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)
Ian Hyslop at the time of Climategate as much as said that Private Eye would never print anything bad about the global warming (scam).
Feb 17, 2012 at 4:56 PM | Mike Haseler
---
Follow that course and you have passed any hope of being deemed journalist and moved squarely to propagandist. You can't pick and choose what to play up... or ignore, and hope to maintain credibility.
Mr. Black and the BBC long since has accepted that role; surprised that Mr. Hislop is happy to join their less than stellar professional level.
At least Black is consistent with his logic -
"There is no proof the document is fake - ergo it is real"
"There is no proof AGW is fake ergo it is real"
JunkkMale ... from memory Mr Hyslop (Hislop?) said something along the lines of "I may not be a scientist, but I've been reliably informed that there never has been a bit of science that has been so thoroughly proven blah blah".
I remember the What's Up With That when climategate broke, and there was so really weird looks at the start ... as if there had been some almighty row about Hyslop's hypocrisy.
Obviously, I might have been imagining it.
But, Private Eye is not a scientific journal. Really this close scrutiny of science ought to have been done by the science journals, but unfortunately, ... I don't have enough swear words in my vocabulary.
But even Hyslop should be able to see the hypocrisy of Black using stolen & forged documents to manufacture a story out of nothing about a lobby organisation who was caught ... lobbying.
Even Hyslop should be able to see that you can't sit on the climategate emails that showed academics conspiring to break FOI law and then use entirely different standards where there is not the slightest hint of law breaking ... except by the person who stole the documents ... and black for handling stolen goods.
But there are none so blind as they who will not see.
Re Richard Black and "duplicated"
The juicy quotations which made the story appear only in the fake strategy doc.
Ergo, Richard Black is incompetent and cannot be trusted.
At the BBC "The Editors" article "Breaking news guidance for BBC journalists" is still open for comments.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2012/02/twitter_guidelines_for_bbc_jou.html#comments
For what it's worth, I think they really do read some of the comments and the title seems pertinent. Being as fair as I can at the moment, I'm sure they'd like to do a better job, but are limited by costs. I just don't think they are getting value for money from Richard Black as a journalist. They should also split the "Science and Environment" department. Science is Science, and Richard Black is Environmental Advocacy&Activism.
PS
My spell checker just suggested I replace "www.bbc.co.uk" in the above URL with "cock-and-bull" ! :)
At the BBC "The Editors" article "Breaking news guidance for BBC journalists" is still open for comments.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2012/02/twitter_guidelines_for_bbc_jou.html#comments
For what it's worth, I think they really do read some of the comments and the title seems pertinent. Being as fair as I can at the moment, I'm sure they'd like to do a better job, but are limited by costs. I just don't think they are getting value for money from Richard Black as a journalist. They should also split the "Science and Environment" department. Science is Science, and Richard Black is Environmental Advocacy&Activism.
PS
My spell checker just suggested I replace "www.bbc.co.uk" in the above URL with "cock-and-bull" ! :)
We should not be hard on Richard black, or his colleague Roger Harrabin. These are propagandists who long since got into bed with the UEA and have not only unquestioningly promoteed AGW, but encouraged the 'scientists' to go further with even scarier claims.
BBC is, and now always will be, tainted. Thinking and questioning people will never again trust anything they say.
It really is time to de-fund the BBC. Their programmes get worse by the hour. Last evening in the West we had a double dose from Points West. First promoting rubbish to the effect that solar was cheaper than conventional power (!!!) (Low Carbon Gordano), then a piece on global warming swamping the Severn, rising sea levels, etc. and the 'need' to tear down the flood defences.
I dont like propaganda, from wherever it comes, and this instinctively leads me to reject the messages sent.
The man in the street is much wiser than these propagandists understand. He can smell a rat, and this is why AGW is dead as a tool for a new world order, extracting higher taxes and controlling our every thought or action.
Also worthy of note is the fact that the uncivilised thugs at Desmog have not had the decency to redact email addresses, telephone numbers and other personal information from the documents, in contrast to the way the Climategate emails were treated by prominent 'sceptics'.
It's almost as if 'sceptics' tend to have a greater capacity for personal restraint.
Do not ignore the possibility of a sting operation or just a prank.
The identity and motivation behind this are much much less interesting than the gullibility of the meejah - especially Richard Black.
I wonder if he is ever going to admit he has been duped ?
In one respect Black is right and most commenters here are wrong - in his judgement of the likely public reaction.
His article starts:
"’Denier-gate’ is the label being applied in the blogosphere, in case you're interested. For anyone who doesn't spend every week up to their waists in the ordure of climate politics, ...”
He is practically apologising for bringing the subject up, knowing that it is completely uninteresting except to a tiny number of climate activists, and an even tinier number of sceptics.
Put yourself in the position of an underling in the BBC complaints department, informed that the words “undermine” “dissuade” etc were faked, and therefore Black deserves to be sacked. Knowing nothing about the subject, seeing a huge fuss being made about whether someone was paid to “undermine” or simply to “counter” an argument, what is he going to do but put the complaint on the reject pile? The louder the fuss we make, the more absurdly disproportionate it seems. And Black and his colleagues know that.
I’m sorry to be so pessimistic. We’re all looking for the leak in the dyke which will grow into a flood, but be realistic - this isn’t it.
Now, a paternity test on Gore / Hansen / Mann ... THAT might do it.
The BBC could not give a toss about what you or anyone else think. They are the best TV station in the world, the most loved and the most independent. /sarc off.
Mike Haseler (Feb 17, 2012 at 4:56 PM)
“... a headline you won't see in Private Eye ...”
... and an opinion you won’t see expressed by ANY comedian. Both the Marxist Mark Steel in the Independent, and the snobby Giles Coren in the Sunday Times (both funny writers when they want to be) have published straightfaced ANGRY articles, shocked at the very idea of denying CAGW. (And see the unbearable po-faced clip by David Mitchell at the Daily Mash) The fact that talented, intelligent comics whose whole life is devoted to deflating the false, the pretentious, and the hypocritical, are incapable of seeing through this nonsense is the clearest evidence that this is not simply some political or self-interested conspiracy, and that talk of watermelons and “follow the money” doesn’t begin to get to the bottom of it.
I didn’t mean to belittle the efforts of everyone here in my previous comment. All analysis is useful, particularly the meticulous work of His Eminence. I just meant to point out that we’re far from winning, or even from devising a winning strategy. Let’s keep at it though.
Geoff, you have obviously never complained to the bbc about Mr Black. When you do you will be surprised to find your reply comes from...Mr Black.
Now Richard Black has started doing comedy perhaps we should ask the BBC whether he is employed as a journalist or an entertainer.
Well, Mike, I think you've nailed him.
Black has now had a further five hours to show that he made efforts to check the veracity of the documents - so, by his own standards, he was lying.
I think he should be reminded of this by twice daily blog posts until he responds.
Feb 17, 2012 at 8:20 PM | jason
Yes it surprised me when I complained about Mr Black bringing someone's religious beliefs into a Climate Change story and got a reply from Mr Black himself. Do you think he deals with complaints against him himself and the High Head Ones don't get involved? Just a thought.
As it happens the reply made me less likely to read anything by Mr Black, self justification is no recommendation.
Sandy
Feb 17, 2012 at 8:20 PM | jason
Yes it surprised me when I complained about Mr Black bringing someone's religious beliefs into a Climate Change story and got a reply from Mr Black himself. Do you think he deals with complaints against him himself and the High Head Ones don't get involved? Just a thought.
As it happens the reply made me less likely to read anything by Mr Black, self justification is no recommendation.
Sandy
The universe continues to unfold as it should.
I stand by my suggested name for this episode from yesterday, which is Suckergate.
Black and others took the bait so eagerly that any veneer of credibility they might have had is evaporating rapidly.
All good. And congratulations to those who set this trap.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2012/02/twitter_guidelines_for_bbc_jou.html#comments
For what it's worth, I think they really do read some of the comments
Feb 17, 2012 at 6:22 PM | michael hart
--
And, when it suits, censor them with either a referral (no reason) or House Rule (almost always "off topic", meaning no other reason they can find).
I actually admire when any BBC type replies to blog comments or tweets, but not when the level of 'we got it about right' reaches delusion level, and especially when they get on high horses. The exchanges soon dry up when the weight of fact and evidence becomes more than they can bear.
The BBC complaints system is risible, deliberately so. But as there is no option, the only thing to do is hammer it, again and again, when they stray, and hammer it with fact and their own, too often breached 'rules' and 'guidelines'.
I'm gunning for them getting fed up and banning or blocking me for the new winner of 'bad faith' (by taking them to task for screwing up when demanding I pay). At which point I, and their performance, gets a day in court that FoI exclusions cannot avoid.
Thanks for your email. Anthony Watts was a marginal player in this
story. By the time my post went live, he had already blogged about his
element of it, so there was no need to contact him. His contention that
I "slimed" him is just ridiculous - I just didn't. Read it again if you
want.
As to your quote from the editorial guidelines - I would have thought
specialist expertise was prominent in the article, no?
Best regards,
Richard Black
Errr...No indeed.
But thanks for engaging Richard.
While you're here - in correspondence with commenter Mike Hasler you claimed that you made attempts to verify the authenticity of the Heartland documents before posting your piece.
Several people here have challenged you to provide proof of this.
Are you prepared to do so?
Should you not do so, do you agree that, using the criterion you outlined in your letter to Mike Hasler, we would be entitled to assume that you made no such attempts.
Quote:-
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."
Are you prepared to do so?
Feb 18, 2012 at 9:50 AM | Foxgoose
--
Screeech. Watertight oversight!
It is my experience that many.. too many.. at the BBC have a droit de signeur attitude to the posing and answering of questions.
Namely, they get to ask, not answer, up to and including bannings, blockings and, when needed, FoI exclusions legally imposed using further public funds.
'I just didn't' is of course a response, of sorts, but often hardly of much value or persuasive, along with 'I/we believe...', 'I think... we get it about right..' , 'I am comfortable with..' etc, but beyond scoring points at the Bill Clinton school of semantics seldom furthering much except ticking some internal system boxes.
Was amused by this earlier...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-17076670
'Google declined to provide further comment to the BBC.'
Odd, given the ex-BBC Newsnight editor is their PR head.
Ergo, they deserved a pass on what more that might infer?
As to your quote from the editorial guidelines - I would have thought
specialist expertise was prominent in the article, no?
I read a political or sports article without usually worrying about the party or the team of choice of the writer.
Usually their expertise and skill overrides such worries. This is expected of serious journalists.
Sorry, all that is evident in your articles is the "team" you support and the "evidence" you gather to shore up that support.
I wouldn't read MSM articles actively promoting the Tories or ManU. Why should you be different?
Expertise means JOURNALISTIC expertise not just promoting the details of your own world view.
You have singularly failed to show such expertise in this episode so far.
I think we should quote '4.4.20' to the BBC at every available opportunity....
Shouldn't be difficult..!
I look forward to reading 'AGW: The Useful Idiots'. I think Mr Black deserves a small mention.