How to spoil a Friday

Sometimes it's good to share. This is not one of those times.

Pandora: BBC faces Ofcom row over interview edits

I share this not to give ammo to those would use it in defence of a rather extreme climatically optimistic view (which it will, even though it is just about reporting standards), but in the hope that the Nixonian notion of 'don't get caught' rarely applies. If you don't want your dirty laundry hung out for all to see... don't soil it.

If (it still looks in the realms of "what might be", but the Indy is not a great fan of those from a CO viewpoint and has chosen to share) this pans out as billed I must again raise my eyes to the heavens at the sheer, unprofessional ineptitude of those who are allowing personal or corporate agenda corrupt the spirit of objective information sharing.

And 'But Ch4 did it first!' won't cut it outside of my licence fee demand.

Who are these folk? How are they paid? Why? Is there ever an accounting?

Just lay all it all out honestly and let the public decide. The minute you start figuring you know better, then try and rig it, and then get caught, it just makes everything a whole lot worse to try and explain for those working along, steadily sharing what we know, what we think we know and what we don't. And then what we think might help now, just in case.

It will be interesting to see if this escalates as billed. If proven it has to. If not, then it will rumble along anyway I'm sure. But it would have never been an issue if the desire in some quarters to 'enhance the narrative' had not overcome professional standards.

Thank heavens I do not have to pay... for.. all... th..

Oh.

Daily Mail - QED. BBC investigated after peer says climate change programme was biased 'one-sided polemic' - That's how many million choking up their meat & two veg in suburbia?

Broadcast - BBC2 show ignites contributor row

Gaurdian - NEW - The battle caused by Climate Wars

For some reason, the author has posted this in the Guardian (I usually enjoy having a debate there, but on this issue it's really not worth it. I've just left one where 'they' are asking why someone who might have a different view to the group is allowed on, and to voice an opinion. Bless):

I must say it makes for an interesting read, even if some links to 'a bloke's blog' seems rather... unconvincing in support.

I must say on first reading I was unclear (great communicators that they are: 'Maybe that's our fault for not being clearer' - that's what £3.5B gets you, I guess) whether he was saying the climate debate was a done deal, or it wasn't..'...even if the scientific consensus is that global warming is a reality', '..makes clear, it is that there is still a furious debate going on out there.'

As to the rest, with bitter irony it mostly makes this committed environmental campaigner weep... or feel like buying a Hummer.