Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

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

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > Are BHers out to kill the BBC ?

Alan, you're probably right.

Apr 25, 2016 at 11:34 AM | Unregistered CommenterSandyS

OK I will look at Alan's points soon
..but some coincidental news has just come in of a UK Skeptics team putting in a 163 page super complaint about systematic BBC Global Warming reporting bias. ..

Signatories comprise : Piers Corbyn, Richard Courtney, Philip Foster, Alex Henney, Paul Homewood, Lord Christopher Monckton, John Whitfield, Rupert Wyndham
Plus the politicians : David T C Davies MP and Roger Helmer MEP
see PH's blog discuss it there ..or start brand new thread on BH

We enclose a complaint from all of us about persistent partiality in the BBC’s coverage of climate change. From the outset, on the climate question the BBC has tended to reflect only one view – that of the climate science establishment who are promoting a view that man is causing significant global warming (which, with the plateau in temperature, has morphed into “climate change”, a term that is used to cover a wide range of weather events). It has excluded those whose opinions, though based on factual science and sound economics and logic, differ from the “official” position. The BBC has often promoted tendentious and scientifically illiterate but “politically-correct” opinions and has kept from the airwaves those who do not agree.

We and many others alongside us have come to the opinion that the BBC’s continuing bias on the climate question – its performance is too often like a scientifically illiterate, naïve, oft times emotive green activist organisation – is unacceptable and must now be brought to an end. In future, both sides in the climate debate must be fairly heard, whether BBC staff like it or not.

...Oh hang on a new statement from a top BBC source :
"In April 2012 we had a complaint saying that the BBC showed bias towards Climate skeptics in a 1 minute item since we've had complaints from both sides
...I think we can say that : the BBC has got it about right on Climate reporting"

Apr 25, 2016 at 12:54 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

A massive 163-page complaint about BBC climate bias has been submitted, see Paul Homewood's blog.
One of the authors is a relative of one of the contributors to this thread, I think.

(oh dear, 3 minutes behind Stewgreen).

Apr 25, 2016 at 12:57 PM | Registered CommenterPaul Matthews

No one beats the Stewgreen Inquisition (apologies to MPFC)

Apr 25, 2016 at 1:04 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

I wonder what Alan Kendall will make of the litany of errors (or deliberate lies) by the BBC as referenced in the 163 page complaint.

It does highlight the massive imbalance by the UK state broadcaster who has a legal duty to be fair, unbiased and truthful.

Apr 25, 2016 at 3:36 PM | Unregistered CommenterSteve Richards

OK Alan I should have left the PC an hour ago and haven't read fully pages 8 and 9 of this thread I will do tmw
but haven PERHAPS found on March 20th the original quote which led me to the impression I summarised as BBC 99% OK

Normally when reading posts on sites such as this that lambast the BBC for its impartiality I mentally switch off. I do this because I believe the BBC usually reflects the majority of its audience, composed as that is of neutrals or supporters of the warmist cause.
Mar 21, 2016 at 7:16 PM | Alan Kendall (now 71 pages back)

You then went on to say how biased this Big Question show was..and to express total surprise
Whereas I think most of us others thought .. It's the BBC or Climate of course it's amazingly biased, it's their institutionalised "right-on"/climate bias.

Apr 25, 2016 at 3:59 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

I wrote this before I found the quote

from the top

I think most BHers think that the BBC has a systematic institutionalised bias about a number of things especially climate /green, but a number of employees do have integrity and aa real world view. (eg AF Neil)

Then 3 weeks ago a skeptic @Alan said 'UK public opinion is with alarmism, and skeptics are just a tiny minority'
OK fine that's an opinion, lets park that.

But then I saw @Alan say something like 'Why are you guys always bashing the BBC ? it's just giving the people what they want and the vast majority are perfectly happy with it.' (see exact quote I found in the comment above)
Then when he repeated similar comments a tone lower, I thought that's extraordinary
... are we BHers wrong ? I should challenge Alan on this so I started this thread.

- I couldn't find the initial quote I just summarized it pithily as
"Alan seems to have 2 strange viewpoints
#1 That the BBC is 99% OK
#2 That BH regulars are frothing at the mouth trying to kill the BBC."

I expected Alan to say something like '"the BBC does 1,000 things at day and is only biased in 30 so lets call that 97% OK"
To my horror he took the 99% literally and went off it a huff
Apr 17, 2016 at 4:13 PM
Other points
Alan said "you did not repost those communications that are vehemently anti BBC"
... My view is ..he could have just quoted them himself.

- Alan sometimes pokes fun at others, but then is sensitive the other way
So when some people did mock the UEA his blood temperature went up

At Apr 19, 2016 at 8:59 AM I explained the 99% line

At Apr 20, 2016 at 12:16 PM I again tried to reset the debate
and bring up a new point about public opinion
that "two different people can meet the same people and come away with a different impression of their Climate views"

I tried to imagine a hypothetical situation of a Guardian reader might talk to the same people as me and get an impression that they were more pro green due to them hiding skepticism to fit in.
Unfortunately at the last moment I changed the words "Guardian reader" to "Alan"
... So again Alan saw red didn't understand that I don't it was my mind exercise and took it as a literal representation of him .. and got angry
When I explained some things ...he thought I was twisting his words ..I wasn't

Apr 25, 2016 at 4:05 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

stewgreen -

If you look back a day or so, you'll see that Alan finished off by saying something like "I'm very sorry that I got my knickers all twisted up and went lashing out at all and sundry". It's clear that he was quite upset at everything that had transpired, his own comments too it seems, so maybe time to let it drop, nothwithstanding any loose ends left flapping in the breeze.

Otherwise we'll just be going round the "you said" "but you said" circle forever.

Yes, I looked back and Alan said "..therefore, stewgreen, tomo, SandyS, M. Courtney,, TinyCO2 (...) and others who consider I was arrogant towards you, I apologize unreservedly"

In my view, that wiped the slate clean.

Apr 25, 2016 at 5:30 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A

I think the links above, posted by Paul Matthews and stewgreen to Paul Homewood's blog about a new paper raising issues about the BBC and biased reporting is timely.

My initial criticism is the use of the word "sceptical", as a prefix to "climate scientist". Why not just use the prefix "honest"?

Apr 25, 2016 at 6:37 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Martin A, I quite agree. Let us move on from this.

As to the 163 page complaint, I haven't read it yet.
But I have discussed it with my father in the past and on of the points of the complaint is procedural.

It seems that a complaint about bias can be accepted or rejected and then may be appealed. However, if the BBC doesn't decide either way there is no mechanism to appeal. The BBC Trust won't decide on an appeal about bias if the original decision has not been made - there's nothing to appeal.

As the first complaint goes to the ones who are complained about (as a right to reply) they can just ignore it.
And have done.

Apr 25, 2016 at 7:27 PM | Registered CommenterM Courtney

M Courtney,

Perhaps that's why they say

We should be grateful if the BBC would reply within 60 working days, failing which the matter will pass to the Trust for determination. To comply with the Civil Procedure Rules, we make it clear at the outset that unless our complaint is responded to in what we regard as a satisfactory and timely fashion, we may have to apply for judicial review of either the BBC or the Trust or both.

Apr 25, 2016 at 7:35 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A

To avoid repeating myself, please see my posting on unthreaded.

If someone wishes to repost it here, be my guest. These technicalities are beyond my luddite capabilities.

Apr 25, 2016 at 8:06 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

Stewgreen, you wouldn't expect me to agree with all of your analysis would you? But lets move on.

Here I just wish to correct a non contentious mistake you (and others) made over my reactions to The Big Question. I was indeed surprised by the bias on display but not because I saw the bias for the first time (as you seem to think) but because it was so much more blatant than usual. I have seen the same bias elsewhere that you all react negatively too. I also was appalled by Stewart's The Climate Wars and by Nurse's programme that tried to convince the audience that the Royal Society were all solidly behind AGW (as if he knew the first thing about it).

The thing about this whole thread that upsets me the most is that my support for the BBC so that it can produce programming that I enjoy and value was somehow translated by many here as support for its climate science bias. And did I pay for it!

Apr 25, 2016 at 9:43 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

Steve Richards (and others like you) I would be most obliged if in future you would refrain from linking my name with any support for BBC bias regarding climate change. I have never tried to excuse the BBC's culpability in that matter. You do me a grave injustice if you persist in making this link.

See my post to Stewgreen above, and also my unthreaded posting.

Apr 25, 2016 at 9:52 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

It will be a pleasure to discuss things in a more calm manner. I appreciate your gesture of good will.

Apr 25, 2016 at 10:43 PM | Unregistered Commenterhunter


Alan Kendall can't take it.

He recently threatened to have me sued.

Apr 25, 2016 at 11:08 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

The difference between BH and the BBC is simple.

BH tells you what you want to hear.

The BBC tells you what you need to know.

Apr 25, 2016 at 11:12 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

"He recently threatened to have me sued."

EM, if I remember right you had made an explicit allegation, entirely without foundation, that he or his colleagues had committed a criminal act. His reaction was an appropriate response to your unwarranted calumny.

Apr 26, 2016 at 12:33 AM | Unregistered CommenterMartin A

EM 11:08 & 11:12, your selective memory of recent history on this blog is seriously flawed. Anyone in any doubt about your understanding of science can draw their own conclusions about the reliability of anything you state.

Apr 26, 2016 at 1:20 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Dammit SandyS please be more specific. I thought your last post referred to relations between us. I wrote a regretful reply, but then re-read your words which didn't seem quite right. It took me a long time to understand you were referring to deGaulle.

Can smile about it now, but for a time....

Apr 26, 2016 at 1:17 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

"I value the contributions of Alan Kendall on this discussion and elsewhere" SandyS
Yes echo

@Martin A thankyou for drawing my attention to Alan's conciliatory words, I was 2 pages behind.
Very much appreciated @Alan

We deal with complex issues and so things can get misinterpreted.

@TinyCO2 thankyou for the reminder that the main reason I opened this thread was to move the discussion away off Unthreaded, where it was crowding everything else.

I am glad that @Alan clarified that he is on the spectrum in the view that the BBC has large bias on climate, whilst some other people are further down the spectrum thinking that the BBC has "right on" bias in so many areas that it's irredeemable.

Apr 26, 2016 at 2:59 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

* Is BBC institutionalised bias ?
or reflecting audience bias ?

Some people (like me) think the BBC's bias is internal with it having a systematic institutionalised bias with employees lips closed for fear of saying something not "right on"

Alan's initial comment I quoted above shows that there is another POV
In that "the BBC usually reflects the majority of its audience, composed as that is of neutrals or supporters of the warmist cause"

I think there can be a bit of chicken and egg
Like the BBC the BBC hypes up scare on about "controversial fracking"
..might then turn around and do some audience survey fudge that says the public think fracking is scary.

I think the BBC is chicken laying the eggs of Climate/green propaganda.

My unproven conspiracy theory is that when Radio 4 Feedback does 5 minutes on climate/green issues, they've scrambled up 10 messages from the producers Green mates whilst losing 30 skeptical messages in the bin.
....And I think some other progs play that game.

I'm going to open a new thread on : Is BBC Bias driven by the audience or a mostly a driver of it ?
..unless someone persuades me not to !

Apr 26, 2016 at 3:02 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

Stewgreen. My view is that chickens and eggs coexist. Both views are correct. Also chickens and eggs co-evolve.

Problems of this type cannot be resolved. We can only have our own opinions about them.

Apr 26, 2016 at 3:18 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

Entropic Man wrote,
"The difference between BH and the BBC is simple.
BH tells you what you want to hear.
The BBC tells you what you need to know"

Thanks for the chuckle, EM

Apr 26, 2016 at 3:51 PM | Unregistered Commenterhunter