Seen elsewhere
Twitter
Support

 

Buy

Click images for more details

Recent posts
Recent comments
Currently discussing
Links

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

Powered by Squarespace

Unthreaded

Shock U.S. Senate Report: Subversion of Democracy by Green Billionaires>>>

http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/07/30/shock-u-s-senate-report-subversion-of-democracy-by-green-billionaires/

Jul 31, 2014 at 3:26 AM | Registered CommenterRKS

Ignore the silly conspiracy theories regarding the HAARP project, they're in the same league as 'chemtrails' and 'alien abductions'. It's been in the public domain for a long time now and is, as the Wikipedia article says, research into communications techniques, and transmits a mere 3.6MW pulse into the ionosphere [less than the power of many radar pulses] and tiny compared to the energy continuously received from the Sun.

Jul 31, 2014 at 12:17 AM | Registered CommenterRKS

HAARP? That's what Google is for.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Frequency_Active_Auroral_Research_Program

Jul 30, 2014 at 11:44 PM | Unregistered CommenterDavid Schofield

http://www.globalresearch.ca/weather-warfare-beware-the-us-military-s-experiments-with-climatic-warfare/7561

Does anyone know what the HAARP programme is?

Jul 30, 2014 at 10:59 PM | Unregistered Commenterpesadia

Sandy, Mike

Are the Beeb saying that if, say, a Mr Andrew Montford phoned in, they wouldn't regard his climate interests as relevant, and would fail to mention them? Hmm...

Jul 30, 2014 at 5:50 PM | Registered Commenterjamesp

SandyS on Jul 30, 2014 at 10:59 AM

It was only when read your last comment that I realised that it wasn't a spoof!

Jul 30, 2014 at 4:58 PM | Registered CommenterRobert Christopher

Mike Jackson
The thrust of my objection was that these were not just members of the public, the man/woman on the Clapham omnibus, but had some financial or activist involvement in the issues discussed in the programmes they commented on, but they weren't actually presented as such on the PoV. I've no problem with anyone commenting of PoV, but I still think that the BBC were being economical with the actuality. I'd like to think that having brought this issue to their attention and despite their response the BBC might be more open with how they present people.

Anyway that's just my opinion, which I'll present to the BBC whenever I think it's relevant.

Jul 30, 2014 at 3:59 PM | Unregistered CommenterSandyS

SandyS
The problem you've got is that environmentalists are entitled to their opinions as well.
Looked at objectively, the BBC reply to your complaint is quite reasonable. Their reply to your quoted comment ("a "financial interest in keeping Global Warming/Climate Change/Climate Disruption sceptics, or as you prefer deniers, off the BBC"."), namely that whether they have or not is "not relevant" makes perfect sense and the writer could equally have replied by pointing out that you are — in effect — attempting to do the same thing.
Whatever we may think of the BBC's position on global warming (or the Middle East, for that matter) or indeed whether it ought to have a position on global warming, we cannot win by objecting to individual members of the public (which is what we all are, regardless of views) from putting their view forward.
Whar we can do is play them at their own game and try to swamp them with the alternative point of view or where, as in the case of the programme referred to by Trefor Jones, a known activist chooses to come on air, "out" him immediately and put him on the spot regarding his views. Heaven knows, we know enough now about their methods and their beliefs and their aims to land a few shots close to the waterline, surely.

Jul 30, 2014 at 1:42 PM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson

Alex Cull
This is the BBC response to a complaint on the practice.


We understand you felt the programme presented xxx xxxxxxxxx from xxxxx as a member of the public.

We have reviewed the programme and discussed your points personally with the show's Producer and Editor as well as with senior Editorial personnel at Radio 4 and hope to be able to fully address your concerns here.

Listening back, actually the first caller xxx was only giving a personal view on the specific issue of the notion of enforced balance in BBC output and not on the premise of climate change itself, thus her background/interests aren’t particularly relevant here other than demonstrating that she has an interest in the original subject matter of Lord Lawson's appearance on the Today programme and the subsequent complaint uphold.

Whilst the second caller xxxx did mention the Lawson interview itself, his point was in essence on the same issue of balance in that Lawson wasn’t challenged enough in the programme, i.e. again making the point of him being on to fulfil what was described as enforced balance. Again, if xxxx is/was involved in renewable energy himself, it stands to reason that he would have a personal view on the matter, but we don’t feel his contribution was any less valid or relevant to Feedback because of that. And clearly nothing he actually said, nor the fact that he appeared, can possibly have any influence on BBC output, thus it just isn’t relevant that he may have what you describe as a "financial interest in keeping Global Warming/Climate Change/Climate Disruption sceptics, or as you prefer deniers, off the BBC".

It's worth adding for context that Feedback receives hundreds of items of listener correspondence each week. These two callers contacted the programme as listeners: they were not representing any particular group and they were not expressing a political view regarding climate change, but an opinion regarding the notion of enforced balance in BBC output, which was the specific subject matter under discussion here. In that context we don't agree that these people could be described as “activitists” in the field hence they needn’t be presented as such in the programme - you mentioned an earlier point by Alison Hasting, thus it's worth clarifying that she said contributor backgrounds should be provided to listeners “if it’s relevant” - it wasn't here. Also, these callers were representative of views expressed by other listeners who contacted Feedback, the point being that clearly we don’t have room in the programme to air every caller's views.

With all the above in mind, the bottom line here was that the BBC Editorial Complaints Unit upheld a complaint about a particular BBC broadcast – Feedback simply discussed the matter and these callers simply gave their brief views on the matter.

Deliberately missing the point is the least worst interpretation.

Jul 30, 2014 at 10:59 AM | Unregistered CommenterSandyS

Alex

Perhaps if defenders of fracking and other heinous practices, when they are wheeled onto the air to be pilloried, were to adopt the habit of greeting callers with "hello XXX, and which pressure group do you represent?", the Beeb might be more careful whom they select...

Jul 30, 2014 at 10:29 AM | Registered Commenterjamesp

PostCreate a New Post

Enter your information below to create a new post.
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>