, no matter how apparently worthy the cause or how much their message appears to be accepted or uncontroversial.
I'm struggling with the idea that Richard Black can use quotes delivered by the Science Media Centre without breaching these guidelines. Surely an independent news organisation, particularly one with the resources of the BBC, doesn't need to go to the Science Media Centre to get quotes? Why should the Science Media Centre - which has a political campaigner like Bob Ward on its board - get to decide which scientists' views are suitable for the BBC?
Reader Comments (75)
The BBC's environment team went 'native' a long time ago.. and the BBC is such a monolith it does not see, this or even care..
If they followed 4.4.20 then the BBC policy on climate change coverage, and the Jones review, would have to be heavily revised. I think they select which rules to follow.
These are my journalistic standards but if they are inconvenient, then I have others :)
This is such a clear cut breach of the BBC guidelines, that we must do all we can to bring this to the attention of anyone and everyone who can do something.
I have already written to the Home Secretary (whose department I believe it is), the head of the BBC and my MP.
And (as usual) I made a complaint to the BBC and (as usual) got a dismissive reply:
Dear Mike,
Thanks for your email. I'm afraid you are bang off the mark... I have
never said I have a "God-given right", or any such thing. Can you find a
single example of me writing this to you?
You have no way of knowing what attempts I made to establish the
veracity of the Heartland documents before publication. The one
Heartland claims to be a fake has its contents duplicated in the other
seven. I have given them an opportunity to deny explicitly that some of
the contents are real, and they have not done so - ergo, they are real.
Bias, Mike, is very much in the eye of the beholder. I'm afraid in your
case, it may be blinding you to one unfortunate reality of the "climate
sceptic" movement - that some of it is co-ordinated to protect vested
interests. As independent, objective journalists, it is our job to
report on this as much as on any other aspect of the issue.
Best regards,
Richard Black
This is such a clear cut breach of the BBC guidelines, that we must do all we can to bring this to the attention of anyone and everyone who can do something.
I have already written to the Home Secretary (whose department I believe it is), the head of the BBC and my MP.
And (as usual) I made a complaint to the BBC and (as usual) got a dismissive reply:
Dear Mike,
Thanks for your email. I'm afraid you are bang off the mark... I have
never said I have a "God-given right", or any such thing. Can you find a
single example of me writing this to you?
You have no way of knowing what attempts I made to establish the
veracity of the Heartland documents before publication. The one
Heartland claims to be a fake has its contents duplicated in the other
seven. I have given them an opportunity to deny explicitly that some of
the contents are real, and they have not done so - ergo, they are real.
Bias, Mike, is very much in the eye of the beholder. I'm afraid in your
case, it may be blinding you to one unfortunate reality of the "climate
sceptic" movement - that some of it is co-ordinated to protect vested
interests. As independent, objective journalists, it is our job to
report on this as much as on any other aspect of the issue.
Best regards,
Richard Black
Richard Black
My god Richard, that's it! The smoking gun!...the writer of the fake would never have thought of incorporating stuff from the other documents in their posession to make it look credible, would they? Great to see that investigative journalism is safe in Richard Black's hands.
"You have no way of knowing what attempts I made to establish the
veracity of the Heartland documents before publication. " (Richard Black)
Well, you could tell us, and that would clear it right up. Unless your failure to clear it up is significant in itself?
Love his logic.
Dear Mike,
...
I have given them an opportunity to deny explicitly that some of
the contents are real, and they have not done so - ergo, they are real.
...
Best regards,
Richard Black
Hey Richard, I have given you an opportunity to deny explicitly that you beat your wife and kick your dog, and you have not done so - ergo, you beat your wife and kick your dog.
It is quite apparent from the above that Richard is not a deep or logical thinker. Without the patronage of the BBC he would be unemployed.
Black's response is advocacy... I want this to be true, therefore it is...
Sorry, I'm not entirely on the ball.
Were the quotes about getting teachers not to teach science, about 'undermining' the IPCC and about Forbes...'keeping opposing voices out' in the memo and only in the memo or were they elsewhere in the documents?
What I love about this? Something that it is much better at doing than WUWT or any of the others?
It is self-documenting history.
When the history books come to be written they will have this material to use.
If Back was political correspondent or a sports correspondent with an equivalent story treatment he would lose his job.
Had someone forged a paternity test for a Minister?
Had someone forged a drug test for a British Olympic Medal Hopeful?
Honestly ask yourself, would those correspondents act like this?
Why do environmental journalists get a free ride?
Jiminy Cricket If Back was political correspondent or a sports correspondent with an equivalent story treatment he would lose his job.
Had someone forged a paternity test for a Minister?
Had someone forged a drug test for a British Olympic Medal Hopeful?
Well said, but it's far worse than that.
In comparable circumstances, Black has been given information. One lot was information obtained by deception+fraud and shows nothing more than a lobby group being paid to lobby.
The other is information which was being with held against FOI law by publicly paid people which showed them being "economical" with the truth, and conspiring to break FOI law.
In one case, Black/BBC sat on the information. In the other they published without verification in an article referring to "denier-gate" which not only was a blatant piece of propaganda, but clearly showed that Black considered the two to be comparable.
Black clearly knew they were comparable incidents, but he chose to act completely differently because of his personal vendetta against "sceptics". Indeed, what we really see his Black abusing his position in the BBC and ignoring editorial guidelines to "have a go" at the sceptics.
The truth is that his article demonstrates there is nothing behind his claims of some sceptic conspiracy. E.g. his attempt to smear Anthony Watts as being a paid lackey, turns out to be a reasonable educational/scientific project that was already in the public domain. How can it be in the public interest to publish illegally obtained information where the information was already available?
Moreover, the big claim of "BIG OIL" funding Heartland has completely fallen through. Far from proving a conspiracy, all Black has done is prove there is not a conspiracy.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17069455
Climate change really got going with Mrs thatchers speech at UN back mid 1980s
When the CHERNOBYL nuclear reactor blow up they had to find a way to get the public and the environmental movement to finally accept nuclear power
So they created some scare story
Unfortunately their scare story has turned into a Frankenstein monster and we've got a REAL scare story on their hands
'Why do environmental journalists get a free ride?
Feb 17, 2012 at 2:24 PM | Jiminy Cricket
--
Whist seeing your point, actually I suspect correspondents from various other disciplines do get a pretty comfortable journey even when steering themselves and their employers (and often unwilling compelled funders) into dangerous ground.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17025472 (not knowing, or checking, before spinning being somewhat of a trend at the 'mo)
However it helps to be part of an outfit that is, in all ways, 'unique'. And knows it. To the extent of having near zero incentive for, and hence intention to change. Or even face up to things that might yet end up biting from behind.
"I have given them an opportunity to deny explicitly that some of
the contents are real, and they have not done so - ergo, they are real."
But it's good to see some useful stuff committed to print for when the time comes.
@caroline
They were in the fake document and only there.
I'm genuinely astonished that anyone holding down a job whose primary aim is to communicate ideas can have sad something as inane and illogical as this:
Richard Black
The one Heartland claims to be a fake has its contents duplicated in the other seven.
Extraordinary. Mr Black genuinely cannot conceive of any other logical chain of events here. No wonder he gets so confused about science.
I would laugh, but it's shocking that these are the top people at the BBC. How low can we go?
You get the sense that there is growing sensitivity around FakeGate from cAGWists. They are becoming more defensive. This evidently was not meant to be.
It seems a clear breach of the guidelines though how serious a breach is, of course, a different matter.
Whatever, there's delicious irony to be had in contrasting this story with the spat in Scotland that followed the withdrawal of an invitation to our dearly-beloved First Minister to appear "top of programme" (as the irritating jargon has it) before the recent Calcutta Cup match.
The decision to pull the invite was taken in the light of "heightened tensions" between Westminster and the Pretendy Scottish Government. Anyone who knows anything about the political impartiality guidelines knows that it was a correct decision - the BBC was both right and well within its rights.
In response, Alex Salmond (who knows almost as little about rugby as he does about the power supply industry, the turf being his thing) denounced the BBC chap who took the decision as a Gauleiter. Well, he might be something of an apparatchik - I don't know - but many felt that "Gauleiter" was going it a bit.
So, dare we hope that Big 'Eck will help the bishop out of his quandary with a ringing endorsement of his points and can we look to the BBC (as rugby fans forever vainly implore referees) to show a bit of consistency?
Phone Bute House for the latest odds . . .
The worst quotes (about getting teachers not to teach science and do on) are only in the almost certainly fake document. The amazing thing is that both the BBC (e.g. the email from Black to Mike Haseler that he reproduces above) and the Guardian (various tweets from Hickman) are going for the Ratheresque "perhaps it is fake, but it is true to life" defense. That is very brazen. Perhaps they are very used to being able to get away with things like that.
To apply Richard Black logic to Richard Black's words:
He has been given an opportunity to explain that he made an attempt to establish the
veracity of the Heartland documents before publication. He has not done so - ergo, he took no steps.
To apply Richard Black logic to Richard Black's words:
He has been given an opportunity to explain that he made an attempt to establish the
veracity of the Heartland documents before publication. He has not done so - ergo, he took no steps.
Stuck-Record it's shocking that these are the top people at the BBC. How low can we go?
There is evidence that in the 1690s the temperature was around 2C lower. This period coincides with the Maunder minimum and as we all know, there is suggestions we could be entering a new period.
The problem I have in trying to get anyone to take this seriously, is that they keep referring to people like Richard Black who basically come back denying that solar can affect the climate.
The result is that no one is taking the possibility of a sustained period of cold with any seriousness. The result is there simply isn't any research being done to show whether there is anyone in these ideas and if so, what if anything we could do to cope with it or forecast it.
And if you want to know what irks me most, is that if or when these morons like Richard Black finally realise that they have been talking non-science and start considering seriously the possibility of other things like solar impacts
.... they will be the first to go into hysterical over-drive mode, exaggerating the dangers of cold and worrying everyone far more than is necessary, directing resources away from sensible measured, timely policies & research into knee jerk media friendly reactions ... and massive R&D grants to idiots who say they have kind of magic hi-tech solution to something that just needs good insulation and more robust infrastructure ... if indeed it does happen.
The thought depresses me. All those whose work should be used to moderate the warming hysteria will suddenly find their hard work is being turned into support for a new cooling hysteria (again) and people like us will again be called "deniers" ... but only this time for suggesting that the extremists are being hysterical about the consequences of cooling ... or perhaps it will be a completely new trend toward drier or wetter conditions ... and the bandwagon of black propagandists will spread their false alarm and vindictive smears against anyone who dares try to moderate their hysteria.
Stuck-Record it's shocking that these are the top people at the BBC. How low can we go?
There is evidence that in the 1690s the temperature was around 2C lower. This period coincides with the Maunder minimum and as we all know, there is suggestions we could be entering a new period.
The problem I have in trying to get anyone to take this seriously, is that they keep referring to people like Richard Black who basically come back denying that solar can affect the climate.
The result is that no one is taking the possibility of a sustained period of cold with any seriousness. The result is there simply isn't any research being done to show whether there is anyone in these ideas and if so, what if anything we could do to cope with it or forecast it.
And if you want to know what irks me most, is that if or when these morons like Richard Black finally realise that they have been talking non-science and start considering seriously the possibility of other things like solar impacts
.... they will be the first to go into hysterical over-drive mode, exaggerating the dangers of cold and worrying everyone far more than is necessary, directing resources away from sensible measured, timely policies & research into knee jerk media friendly reactions ... and massive R&D grants to idiots who say they have kind of magic hi-tech solution to something that just needs good insulation and more robust infrastructure ... if indeed it does happen.
The thought depresses me. All those whose work should be used to moderate the warming hysteria will suddenly find their hard work is being turned into support for a new cooling hysteria (again) and people like us will again be called "deniers" ... but only this time for suggesting that the extremists are being hysterical about the consequences of cooling ... or perhaps it will be a completely new trend toward drier or wetter conditions ... and the bandwagon of black propagandists will spread their false alarm and vindictive smears against anyone who dares try to moderate their hysteria.
Stuck-Record it's shocking that these are the top people at the BBC. How low can we go?
There is evidence that in the 1690s the temperature was around 2C lower. This period coincides with the Maunder minimum and as we all know, there is suggestions we could be entering a new period.
The problem I have in trying to get anyone to take this seriously, is that they keep referring to people like Richard Black who basically come back denying that solar can affect the climate.
The result is that no one is taking the possibility of a sustained period of cold with any seriousness. The result is there simply isn't any research being done to show whether there is anyone in these ideas and if so, what if anything we could do to cope with it or forecast it.
And if you want to know what irks me most, is that if or when these morons like Richard Black finally realise that they have been talking non-science and start considering seriously the possibility of other things like solar impacts
.... they will be the first to go into hysterical over-drive mode, exaggerating the dangers of cold and worrying everyone far more than is necessary, directing resources away from sensible measured, timely policies & research into knee jerk media friendly reactions ... and massive R&D grants to idiots who say they have kind of magic hi-tech solution to something that just needs good insulation and more robust infrastructure ... if indeed it does happen.
The thought depresses me. All those whose work should be used to moderate the warming hysteria will suddenly find their hard work is being turned into support for a new cooling hysteria (again) and people like us will again be called "deniers" ... but only this time for suggesting that the extremists are being hysterical about the consequences of cooling ... or perhaps it will be a completely new trend toward drier or wetter conditions ... and the bandwagon of black propagandists will spread their false alarm and vindictive smears against anyone who dares try to moderate their hysteria.
Richard Black is very consistent in promoting agw and climate change and if anyone disagrees with that view or has scientific differences to those he promotes are now a big oil conspirator. What a joke that a journalist at the bbc is allowed to push such vile undemocratic one sided tripe.
I know for a fact that big oil funds environmental groups and supports green projects in the UK, where's Mr blacks sense of balance as a publicly funded reporter?
A conservation group I volunteered for, for two years, while I was earning a C&G qualification in horticulture (related to work in environmental studies 20 years ago), was funded by Shell oil, even as recently as this week I watched an advert for BP where they were promoting that they were helping people reduce their carbon foot print. Sounds like a conspiracy to me, Big Oil funding big green, doesn't it, well doesn't it?
Don't get me started on Richard Black's scientific opinion of climate, this is a reporter who wrote about how coal fired power stations in china were the cause of cooling this past 15 years. He actually acknowledges the cooling but put's it down to Anthropogenic Climate Change. That's the position a die-hard "Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming" extremist takes.
Despite the cooling its warming!. Over 600 dead in Europe in recent weeks, tens of thousands of people treated for frost bite and hypothermia because of their inability to keep themselves warm, but get this!! burning fossil fuel to keep warm using Richard Black's logic is what's causing the harsh European winters that kills and injures thousands.
Richard Black is very consistent in promoting agw and climate change and if anyone disagrees with that view or has scientific differences to those he promotes are now a big oil conspirator. What a joke that a journalist at the bbc is allowed to push such vile undemocratic one sided tripe.
I know for a fact that big oil funds environmental groups and supports green projects in the UK, where's Mr blacks sense of balance as a publicly funded reporter?
A conservation group I volunteered for, for two years, while I was earning a C&G qualification in horticulture (related to work in environmental studies 20 years ago), was funded by Shell oil, even as recently as this week I watched an advert for BP where they were promoting that they were helping people reduce their carbon foot print. Sounds like a conspiracy to me, Big Oil funding big green, doesn't it, well doesn't it?
Don't get me started on Richard Black's scientific opinion of climate, this is a reporter who wrote about how coal fired power stations in china were the cause of cooling this past 15 years. He actually acknowledges the cooling but put's it down to Anthropogenic Climate Change. That's the position a die-hard "Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming" extremist takes.
Despite the cooling its warming!. Over 600 dead in Europe in recent weeks, tens of thousands of people treated for frost bite and hypothermia because of their inability to keep themselves warm, but get this!! burning fossil fuel to keep warm using Richard Black's logic is what's causing the harsh European winters that kills and injures thousands.
Thanks Jeremy Harvey and Latimer.
So Black and The Guardian are happily quoting from a document that has not only not been verified, the supposed originators have stated is fake. And it appears Black is not telling the truth when he writes "The one Heartland claims to be a fake has its contents duplicated in the other seven."
I found this over at Tom Nelson re the Rather affair.
Several months later, a CBS-appointed panel led by Dick Thornburgh and Louis Boccardi criticized both the initial CBS news segment and CBS' "strident defense" during the aftermath.[15] CBS fired producer Mary Mapes, several senior news executives were asked to resign, and CBS apologized to viewers. The panel did not specifically consider whether the documents were forgeries but concluded that the producers had failed to authenticate them and cited "substantial questions regarding the authenticity of the Killian documents."
The very fact that the "fake but accurate defence" is being used in some quarters shows the extent of the derangement on the warmist side. There is no rational engagement possible.
We seem to have an outbreak of double double or even triple triple triple posts today. I imagine that its captcha the awful playing up again again.
Please fix
Black's response to Mike Haseler, particularly his claim to independence and objectivity, leaves me not knowing whether to laugh or cry. If Black genuinely believes his own words he is a self-deluded fool. If he thinks what he says will fool us, then he obviously has nothing but contempt for his readers. Either way, he should be sacked and stopped from spending our licence fees on blatant propaganda.
Black's response to Mike Haseler, particularly his claim to independence and objectivity, leaves me not knowing whether to laugh or cry. If Black genuinely believes his own words he is a self-deluded fool. If he thinks what he says will fool us, then he obviously has nothing but contempt for his readers. Either way, he should be sacked and stopped from spending our licence fees on blatant propaganda.
Black's response to Mike Haseler, particularly his claim to independence and objectivity, leaves me not knowing whether to laugh or cry. If Black genuinely believes his own words he is a self-deluded fool. If he thinks what he says will fool us, then he obviously has nothing but contempt for his readers. Either way, he should be sacked and stopped from spending our licence fees on blatant propaganda.
Richard Black's handlers have reeled him in from the days when he would converse with those "on the other side". It also seems he will no longer admit to any error, and when cornered, becomes aggressive... as irritating as that is, the change in behaviour is consistent with being on the back foot.
Give it time :).
@caroline
If you go and look at the originals you will see that the seven 'real' documents are pretty mundane. Nothing much new to see....we already know what Heartland does and these are just some operational documents. Mildly interesting for the obsessive, but never headline news.
It only gets 'interesting' in the fake one. The perp has taken some pretty dull factual financial material from the originals and effectively written an extremely lurid imaginary commentary on them. It is from this commentary and this alone that the juicy headlines come.
The strange thing is that - given the forensic expertise some have built up after Climategate 1 and 2 - he ever thought that his really rather shoddy fake wouldn't be exposed pretty quickly. Looks like he just flung together the first things that were in his mind and published it in a rush. Not bothering to do very much at all to make it look authentic
And it is a fair bet that looking at the snapshot of his mental state will be the thing that leads to his unmasking.
Latimer
The thing is his mental state is well and truly unmasked, documented and paraded on a stick, you just have to look at the comments underneath his blog. Everyone knows he's a campaigner not a reporter....
Caroline "he's a campaigner not a reporter...."
And I will defend ... nay encourage the BBC to air views with which I do not agree.
But I will condemn and fight however I can against this one sided vendetta by the eco-fanatics who seem to run the BBC and smear anyone and everyone who dares to stand up against their non-science.
Caroline "he's a campaigner not a reporter...."
And I will defend ... nay encourage the BBC to air views with which I do not agree.
But I will condemn and fight however I can against this one sided vendetta by the eco-fanatics who seem to run the BBC and smear anyone and everyone who dares to stand up against their non-science.
Hi Caroline
A bit at cross purposes there, I fear. It was the f***er's mental state, and what his musings in the fake tell us about them that I meant. And he really isn't very good at f***ing. He is a real bad f***er.
Black is a lost cause. Might get by writing a column on Greenie Activist Daily (incorporating Occupy St Pauls when we Can Be Arsed and Used Car Digest), aka the Giuardna but otherwise he is so far away with the fairies that he should be called Peter Pan.
Hi Caroline
A bit at cross purposes there, I fear. It was the f***er's mental state, and what his musings in the fake tell us about them that I meant. And he really isn't very good at f***ing. He is a real bad f***er.
Black is a lost cause. Might get by writing a column on Greenie Activist Daily (incorporating Occupy St Pauls when we Can Be Arsed and Used Car Digest), aka the Giuardna but otherwise he is so far away with the fairies that he should be called Peter Pan.
MIke
The BBC can and should air all sorts of views but its reporters, by its own guidelines, aren't meant to use it as a platform for their own.
MIke
The BBC can and should air all sorts of views but its reporters, by its own guidelines, aren't meant to use it as a platform for their own.
and look among the sponsors of the Science Media Centre....
........The Met Office.....
and look among the sponsors of the Science Media Centre....
........The Met Office.....
I am getting a echo, or is it a fake?
Richard Black says: "I have given them an opportunity to deny explicitly that some of the contents are real, and they have not done so - ergo, they are real."
MikeC says: You (Richard Black) have been given the opportunity explain what attempts you made to establish the veracity of the Heartland documents before publication, and you have not done so - ergo, you made no attempt.
Richard Black tweets about his 'take' on the global black carbon initiative.......
Should a BBC reporter have a 'take' on a story. Just the facts please.
MIke
The BBC can and should air all sorts of views but its reporters, by its own guidelines, aren't meant to use it as a platform for their own. Caroline
I agree, but ... and this may sound bizarre .... I would rather a BBC where people with a strong view got on air than some wishy washy... try to please everyone PC correct bunch of cowards who never say anything in case someone is offended.
The problem is not that Black expresses his views, it is that his views are falsely portrayed as fact, that he is allowed to run a personal vendetta against anyone he doesn't like, and that he is allowed to indulge in some kind of fantasy paranoiac world-view of some massed conspiracy of sceptics who "deny" the truth because they are BIG-OIL lackeys.
Views are fine. Views which are backed by the facts are better. But views that amount to paranoiac vendettas against other people expressing facts he does not like is a gross misconduct.
And the illegal dealing in stolen goods and breach of copyright justified only by his paranoiac belief in the sceptic BIG-OIL paid conspiracy .... I'm not sure whether the right thing is to condemn him or feel sympathy for someone so deluded.
Here's a new headline for the Daily Mail.
BBC Environment Correspondent secretly pushes views of Met Office sponsored campaigning group - passes them off as quotes - doesnt tell reader where they come from.
BBC neutrality tainted.
Here's a headline you won't see in Private Eye:
Global warming [insert anything] found to be suspect
Ian Hyslop at the time of Climategate as much as said that Private Eye would never print anything bad about the global warming (scam).
That is why there was nothing on Climategate, and we can be certain the hypocritical upperclass scientifically illiterate twit whose only redeeming feature is that he makes a good stooge for Paul Merton will print nothing about the stolen and forged heartland docs....
... Actually I've gone too far. He may be all the above, but he has put himself at considerable risk in several libel cases for which he deserves credit ... and no one is perfect, I just wish his Nelson's blind eye wasn't the global warming scam.