Bishop Hill The BBC's misinformation box
Mar 6, 2015 BBC Energy: gas According to BBC News, the head of the engineering firm Weir Group has said that the nascent shale gas industry is on the back foot because of all the disinformation that is being put out:
Spin is "beating science" in the debate over fracking in Scotland, the head of the Weir Group has claimed.
Keith Cochrane, chief executive of the engineering firm, said that he feared Scotland would be left behind in the global market place.
You can see his point, particularly as the BBC has provided a perfect example of the spin Mr Cochrane was talking about, accompanying the story with a box that is indistinguishable from the worst kind of environmentalist disinformation. Has anyone else noticed that this same set of half-truths accompanies almost every BBC news story on unconventional oil and gas?
I have pointed this out to more than one senior journalist at the BBC and while they didn't dispute that it is misleading they don't seem to feel they have any responsibility to see it corrected because they were not personally responsible for authoring it.
Your taxes at work.
Reader Comments (23)
There was some discussion about Parliamentary Questions here in recent days. If there is evidence to illustrate the disinformation being broadcast by the BBC then maybe an MP with positive views on fracking or doubts about the justification for continued compulsory funding of the BBC may be willing to ask some awkward questions.
Q: How can we in the blogosphere mount a campaign to harras the BBC into changing their views, by humitiation, embarrassment, & whatever peaceful process one can use! Regular complaining may work but piecemeal I don't think it does. I did complain about the BBC's One Show several times, regarding Lucie Siegle's repeated use of her slot to spout her global warming mythology, & it seemed to have worked as she has done very little since on eco stuff, although I suspect given time she'll be allowed to start again.
If the BBC had praised fracking, there would have been a deluge of complaints from the Greens. Perhaps readers here should complain to the BBC about the disinformation.
It may not achieve anything but if they follow their procedures as stated then a number of BBC decision makers are obliged to be made aware of the complaint. That is probably better than no feedback at all.
One thing I have noticed is that it is contrived centrally and pushed out to the regions - about 18 months ago I went from SW to NE UK and the local BBC news outlets were running a "templated" piece on fracking - same structure , same Gasland clips and a small locally supplied bit on some regional manifestation of the "contoversial technique" or a green academic twerp from a local tech college shroud waving.
It's poop+scoot propaganda - since the BBC regional pieces disappear after 24 hours AFAICS the regionals are also editorially instructed to offer platforms to the local anti-frackers....
The mendacious and sneaky nature of the antics are clear - but only if you move around or take the trouble to watch for it and compare and contrast while it's still steaming.
As the BBC ramps up its propaganda campaign ahead of Paris, there is an ever increasing amount of evidence that it is determined to influence opinion in direct contravention of its charter. Readers with well documented evidence might find help from those who are in a position to get noticed. I'm thinking of GWPF, David Rose, Matt Ridley, etc.
Time for the gloves to come off, businesses that have invested in fracking should sue the BBC and others for publishing misleading information. Just the threat of legal action may have some effect, but of course the BBC will remain infected with renewable madness, never mind the cost, we'll just impose a price freeze, and we're not too bothered because our public sector paychecks will rise with inflation, otherwise we'll go on strike.
The BBC green zealots are saving the planet so they are not obliged to be truthful. The BBC and the BBC Trust cares very little about the viewers or what they think. Make a complaint and it merely gathers dust before being dismissed.
The BBC has a guaranteed £3,5000M flowing in no matter how bad they are. It is full of green lackeys like Jonathan Renouf, Roger Harrabin, etc. spreading the gospel whilst using public money and looking forward to their BBC pensions.
Maybe it is time for BBC staff to be compelled to Register their Interests, Political, and Financial.
This would avoid accusations of bias.
Percy Thrower, the BBC's gardening expert from the 60's was turfed out for doing an ad on ITV. Standards seem to have slipped a bit, and green slime on your wellies, is compulsory. It makes the corridors of power rather slippery.
At what point does 'misinformation' leave the court of valid opinion and crash through the locked doors of reason and obligation? Someone, somewhere, really should bring a test case against the BBC.
The controversial BBC knows as well as any other media outlet that bad news sells copy. They are really quite happy to chase ambulances along with the rest of them in search or higher ratings whilst saving the planet.
Like hand in glove, the environmental lobbyists are more than happy to supply them with stories of doom and gloom. That is their raison d'être. Thus we get stories about honey bee decline due to neonicotinoid pesticides. And we get stories about bee decline due to global warming. And we get stories about bee decline due to disease, predators and competitors, usually blamed on humans. What we will never get is a story saying 'no problem with bees and they didn't even exist in the USA until we introduced them a few centuries ago'.
We won't see stories about polar bear numbers increasing due to decreased hunting and that they also survived every previously warmer period in the Arctic. We won't see stories about how many extra little baby seals those nasty polar bears are eating because a seal's only job is to look cute if they are being hunted by humans. Remember how all the North Sea seals were dying years ago, and it just had to be due to chemicals because they could think of nothing else? With their short-list of one, the real explanation of viral disease didn't get considered until it was no longer newsworthy.
All the stories always have to fit the received green narrative, which the BBC always runs past the editorial desks of Greenpeace, WWF, FoE, etcetera. Logic, consistency, unbiased reporting, the BBC charter, human needs, all have to take a back seat. Then they have the gall to call themselves "science" reporters. Their campaign against fracking and against industry in general, is undoubtedly meeting with some success and they are proud of it. Many of them actually believe that we can all become wealthy just by selling each other the same houses over and over.
I don't have much sympathy for these frackers. Unlike sceptics they have a lot of money and if we sceptics had had a fraction of the money the alarmists get the BBC wouldn't have become some arrogantly confident that it can get away with blatant lies.
michael hart, seems like some of the BBC experts in science and graphics, just copy all their material from press handouts.
Sounds like they expect to be paid for getting somebody else to do the work for them, who in many cases, will be paid via Government grants and subsidies.
A red/green utopia.
For those of you watching in black and white, or who suffer from red/green colour blindness, and can't tell the difference, they all sound the same aswell.
Even in Aberdeen, a BBC story about oil prices affecting the economy or something has to be accompanied by a quote by someone from WWF, FOE or The Greens, having the last irrelevant word. It's weird, as if every David Attenborough program had to be commented on by a chiropractor.
Mar 6, 2015 at 10:30 AM | Schrodinger's Cat
The Future of the BBC inquiry just concluded, and that had oodles of MPs on it for ages. They may be a bit questioned out.
The result was that they realised the BBC was stuffed on just about every measure, especially integrity, so the solution was to get away from the current unfair system where people are required by law to pay a licence fee to watch live broadcast, to the much fairer system that everyone simply has the poll tax extracted (via council task or ISP levy) whether they appreciate the vital nature of EastEnders or not. Or even have a TV.
The BBC Trust was at least described as unfit for purpose, but will remain until a new oversight body can be created, which likely will look, walk and quack like the BBC Trust.2.1, but will have a different name. Maybe a more honest one, like BBC Cover Up Niggles Team.
Do you have a link, JM?
JunkkMale - Interesting, thanks.
My major gripe with the BBC is the bias shown by the News Group. The Corporation seems to be staffed by Guardian worshippers who are incapable of recognising their own bias in a number of eco/political areas. The problem is too deeply entrenched to be recoverable because they just don't realise how biased they are. Add to that the near monopoly situation of the BBC as a state broadcaster with a mandate to inform and provide news I believe that their opinion shaping impact is about 75% of the UK media.
This situation is intolerable and the only solution I can think of is for the news part to be split up with some sort of mechanism for ensuring a broader political spectrum of views. The BBC is widely considered to be biased in the areas left wing support, NHS bashing, pro-immigration, anti-welfare reform, pro-EU and of course, all aspects of climate alarmism. Others may disagree or have a longer list.
When it comes to the entertainment side of the BBC, I don't have strong views about any of it or how it should be funded. I do object to a compulsory tax to fund their news propaganda.
Radio 4 Feedback Feb 28 had a 5 minute slot arguing that BBC should not have given time to replaying Catastrofie Bennet's brain fade.
- instead the BBC should have helped by looking up what she should have said and broadcasting that.
- The rep from BBC news turned out not to br the normal Green Party poodle & gave an answer they weren't expecting. 'It was news worthy as Bennett has a habit for brain fade interviews eg on Andrew Neils'
- and it was trending on twitter.
(Feedback is a prog totally owned by the greens , I will be staggered if Roger Bolton doesn't have some connection to activists thru family)
@michael hart Yes, SCARE STORIES SELL thats why News division churn material originating from Green Religion orgs.. So GWPF need to prepare similar 'cut and paste ready material' on issues like winter deaths and 'job exporting' due to catastrophic Davey
- Science and Magazine shows do like future dream stories so do like to hype solar; electric cars; wind optimism aswell as disaster
- Rationalatheism is not stall sale as easily as religious dreaming
- Rational atheism does not sell as easily as religious dreaming.
Good lord. I just had a look at the BBC link. It is the epitome of everything Keith Cochrane is talking about.
No it isn't ... but we'll let that one slide.From the usual crowd who are against all "fossil fuels" or industrial development trying to pretend they're only against "fracking" so they can scare Joe Public, who seems to have fallen for it.
Huge? Not really, and you don't exactly have to transport it far in Scotland. How is that more "environmentally costly" than any of the thousands of tankers on Britains roads every day? Does the BBC ever interrogate these claims?
More fact-free "worry" to add to the "concerns" - and totally contrived. How would a chemical "escape" in concentrations enough to cause cancer? Can the BBC tell us? How would a properly cased well fracking at depth contaminate groundwater?
"But" nothing. Firstly, it's not just "the industry" suggesting that but all sorts of commentators. Secondly, it might or might not contribute significantly. The point is that it's not sufficiently unsafe to ban, despite all the agitation and obstructionist tactics by activists in local government.
Bish: as you say "your taxes at work".
Following on from its baking, gardening, and sewing challenges, the beeb has finally resorted to the "Big Painting Challenge". They are, literally, using taxpayers money to let us pay to watch paint drying - WTF???
The Huw Wheldon Memorial Lecture is being shown on BBC4 tonight at 20.00. Titled, 'Public service broadcasting: A house of cards?', it might be interesting to see what they have to say about the future of the Beeb.
Do you have a link, JM?
Mar 6, 2015 at 7:04 PM | michael hart
Apols; just saw this. Here you go:
http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/culture-media-and-sport-committee/news/report-future-of-bbc/
Leads to:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmselect/cmcumeds/315/315.pdf
A mighty tome, and not the most digestible read on any basis. Especially some conclusions that will have the BBC thrilled on just how long they still have to be ensured loadsamunny in some form or other, with precious little change on performance and accountability outside a very select old boys and girls' club.
Extraordinary, given committee member Ben Bradshaw, ex-BBC employee and ex-Labour Culture Minister clearly states the now breather-enjoying 'Trust' isn't exactly the representative of the public it was meant and they all claim to be.
And when the Guardian is to the fore in wondering just what still goes on behind those uniquely secretive walls even internally, things seem to be headed in dubious directions...
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/08/bbc-whistleblowers-jimmy-savile