Tuesday, November 20, 2007

Observation points

Funny how the same thing can get seen very differently, depending on where it is viewed from.

As some may know, I no longer contribute to 'BBC is Biased' because of their moderation policy, which is every bit as selective as the entity they purport to critique, but I do lurk a lot, as snippets of value and even well-considered notions do still get shared.

However, bearing in mind my attention on last night's BBC Newsnight, and the general 'IPCC-(no) evil, speak (no) evil and hear (no) evil' from all sides since Friday, I found a few things of interest:

'Newsnight reached new depths last night in its coverage of Brown's lunatic 'climate change' (higher tax, Soviet-style) measures.

The set-up was that a Greenpeace fanatic was allowed to lambast a colourless government spokesmen for ten minutes on the theme that the measures were not enough. Not an alternative view in sight. To his shame, Paxman aided and abetted the attack, and 'science' reporter Susan Watts has clearly become the harridan cheerleader for Beeboid climate change fascism. '

Slightly before this, we have:

Another vomit inducing lickfest by bunny hugging Richard Black (BBC Environment correspondent)... [let's just say he's not a fan of several folk].


Yet more garbage from Brown and lapped up... [actually , a few fair points]


Yep, Friends of the Earth are no longer an independent organisation. As the 'eureferendum' blog [no link, so I don't know if it is true, which I certainly didn't know 'til now] pointed out, they are more than 50% taxpayer funded, and basically a govt/EU dept. It is disgraceful that the Beeb still treats them as independent, and simply allows all their claims to pass unchallenged.


The BBC'2 "expert" on the enfironment (yes that man with a degree in English) Roger Harrabin was spouting the Nu Labour bile...
[Questions were asked]

I could go on. 'They' certainly are. And on. And on. At the moment it's back on a 'tis/t'isnt't MM/MWCC slugfest of absolutes... which as all who read this will know, I just love so much. Not.

What I do find interesting, and hence the reason for quoting here, is how one small microcosm of blogdom wants it all, all ways. I'm not defending the BBC at all here, as many comments are pretty bang on on its woeful role in all this. But mix in the government, activist groups (such as FoE, whose status - although as yet unconfirmed - was news to me... and not optimal to make them as credible as voices of 'balance' in debates) and media such as the Indy, Daily Mail, Guardian CiF, etc, and is it any wonder it's all such a mess?

All it shows to me is that you can never reply on one source, for opinion to be sure, but also fact. Some, such as activist groups and media extremes you expect it from. But our national medium and those we pay and rely upon to navigate our course.... sad.


Dave said...

A little more grist to the mill, from The Register - What's Auntie for, exactly?

Peter said...

Wow, I hadn't realised there were so many BBC... um... '(sh*thitthe)fanclubs' out there.

It's a shame, as so many seem devoted to rooting out devious biases, when in most cases I think it's just down to plain sloppy work. Plus a culture where you can't do wrong and won't get fired.

On the whole I think a fairly balanced (mot du jour) piece, and more in sorrow than anger.

I'd have left the Al Gore 'affair' well alone. There are far more egregious examples of the BBC's failure to get to grips with what is going on rationally, and some form of odd agenda (they seem to oscillate between sucking up to Brown the man and bashing his every move as a pol), especially with the environment.

Certainly I want a total purge of the 'ususal suspects', both in terms of programme makers and those they wheel out as 'representatives', as all are pretty tainted by now.

We need objective, rational, informed, pragamatic communicators.

That's not to say they need not care or will lack passion, but they must realise what they are there for.

Dave said...

"We need objective, rational, informed, pragmatic communicators."

Peter, in today's world? Methinks you are looking for a mythical holy grail again!

Probably the nearest you might get to, well, meeting at least a couple of those adjectives, is Channel 4 News.