Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > Are BHers out to kill the BBC ?

Salopian. What offended me was the cheapness of the shot you made and that its basis was incorrect. UEA is criticized here because of CRU. CRU was only formed in 1971, therefore could not be the object of any BBC parody, and I and the overwhelming number of my UEA colleagues were not there at the time. So your comment is inaccurate and I wished to point this out.

I am also somewhat weary of repeatedly being linked disparagingly with CRU, and sort to express this when I responded to your jibe. I have not criticized your past (I don't know it), and I would be infinitely grateful if you would respect mine and stop throwing it into my face. Consequently I reject your accusations. Yours was a cheap and inaccurate dig. Carry on if you must, my hide has grown thicker over the past few weeks here, certainly more than when you first had a go at me.

Apr 18, 2016 at 8:52 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

M Courtney
I agree with your three points, and have pointed them out separately more than once. I also think that TinyCO2 has made a valid point regarding the Brand/Ross issue. I happened to hear the broadcast, I can't think why as I regard both as self-important popinjays. I think the item was recorded and passed as being "Edgy humour" before being broadcast. I now think of Edgy as being offensive.

mike fowle
In France I watch BFMTV (rolling news channel) for an hour or two most mornings, they have an interviewer called Jean Jacques Bourdin (Bourdin Direct) who appears to be a French equivalent of Robin Day. He has interviewed all the leading politicians giving many a hard time. Yánis Varoufákis was the man in the hot seat this morning, I'm not sure how it was done but Bourdin spoke in French Varoufákis in English (which was audible at a push) with simultaneously translation. The Bourdin Direct format is something the BBC would do well to imitate; unfortunately the days of Robin Day have long gone.

The BBC (and commercial stations but they are commercial enterprises whose shareholders decide what they want) censors people and views its management/editors don't like, such as the EDL, Geert Wilders, Bjorn Soders, Donald Trump and the American NRA, but is quite happy to have people like Marcus Brigstock rant on about how awful they are. I really would like the BBC to interview both sides so I can make up my own mind. The far right is a growing force in the EU, what ever the result of Brexit it is very important that the citizens of the UK know and understand what is happening in the EU, and in the USA as well.


On the other hand there is a lot of good stuff hidden away on various bits of the BBC both radio and TV. Mostly non-political stuff.

Apr 18, 2016 at 9:32 PM | Unregistered CommenterSandyS

Alan Kendall
I'm sorry if you feel I move the goal posts, if you read my comment here of a few minutes ago I don't think that the BBC is alone in effectively censoring certain people and events, but as M Courtney rightly points out the others are commercial organisations who receive no part of the licence fee. The point I was trying to make, ineffectively it seems, was that like all of these stunts they feed on publicity and the type of coverage they get. Judging by the number of comments here it was an effective stunt and will no doubt lead to more action of increasing risk to the public and emergency services.

I haven't seen any of the BBC coverage of the Trafalgar Square incident, but would be most surprised if an anti-Greenpeace action view was expressed at any point in any transmission, however if you tell there was I'd be pleasantly surprised.

Apr 18, 2016 at 9:49 PM | Unregistered CommenterSandyS

Alan K:

Please, just grow some, you are acting like a drama queen.

The UEA has been an object of derision since the 70s. It is not so much a red brick university, as a mud brick university.

My comment was a dig at this pretentious 'academic' pile, not specifically at you (but you and the other academics employed at this shambles have a professional responsibility for the mess that it is).

As far as the thickness of your hide, it seems to be tissue-paper thin. Like I said in my previous post, if you can't take it, don't dish it out.

Apr 19, 2016 at 12:00 AM | Registered CommenterSalopian

Pi** off, Salopan

you're blustering, trying to disguise a snarky comment, clearly directed at me (since you name me) which was factually inaccurate. You have a particular hang up when it comes to the UEA, recognize it and move on, but for heaven's sake hold your piece.

Apr 19, 2016 at 7:22 AM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

...your peace.

Apr 19, 2016 at 8:17 AM | Unregistered CommenterMartin A

No Martin A, I was told to "grow some" I was merely suggesting he hold his. Clever of you to spot this, I trust Salopian got the message. He will now.

Apr 19, 2016 at 8:39 AM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

OK let me reset
The context of this discussion is that, here I am thinking that most of the people I meet think that these days the BBC has an institutional bias to things that are "right on progressive" particularly the greendream, And then up pops a voice (Alan) in a comment here 2 weeks ago, which said something like

'What are guys on about ? The BBC doesn't have a Green bias, it just reflects the attitude of the majority of its public..and it seems like you guys want to destroy it'
....And I thought "that POV is extraordinary, if Alan thinks that, then do many other sane people ?"
It's that POV that interests me, I am really not trying to criticise Alan personally.

Previously he had also mentioned something like 'the majority of people do take the green view on climate, but that might be skewed by me living in Norfolk'
... and I thought 'well that is vastly different view from the many people I talk to, so am I the one living in a ghetto ?'

So for two weeks I have composing a reply in my mind that, No we are not out to destroy the BBC, that many BBC employees keep to the old quality standards, but rather it's the management that need to be held to account for allowing this new institutional bias.
- And that bias is endemic ..every day without looking I seem to come across something in a BBC prog/website which breaches the BBC's own charter.

- OK I couldn't find that original comment to quote so I used "99% OK" as a rhetorical device not a literal one.

Apr 19, 2016 at 8:59 AM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

For future reference, UEA in its early stages was considered a brave, and essentially successful experiment, parts of which were adopted by many other universities. Schools were either innovative or deliberately multidisciplinary - so the Schools of Environmental Sciences (incorporating economics and politics elements), (inter)Development Studies, American Studies and the like. The only disappointment was that an intended combined Physics and Chemistry school never arose [ I believe because the two founding professors could not agree].

It's downfall, in your eyes, is the responsibility of CRU and I suppose the administration that tried to protect it. If you wish to attack it in future might I implore you to target your ire, and leave the institution at large alone. Most of its employees have nothing to do with climate change.

Apr 19, 2016 at 9:07 AM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

Sidenote : People often write in a form of shorthand so when they day that the BBC, CRU or "The Russians" did something evil.. most people are aware that means the "Management allowed something evil". Not that all Russians are responsible for Putin's decisions and not that zero CRU or UEA employees have any integrity etc.

Apr 19, 2016 at 9:20 AM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

"No we are not out to destroy the BBC, that many BBC employees keep to the old quality standards, but rather it's the management that need to be held to account for allowing this new institutional bias."

Nah, the bias is top to bottom. It's a cross between being state funded and employing creative types. The few exceptions are people who earned their credentials in another, more commercial field. Most creative people are left wing, probably because the early stages of their career are poorly paid and very uncertain. There's a lot of competition for a small number of jobs. Those that go to university often study subjects that have few lectures and plenty of time to join the students Union and debate how down trodden they are. They don't see that their financial hardship is as a result of not choosing a harder career. By the time those people get to the top, they're not only committed left wingers, all their friends are cut from the same cloth, and may still be getting nowhere. Proof for them that the capitalist society treats very important people badly. They can't accept that what they offer is a luxury and not as important as other fields.

Being part of a publicly funded industry also generates left wing ideas. There is not the same connection with success and failure to salary and employment. If there are hardships in their industry - they blame the government. They don't blame their product or the preferences of the customer. They're not as wary of their competition. They look enviously at the salaries of commercial businesses but fail to adjust for the benefits of their own positions. They don't appreciate the value of their pension, the sinecure of their job or the cushy nature of their employment. Compared to the average commercial business the BBC will be complying with a lot more rules designed to protect employees. If there's something they need, the public has to pay. Can you imagine going into a shop and being forced to buy something so the shop keeper can have a better set of steps? Or taking your purchase off you after you've paid because there hadn't been enough sales that day - which is exactly what the BBC does if they don't get enough money in - they just reduce the output.

This echo chamber leads them to think that their ideas are the norm or even superior to everyone else’s. They cannot change.

Apr 19, 2016 at 9:54 AM | Unregistered CommenterTinyCO2

** Oh Much of the above points were also discussed on a thread named Shocking email leak (about the Panama Papers)
and that was restarted by 'someone' making a provactive joke on April 16

..I hadn't noticed, due to me not wanting to read more about the Panama Papers

Apr 19, 2016 at 10:59 AM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

Guilty as charged, but haven't you all had fun?

I now regret my presumption. Interesting however that the attack dogs (and dogesses?) unleached their "spite" only on the BBC , the Guardian got off without another bite.

Apr 19, 2016 at 2:49 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

Stewgreen. Some people, but not all. The words "smoke" and "fire", and "tar" and "brush" are commonly implicit in what many people write (a good many here).

Apr 19, 2016 at 3:05 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

Alan Kendall, we get the message, you like the BBC but don't want to fund it. Like climate change fanatics 'we must' is their watchword, never 'I must'.

Apr 19, 2016 at 3:18 PM | Unregistered CommenterTinyCO2

Tinyco2 where did you get the notion I don't want to fund the BBC? I would willingly pay double.

Apr 19, 2016 at 3:39 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

Tiny co2. 9.54am. Interesting use of "echo chamber". Read the items on this, and two other, discussion sites again. Do you hear the same message endlessly repeating itself? Unfortunately not getting any quieter or rational.

Apr 19, 2016 at 3:47 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

"...the Guardian got off without another bite."

Apr 19, 2016 at 2:49 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

I can help you out there, Alan. The Guardian=The BBC at prayer. (OK, I posted that at WUWT last July, but I haven't changed my opinion.)

And only a few days ago I posted this in an exchange between us:

Alan, just to keep the blood pressure up, I'll relay this from Paul Homewood's Not A Lot Of People Know That, as prompted by Stewgreen. We’re All Going To Drown – BBC

It's got almost everything bad that the BBC global warming department specialises in. One might hope that these pieces become rarer as BBC cuts begin to bite because they are somewhat hidden from the front pages and not even presented as news. I am less optimistic because we know these days that the BBC develops other sources of funding (sometimes the EU), some of whom may well fund such 'educational' specials probably aimed at the school aged readers, whose teachers will be notified of it by the Guardian in the staff room.

I assure you, I didn't mention the Guardian by accident.

Apr 19, 2016 at 3:52 PM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

So pay double, I'm sure the BBC wouldn't reject it. Or pay for a neighbour. Start a Keep the BBC Open club where you all pay extra but be prepared to be pretty lonely. This echo chamber however is free if you want it to be. You continually misunderstand that concept.

Apr 19, 2016 at 3:55 PM | Unregistered CommenterTinyCO2

Tiny co2. I don't misunderstand the concept, I just weary of the way it often operates here. A constant repetition of the same old gripes with little attempt to understand another's viewpoint or have any realization of just how small a segment of the population you actually represent. (Note very carefully indeed I am not saying this makes you wrong and I belong within that segment regarding climate change).

I have belatedly come to the conclusion that my reappearance here must have been a godsendv to many of you. Someone to vehemently disagree with after possibly years of having no one else but activists with Munchausen syndrome or rather peculiar people like the Dork. I think I'll reserve my appearances here largely to interacting with golf Charlie,s zanyness ( although as of the past few days he has been much too serious) and being Ayla's acolyte. Factual.matters where I have some expertize or experiece I will also contribute to., but arguing, perhaps not.

Apr 19, 2016 at 4:27 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

Alan Kendall,
I don't object to the Guardian's editorial choices because they are unpaid by me.
But the BBC would criminalise me if I didn't agree with their bias.

The Guardian sells itself as being partisan.
Good for them; It's honest. And (sometimes) it's stimulating.

The BBC sells itself as being unbiased.
False advertising.

Apr 19, 2016 at 10:56 PM | Registered CommenterM Courtney

Alan K

My views about the BBC are partly conditioned by the experience of having had (despite being a declared non TV-viewer) a couple of gorillas and a copper arrive at my doorstep with a search warrant to search for the TV they thought I was illicitly watching (later said to be "the result of a completely exceptional error").

As a non TV-watcher and non BBC radio listerner, I'm a bit curious. You have made it clear that you greatly value the BBC but I have no idea what it is about the BBC that you value in particular.

Would you care to spell out what aspect of the BBC's output you value? Classical music? Plays? Science? Soap opera? Investigation? Sports coverage? Climate change coverage? News? Daily interviews with politicians? Pop music? History? Comedy? Other? As I say, I'm just curious to know.

Apr 20, 2016 at 8:19 AM | Registered CommenterMartin A

M Courtney
Yes my view too, as an expat I get BBC "free" although I pay the French equivalent of the licence.

Apr 20, 2016 at 8:34 AM | Unregistered CommenterSandyS

Then there's the cost of the extra load on the magistrates courts "TV licence offences account for one in ten UK court cases."

Apr 20, 2016 at 11:27 AM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

Alan has asked why we don't criticise the other media I already explained that
on opening the other thread
I will add that aprt from Channel 4, the other media doesn't claim to be impartial so there isn't much point in criticising it.

As for the Guardian, it became what the "Sun Readers" were in the 1990's; for most issues it's just a trash news site and now everyone knows that.
So I know to avoid it .."it's in the Guardian" carries as much weight as "It's in the Sun"

While Alan was away we had thousands of times of
...'Hey the guardian wrote this stupid thing this morning, so I put in in a perfectly reasonable comment ..and then they deleted it and deleted my account again'

End-of we don't need to comment on the Guardian again ..except for when their readers start making death insinuations again.

Apr 20, 2016 at 11:52 AM | Registered Commenterstewgreen