Sunday Highlight

Sadly not in the more common sense of the word, but rather something I feel needs sharing and passed around.

It's about a piece from the BBC site which I noticed and noted. But as I have decided to refrain from most, if not all 'tis/t'isnt (PMWN)CC/AGW arguments for some time I didn't pop up here.

At the time I remember thinking 'O....k, that's a new twist. How long before we get the usual suspects twatting about arguing over this one based on the misuse of the word 'warming' when the climate is behaving damn oddly... both up and down?'.

But at least it was a factual piece, and part of the story. Only, it seems it wasn't telling quite the story some obviously thought it should. And so it seems it was changed.

I am not sure that in so doing, they have helped the cause a lot. And in an era when all these funky archive sites exist, and have legions ready, willing, able and talented enough to trawl them, it makes one wonder just why the BBC thinks it is any different to 'Tricky Dicky' Nixon, and won't get caught.

Here's a wild notion. Tell the truth. Be objective... and let the public think for themselves in trying to decide. That way trust is mainati... oh, heck, who am I kidding? I wouldn't accept a darn word they come out with, at least on anything that involves competing agendas (which is pretty much everything, from CBeebies history lessons to Newsnight twofers'.

Just a shame I am looking at the hiked bill I have to pay to be fed it.

Sticks and stones may break my bones...

...but words may well end up seeing us off.

I have long given up trying to engage the whole MWCC 'debate', on any 'side', especially in a ratings driven media frenzy environment where only the next big extreme gets highlighted, so merely point you (with little comment) at this latest - Just the standard climatic imbalance... - for two reasons.

1) Yes, the media, including most in our national broadcaster, are totally complicit in the past, current and liklely future state of our understanding of, and reaction to climate change, by totally woeful reporting and hysterical, agenda-following editorialising.

2) Just like investments 'can go up as well as down', climate can change to hot and cold. The funky thing is when it does it to a serious degree, not where you'd expect, more often than it should... etc. So pointing at a cold day in summer is silly.

I don't know for certain, but I'm just seeing enough weird sh*t around to think that it is not behaving rationally.

Now, as to whether mankind is causing it, making it worse, or simply about to be a powerless casualty of Nature's whimsy is another matter. For another set of blogs.

Me? For now I am just trying my best to stop making things worse if I can help it. Unlike a lot... for all sides.

ps: 'Course, if you still fancy chatting and have a spare grand, you can always try here.

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].

Or...

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

Or...

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.

And...

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.

You've got to right/left hand it to them

I no longer participate on the BBC is Biased site.

It was because I felt I had been moderated off unfairly, and indeed with slight sense of agenda, for an attempt to point out that an extreme view on one 'side' of climate change is usually inevitably 'balanced' to resultant deadlock by an equally view on another.

But its contributors can still throw up some interesting stuff, if erring on the 'optimistic' side of things.

I thought this was of note, more to highlight how we are in the hands of journalists and, possibly, editorial policy who can often serve the facts poorly and hence create doubt on their abilities and offerings.

Remember this

"The change could have catastrophic consequences for marine life.
Oceans mop up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, lowering the water's pH value - an effect that may be exacerbated by burning of fossil fuels."

Phew, what a relief that the catastrophic consequences have been averted by this morning's news.

I for one would like to thank Mr Harrabin [at least it says 'BBC environment analyst [a what? As noted before, he is not exactly qualified in this field, yet his opinion is given such weight by this title?] Roger Harrabin said: "The researchers don't know if the change is due to climate change or to natural variations] for putting my mind at ease with his agenda free reporting of this issue.

Now years have passed and things change, but I really would like the BBC, with all its staff and resources, to get its act together so we don't just get served sensationalist stuff all the time, punted out without consideration by questionably qualified folk, usually from some press release.

It's simply too important not to get right, and especially not to give any how would use such woeful instances to advocate a 'do nothing' approach.

Actually, by my reading the BBBC implied 'critique' may not be fair, because it looks to me that the first is pointing out the consequent acidification due to increased CO2 absorption, and the second the possibility that the oceans have reached a limit of doing that any more. They are slightly different, if related, things. And neither are good, or a pass to keep on pumping the stuff out. Which I would point out on site (at risk of a real oceanographic chemical scientist - if such a title exists - slapping me down, but I'd like to get such things clear), but they don't seem keen on such questions. Shame. On them. On the BBC for being just untrustworthy these days and certainly creating an impression of agenda. And for the future of the planet our kids are being handed by 'us'.

If anyone more qualified could confirm or deny my initial thoughts I'd be grateful. On the one hand I envy folk so sure of themselves in this manner, but on the other I am appalled that simply be saying something 'is' in such a way gets though so often without challenge.

ADDENDUM - A bit more via a BBBC poster:

Article is based on an article in the Journal of Geophysical Research

I've been moderated!

Well, at least I have one less excuse to make my RSI worse!

A while ago I took issue with the Biased BBC website removing all of a comment of mine bar the initial line. This was odd, as they usually either leave in and critique, just moderate out or simply delete. Leaving it hanging with some text remaining out of context seemed an odd and unfair thing to do and I took issue with it.

In the same way I take the BBC to task because I think they can and should do better, so I was disappointed that what seemed a good, if poorly named, site interested in media balance seemed to have its own agenda, too. And reading their final word on the matter, happy to admit it too.

They say not. I feel different. A passing of the ways, then. Let's see what happens when they get bigger and more mainstream (which they will if the BBC keeps on its rather defensive course), and then find their own foundations start to crumble beneath them.

Hubris. To be watched for and avoided if you can.

Just to do to them (though it's in full on the link, slap down to me inc.) what they did to me, here are a few choice comments:

'We get far more comments on global warming than we want, and we
delete a lot of them.'

Well that's one way to balance. If they are not following moderation rules, fine. If they are just not wanted, then why allow debates based on what the BBC inspires. It's simply too selective to be credible.

"We do leave some comments on GW in, but only the better, more relevant and more concise ones."

Ok, so I can often not be 'concise' (but look at some of their magnum opi - seems that while they can publish chapter and verse, to engage you need to be pithy, or risk censure. But once 'they' (it seems to swing from 'we' to 'I' a lot) get into 'better' and 'relevance', then agenda is in play.

'You gave us a good excuse to delete yours '

Well, they are honest. Nice to find they were looking for an excuse. The facts were, of course, irrelevant.

"If you want to discuss GW in-depth online, then I suggest you go to a dedicated site."

And if I want to discuss the accuracy, or not, of the media, I will do so on a site that doesn't say one thing and self-evidently practice another. Guardian CiF is more honest, if an effort due to the majority of those who haunt it.

ADDENDUM:

Not about climate, but what 'they' deem on message:

Yet another HYS debacle.

A discussion gets closed with 2% rejected, around a third published and near two thirds unpublished.

We all know that this majority unpublished have in fact been rejected 'by the back door'.

Its not one discussion, its time and time again.

If it were sale of goods the BBC would be liable to action for misrepresntation.

Is there no way to make them change the name to reflect the level of accepted contribution and make them call it "DON'T Have Your Say", at least that would be more honest.

ADDENDUM 2

Seems BBBC isn't so chilled when edits/moderation/technical issues happen to their 'right' to be heard.

I do note it is about the very issue that got me booted off their site, climate change. By way of some balance I am go-smacked by this from a BBC Enviro correspondent, David Gregory:

'There is some discussion about carbon offset for flights taken by the BBC. But as I understand it at the moment it isn't something we are going to spend lisence fees on.
David Gregory (BBC) | 17.11.07 - 7:18 pm | #'

Talk about missing the point!

I defend the BBC...ish

I had to weigh in on a discussion prompted by the reporting of the opening up of the Northwest Passage for [insert time period here according to relative MMGW persuasion]

'.. if we're likely to see Dr. David G. on the news explaining the lack of evidence for man-made global warming'

Not quite fair. If the combined might of everyone from the IPCC to RealClimate can't 'prove' anything one way or another to the satisfaction of all then I doubt he could... or should be asked to. Though the BBC’s role in sharing pertinent, objective information is of course both topical and of interest.

As previously head-above-parapetted, personally I think there is climate change; it is negative; it is getting worse and it is worth looking at ways to mitigate man's possible influences. And pronto. But I do have some strong views on how, and how the current cabal of government, media, interest groups and activists are clouding an already murky issue to the extent that the general public are kicking back.

So I do think flying a reporter up to an iceberg to do a noddy in front of a snowman sends out a mixed message at best. And every time I see a twee reporter skipping around a G-Wiz saying it doesn't pollute it makes me wince.

The message is too important to be compromised by sloppy reporting or pandering to targets or box ticking agendas. And I especially feel every overkill story sets the cause of rational argument back by giving those who are more vocal in their ‘optimism’ (I find denier to be a pejorative) a chance to attack detail at the expense of the bigger picture.

Speaking of which...

I was wondering if any from the BBC, and perhaps the Department of Denial that is JR (though I'd prefer a more qualified and less selective responder) has any thoughts on the BBC erring on the side of the 'green trap' policy wisdom by the government in terms of political discussion (the Conservatives and Lib Dems and Greens all being a tad more considered, if often confused, in at least discussing options, and often unpopular ones) whilst bombarding us with ‘we're all doomed scenarios on ice’ that may just be coincidental in the great climatic scheme of things. Or getting a set of Islington knickers in a twist on issues which, while certainly part of the overall scheme of things, are less of a priority or concern right now than, say, home insulation or deforestation.

I was amongst a covey of 'mentalists (I am one!) last night who had ventured out from the big city in their Priuses (nothing like lugging a battery down the M4 to make you feel good about the planet) . But perhaps Tewksbury was the wrong place to suggest that 4x4s and bottled water were not necessary, especially when we find out just how well our political masters have, are and might be thinking of handling the consequences of avoiding the green trap with their flood plans.

ADDENDUM - I GOT MODERATED!!!!

For this:

I do not want or intend to get into a 'tis/t'isn't MMGW argument (they go nowhere and simply consume precious energy pointlessly), but simply share this 'for the pot':

Sustainability: A Nobel Cause
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=481

Ignoring all the warmly-debated science, I merely note who is chatting, and the key fact that they do not seem to be obsessing too much on matters of idealism, rather cold hard cash.

I have great respect for RealClimate (though the posters are getting a little more feisty of late - I like my science objective), and hence the comments in reply to the original post make for equally interesting reading by way of balance.

And noting the mere hint that a pol is doing stuff not for the mid/far future but to prop up economics now really does damage.

[Peter, I'm afraid you can't say "I don't want to get into an argument about this", and then present a provocative article! The Moderator.]
Peter | Homepage | 10.10.07 - 10:59 am | #

I'm afraid I felt to delete my post (and leave in what they did) like this was unwarranted:

OK, stick the RealClimate article I featured back up without that opener (I guess you'll have to delete that - but will it remain in Googlecache?), along with the rest of my thoughts on how it and the post in reply highlighted some interesting politico/media MMGW issues and how people can respond to them.

I'll then let the various extremes fight over whether 'it' exists at all whilst missing the actual point.

I will then engage or not if I so wish. Happy?

As it stands, and perhaps despite my poor wording, I'd say the chop you have instigated serves the cause of moderation poorly. I'd have thought leaving the totality up and saying what you think about it to be more appropriate. I don't think anything I wrote contravened any of the site rules. I just shared some info pertinent to the thread and in advance advised I was not terribly keen on arguing about something no one knows about for sure one way or another yet.

Currently no one has a clue what you/we are on about.

That serves who well, exactly?

Their site. Their ball. Their loss.

ADDENDUM:

It went up. And then it got deleted. An interesting insight into the actions of those who talk of bias.

ADDENDUM 2:

Another day, and the possibility of another moderator. So I popped this in.

Removing the option of the public to comment! Now who'd do a thing like that?
bob | 11.10.07 - 8:04 am | #

Can't imagine. But, as oft noted, it is free and the owner's ball to play with. See how long this stays up.

ps: I put in a link to RealClimate to make a point on the MMGW 'debate' being about 'tis/t'isn't happening (at all) vs. looking ahead at reasonable solutions. Shame no one got a chance to see, much less comment on it and my sloppy first line was used as an excuse to whip out the entire (pretty innocuous) rest of the post.
Peter | Homepage | 11.10.07 - 9:55 am | #

I might be heading for my first ban, which will be a milestone! Shame, as I do value some of what gets discovered, shared and discussed, but not when the discussions get steered in the same way as the entity they purport to accuse of dodgy practices.

ADDENDUM 3:

A challenge:

Peter:
[The Moderator: Peter, if you want to discuss our moderation policy, e-mail us on biasedbbc@googlemail.com (but in short, off-topic comments are likely to be deleted).]
Peter | Homepage | 11.10.07 - 9:55 am | #

Thank you for the opportunity for discussion.

I think BBBC has some fine minds at work, and I value the information I glean. As well as the debate.

Sadly, I rather felt the moderation in the case that prompted my subsequent comment to have been an example more of what the BBC is often accused of, with reason, and seriously affected my view of the site as a consequence.

The piece in question was on a thread concerning climate change, which has been very much in the news and indeed on the BBBC site on numerous occasions, but really quite frequently of late, as associated with Mr. Gore's movie and Nobel.

My point in the 'moderated' piece has been quite eloquently made by subsequent events, namely that anything regarding sensible debate on anything climatic gets immediately co-opted into two extreme camps: the so-called 'deniers' and the 'green at all costers', with suitable descriptive ing/ist/zi perjoratives added to taste, and a lot of playing the man and not the ball.

I'd guess that most on BBBC fall into the former. OK, it's a private blog. Most in the BBC fall into the latter. No so fair enough, as they are my public broadcaster. I get very unhappy when I read about such as Roger Harrabin's qualifications and editorial memos or Mr. Gore's various less than noble activities. Not because I don't think there is a climate issue, or indeed that man might well be rather unhelpful, but because I don't think the negative exposure these inaccuracies and exaggeration and secret agendas in the cause of 'doing what's best' for 'the people' are working or help. Especially when they boomerang.

So I am dedicated to information, and as well shaped opinion as I can get it. Which is why I watch BBC and read BBBC. The truth is often in the middle.

And hence I like to share as well, to see what might come back.

All I said is that I didn't want to get into a pointless MMGW argument. For a start, to my best assessment, even though that acronym is used by rather extreme 'denier' posters, the fact of man's causing it is nowhere to be found. I allow for possibly 'man worsened' at best.

And my post discussed that, cited highly valid sources such as Real Climate, but also quoting Chancellor Merkel to show how where you start from in this issue always pretty much predicts where the argument will end up.

Yet all this was deleted. What was left was the first line, alluding to 'a provocative article'. On the basis of my saying I didn't want the argument hijacked in the usual direction it always does.

How that is off topic fails me. But if as I presume you refer to my dropping a point about editing to support a view in a thread about the BBC doing just that, I'd say a little self-analysis may be in order.

Here's the sequence as you may have deleted it all and Google cache may not be available: (see above).

Keep up the good work. Try and stop the less so.

Didn't take long. I got a reply.

We delete a *lot* of comments every day. I don't know why you have
presumed it's just yours that has been deleted (or why you have
presumed that we only delete comments that we don't agree with).
Perhaps it's because we usually just delete a post without comment,
which we didn't do in your case (because of your newbie status). Or
perhaps it's because you're very much a "me" blogger.

We get far more comments on global warming than we want, and we
delete a lot of them. They are by far the most numerous category of
comments that we delete. About 90% of those that we delete are
arguing *against* the existence and/or severity of GW. (Similarly,
about 90% of the comments we delete are taking an anti-BBC line). It
is simply not justified for you to assume that you were deleted
because you didn't "toe a party line".

We do leave some comments on GW in, but only the better, more
relevant and more concise ones. You gave us a good excuse to delete
yours because you said you were "adding one for the pot", which
created the impression that you were leaving us something that would
create a blizzard of comments which you could step away from. In
addition, we had noticed that you had a tendency for long, rambling
off-topic comments, and we're not very interested in that.

If you want to discuss GW in-depth online, then I suggest you go to a
dedicated site.

I'll leave it all in, critique and all. You know what? They're right. Sometimes I do post over-long screeds. I may even ramble, though I'd like to think that without the benefit of time it is just exploring all the options. We live in a sound bite culture that suffers from the whole issue not being considered properly.

As to the rest, I'd say quite breathtaking, defevensive, illogical arrogance. Not a little less than pleasant, too, as I was invited to get in touch. And as they have admitted to an approach of censoring what they feel like, I can't see they are any different to the BBC TV/online efforts they critique for being 'selective', or what they call biased.

I'll still use 'em to find stuff. But as for their status as an online place of even debate, for me at least, their reputation is shot. I have learned a lot about moderation from this, and I hope it will make my blog the better for it.

Plus my RSI might improve.

Debate in this country sucks. No it doesn't.. yes it...

Readers will have no doubt gathered by now I'm a gobby sod. Not just here, but elsewhere (usually cc'd here too in case I get 'moderated').

By virtue of birth, parenting, education, travel, nature and nurture, I have ended up with views. And I often like to share them.

I'd like to think the way I do it is as inclusive as possible, and do try to think of myself as relatively 'centric' in most things, though I do stray in various directions (or back the other way if I change my mind... it is allowed). And as these can vary an awful lot between various topics/issues, I really... REALLY get irritated when some clown tries to find a neat pigeonhole that somehow manages in their minds to encompass all that they think I feel about health, defence, religion, climate change, etc.

And that seems to be happening a lot in the blogosphere, with a worrying trend to even more tackle the player than address the ball. Not that this is a new phenomenon, as our able pols are showing at the moment. More Chis Moyles than Winston Churchill in the Westminster Village and studios that they dash to.

The Internet has indeed revolutionised the exchange and discussion of information. No more are we served up what we are thought to want, or need, by a select group who were no more put in charge of such things than we ourselves have been. They just ended up in a relatively better position to broadcast their thoughts to us all. Many, sadly, mistook the position they were in and the entity that made them known as being less important than they were/are themselves. I know of few who would get where they are without '...from the xx' in the intro.

So we come to matters of trust. And an awful lot of the more traditional organs of education and information have been found wanting in this regard. Call it bias, lack of balance or whatever, the fact is that by selective editing even accurate facts can be presented in the best way to support whatever the creator wishes. For instance, I just watched an edition of the BBC's navel gazing dawn slot Newswatch and was surprised to see the Planet Relief issue dredged up again. Just two viewers, selected lord alone how, and the thing was debated in terms of whether or not climate change is happening or not. To the best of my knowledge that was never the issue (certainly not for me); as it was certainly initially 'sold' as another celeb-style hooly in the vein of Live Earth. The way this came across was the muzzling of an educational documentary. What was all that about?

This is where the Internet is great. Because pretty quick you can get access to some stuff that shows that there is a whole other story out there. And, in some cases, makes a story of why the first story ended up the way it did. It's a fact of modern life. I don't like that it is happening, but I know it is and so I adapt and move on.

My mistake has been to engage too closely on occasion. There really is no point (save for some places where risking a contact URL can be worth it to gain converts to the cause visiting and signing up if they like what one has to say) pitching in.

The views are too entrenched and the people espousing them too self-absorbed to even contemplate allowing another point in. I have mentioned this need for tribal belonging before. Hence you get those on, say, BBC is Biased who think all who doubt them are left-wingers, and those on say, Guardian CiF who think those who would disagree with them are right wingers. And usually there is a hefty dollop of pejorative speculation without any hint of substantiation thrown in to muddy the soup some more. I have actually seen on one such the words 'we have spoken', when referring to a collection of less than two hundred (and ignoring the fact that not all of them did actually agree), when calling for the censure of a publication's columnist. The logic seemed to be that he had drifted from the club line, and hence needed to be ejected.

This is why I fear slightly for debate. Because not only do all these factions believe they are 'the ones', there are those (who should know better but with little time to delve more as they should) who are letting this minute little bunch hold even the modicum of sway that they don't deserve. This is no electorate. These are all, by definition, groups of people, admittedly passionate and often clever, who can and will do all they can to see their views prevail.

So even if I see 99 out of a 100 say black to another's white, I will first try and see how they come to this view, and support it objectively, before according it any value. And, in any case, from this very room I can crank up at least a dozen variations of 'me' to say what I think, disagree with it, support it and back again, all with different IP addresses if I wish. So numbers mean nothing. Which is why internet petitions are plain daft.

Take this as a typical comment: 'You types do not get it. The British public regard you ...' on Newsnight, which gets more posts on the naming of a pet than climate change, and can when passions stir manage all of 200 tops (for a national broadcaster), usually from the same suspects (inc. yours truly). Hardly the 'British public', eh?

I will be cutting right back on the pitching in to these troll fests from now on, but will still maintain a watching brief as they can throw up useful leads.

But... accord any of them, even those moderated by major media, more than passing respect as reliable sources of subjective information or reasonably objective opinion...? Or even as anything like a reasonable barometer of how folk really think...?

You are 'aving a larf.

What you don't get told can hurt you

Though the effort of trying to straddle the extremes pitched against each other upon it is starting to lose its appeal, I still stay with the BBCisBiased Blog as it can find a few odd facts of note.

And I came across a guy taking the BBC to task for not publishing one report whilst bigging up other, less relevant (to their eyes - I found the opinion of Bush confidant most interesting) stuff 'in favour of' climate change. The BBC, as we know, is a tad twitchy on it's remit in this regard.

I felt I had to pitch in:

Just to help me clarify.

..a book saying there is no evidence that global warming is probably natural and not all bad.

I can fathom that some more scientists on one or other 'side' (perceived, admitted or otherwise - are there any just doing their best to find out the facts?) of the whole CC debate have published yet another book.

But I have to say that, from Bjorn Lomborg to James Lovelock, the attachment of a book to sell does not inspire much confidence immediately, especially when it comes to the associated PR efforts that will be used to perk up a jaded media more interested in a quick ratings fix than any worthwhile contribution.

However, just doing so does not surely mean that it has to be covered.

So if they were ignored, what was the phone interview with John Marburger (didn't know of him before, so can't reasonably comment on his affiliations, be they purely science based or more complex) about?

I agree you can't just phone up a person to spout off for no reason, and as has been noted here (and accepted by the BBC) there needs to be some measure of balanced debate, but I just can't follow how this played out in this case.

Is there a link? All I could find was this - Bush aide says warming man-made - which is apparently from a guy ‘who advises President Bush’ and is advised as ‘the starkest warning from the White House so far about the dangers ahead’. Hardly the most expected source of unthinking MMCC endorsement.

And frankly, to me, news worth knowing.

The rest is, of course, still fiddling while the Titanic accelerates. But still, whatever floats the talkers vs. doers boat... while it floats.

Sadly, I never did get an answer.

Biting both ways

I am still engaging, perhaps more than is good for my RSI, with Biased BBC. They do seem to catch some howlers worth noting. As a check and balance they can be useful in highlighting errant reporting.

However, I can also see how a small drop of ink can stain a large bowl. Hence a comment of global warming, and its reporting (or, in this case, as I felt it, not), required a reply:

I also came up with some more bon mots I like:

PPCC - Person-produced climate change

MWCC or PPPCC - man-worsened/Personal-pollution promoting climate change

A virus comes to Europe and it's all the fault of global warming.

I am still on a steep learning curve (which I suspect will soon be near vertical), so forgive my remaining unsure on certain factual aspects of this issue.

There's climate change (which I believe most accept is happening. And, probably, for the worse (definitions vary, and indeed death tolls can be skewed in historical comparisons by virtue of there being more people on the ground to cop a natural disaster. Equally perceptions, as there are A LOT MORE reporters on the ground to capture every terrible moment).

Then there's global warming. Which to me is not the best term because while most 'stuff' is getting laid at its door, and it seems a convenient if broad way to refer to an overall trend, on a local and day-to-day basis there's an awful lot that is cold and wet. So I wish it were not used so much, or as it usually is. Especially by BBC reporters, if it was used in such as the Scottish radio report (and I must confess I did not see it in the mosquito piece).

So let's move to man-made (sorry to be un-PC (Person-produced?) climate change. This seems to 'accept' that the activities of man are pretty much responsible, exclusively, for the whole deal. In astronomical and geographical terms, especially considering the forces involved, I find such an absolute unlikely. And I don't think it has yet been proven. So to use it would seem... premature.

Which brings me to my own, favoured, definition: man-worsened (Personal-pollution promoting?) climate change. This is the area where the fun seems to be, if you enjoy mutually dependent extremes such big oil funded 'deniers' and 'activists' en route to endless conferences in Bali knocking spots off each other with single statistics and lone hyperlinks.... fun.

To nail my colours to the mast, I'm still floating in the middle, erring on the more 'green' corner, if only because rationally I can't see that bazillions (and counting) of folk polluting (emissions always seems so coy) away on finite ground and into finite air space cannot but have an unhappy end point. So, speaking of points, I figure maybe it's best to consider the tipping one a tad more proactively before it's too late. In this case 'I told you so' to the do-nothing brigade will be of little comfort to me or my kids. Conversely, they may not feel being wrong to be a huge problem in the great scheme of things, so it’s a lose-lose.

But it's all very complicated made more so with, in the modern world, democratic institutions populated by those more interested in process than product, and now near paralysed by the power and extent of media (new and old) and its ability to sway the masses. There is not a statesperson amongst them and, probably, even if there were, the moment they tried to do anything radical based on sincere beliefs, the ratings whores would ensure they were hounded out before you could say 'ist', ‘inger’, ‘zi’.... or 'tomorrow's headlines'.

So we're down to information, education, and, where possible (yawning chasm in there), persuasion. And as I like winnable wars, I’m a big woos by sticking more to doing something about reducing waste and leaving the waaaaay bigger issues to braver folk. I just ask that they don’t get tempted to cut corners doing what they think is best for me as my experience is that, even if it is (which it may not be) getting caught out negates and often pushes things further back.

I have to say that in this case, having read the piece, I was more simply educated and informed about a fact of biology that by my own extrapolation is likely to attributable to climate change.

No more. No less. But the additional info is appreciated, thanks.

Equally the subsequent fact (forgive me for now having to let it remain as un attributed and unconfirmed, though it sounds convincing) from Archduke on sea levels.

News, views and whose who's?

I had better watch myself!

I was just having my breakfast when Newswatch came on with a 'special' from Edinburgh based on the recent TV Fest (was it so recent? It feels an age ago. So I had more than a splutter when they read out a quote from 'regular'.... me! It was my comment that they should stop asking for opinions and then not pay a blind bit of notice to them. So I guess I can't fault them paying attention... and sharing... though still stick by that opinion. I'm of course feeling awkward, because I think I went on to say that I'd given up commenting on Newswatch because I had no sense that it went beyond the featured edit-sneer (not Mr. Snoddy, who is in the unenviable role of posing some nasty questions to colleagues and does do so... though I too often feel that he asks, they answer and... nothing more happens) basically saying it wasn't a problem and if it was they didn't really care.

But if they are taking note maybe I will plug away a bit more.

Which, in a roundabout way, brings me to Biased BBC.

By virtue of a thing that pops up to advise me of a new comment (some RSS doo-dad I should get to figure out on here, probably), I do get seduced back a fair bit.

But it is proving a bit of a trial. I fear most of the diamonds are getting well and truly swamped by the rough, and there is a lot of rough.

I'm learning some lessons about forum and blog management for here, but one thing I certainly believe I'll keep is my moderator approval facility. It's pretty anti-democratic I guess, especially when I complain about it on several other sites, but while I am actually not so concerned about the more PC-concerns that most retain this facility to censure, I feel I need a check for (if it ever happens - so far I have found debate here to be refreshingly civilised and based on fact more than opinion) the selective cut and paste 'tis/tisn't' epic exchanges that I am seeing on the site, usually between two totally entrenched protagonists.

As I mentioned in my appeal (I guess that was what you'd call it) on their blog, cherry-picking something, and that includes a link, really doesn't serve the story or an observer's ability to track it well enough to make a judgment. And I fear that where there may be valuable debate some, like me, simply switch off and leave them to fill ether-space with usually increasing name-calling as they spiral to nowhere.

While I'm not a fan of the Newsnight 'twofer' style, I do see merit in inviting, or welcoming, diverse opinions, and then having a central, hopefully objective but informed moderator, ready to intervene to request claims are properly substantiated before moving on. Too often I see things, even in the major online media, simply popped in, and possibly countered, but not to my satisfaction, or at least enough to know what the actual facts are.

I think I will revise my participation with BBC is Biased to more of an observer role, and use it to act as a valuable potential counterpoint to some sloppy reporting I know does occur. They do catch some howlers!

One thing to note (and to be fair to the site), is that it does pin its colours to its blog title, so it's a tad silly to expect it to be that balanced in itself. It's there to find out what is perceived to be bias in the BBC. Fair enough. They can hardly be expected to fall over themselves to 'put the other side', but it looks like there are enough to provide such context (or call out the more rabid extremes) to make it a reasonable resource to use still.

Debating points

I have been a tad too involved with the BBC is biased site of late (there is life outside of what Auntie does or doesn't do), and felt the need to outline why is there and what I hoped to get from it. It felt good to write, and I hope it's fair... so I share.

At risk of seeming rude, or plain daft in light writing this here, I personally don't see how 'the BBC' can be biased, any more than I would hate 'it'. The BBC is simply a vast organization, with many staff, and, on the whole, a proud history. But, especially of late, a few skeletons coming to light are compromising this big time. I have seen with my own eyes worrying trends and, as can happen, in trying to get some answers arrived at this forum. Obviously, with a Ronseal-esque moniker like that at the top, the likely thrust of the majority of comments is pretty clear. But I have to say that I am impressed that most seem to be relatively considered, and supported by fact, if mainly in the form of links. As most of these are to the BBC's own resources, it's hard to question the objectivity.

But from the replies of those courageous or at least passionate enough to 'defend' the BBC (sometimes, though from my viewing not very often, with reason), and even more so to identify themselves in this role, I have to say a worrying trend often emerges which tallies with my own concerns. And hence I can only wonder if there are now so many such individuals, pervading all levels, that indeed the corporate entity is in danger of becoming the sum of its parts. So that, even without the (impossible to conceal, or justify) policy/ies that would substantiate a charge of institutional bias, it has just crept in simply by sheer weight of numbers.

I guess that can happen, and see how. One major mechanism is the inability to acknowledge, much less accept, criticism, even of the constructive variety. And this I am seeing even here.

One of my greatest frustrations with the BBC has been the attitude of 'Whatever we do is right. And if it isn't we didn't do it. And if we did do it doesn't matter. And if it does there's nothing you can do about it so we certainly won't be making any changes. So there.' Which is why I stopped even bothering to write to Newswatch. I still write to the complaints boys and girls, if only to boost my collection of cookie-cutter replies to a point where even the Trust would have trouble keeping a straight face in saying ‘they are listening’.

Across many of these posts, I see truly amazing defenses being made that simply fly in the face of logic... or presented facts. But what has brought the BBC to its current pretty pass, yet still seems to not have sunk into almost any layer of the corporation, is that the truth is not something that can be ‘enhanced’ to suit the demands of modern broadcasting, be it at best feeding the 24/7 appetite of a multi-channel, mega-staffed machine, or, at its darkest and worst, personal agendas held in the belief that there are those who do not yet know what's best for them.

But the thing that has really knocked me offside in my attempt at seeing all sides, is the blatant attempt to derail honest debate by questioning, quite pointlessly, though with a clear attempt to tarnish, the 'origins' of those posting.

I don't care who you are, where you are from or who you may work for, so long as your tone is civil, your arguments well ordered, and your facts as honest and accurate as they can be. Then your opinion is more than worth reading and engaging with. But the minute I see any attempt, usually by those who know they are running out of legs to stand on, to say 'well, you lot are obviously all [insert perceived pejorative grouping here]', the argument has been tainted.

I like this site. I know where most are coming from. Many are very funny. Some well informed. I find out stuff I didn't know. Or leads to places to find out more. And in the debates there is a kind of balance. So I'll keep coming back. I may even try and throw a few notions into the pot. That's how debate should be.

I just hope the BBC, and those who work for us who are employed by it, can remember that.

I hope the club members appreciate the sentiment, and any BBC contributors get the message. We'll see.

ADDENDUM:

Some positive replies and, it seems the spark of a disagreement, though from an 'Anon' ,which I tend to accord less value to.

Thank you to those who have provided me a generous welcome to your ranks.

I note also the words of caution, and indeed already feel a slight twist to the key in my back as I read the progress of some discussions. Participation, it seems, can be both addictive and perhaps corrosive. Maybe I should be careful to limit my exposure, but that of course leaves one prone to being less well informed... and open to accusations of superficiality. You really can’t win.

Already I must reiterate my point about labels, and to those from all ‘sides’. One man’s Daily Mail reader can too easily be deemed - and dismissed - as a fascist, it seems, while one woman’s Guardianista (or, it seems, the entire staff complement of the BBC ) an eco-fascist.

It may be true that this group is small and niche, but even from my brief exposure I would not agree that it is from one sole section. Hence the value of the input and the debate created.

But from just the few posts in discussion topics subsequent to mine above, I see already a necessary addition to add to my idealistic considerations; and one that is apt considering this forum is about a broadcaster. That is the power of the edit suite (or, in miniature on pages such as this, the cut and paste facility of our PCs), along with those who control it, and what motivates them in their decisions. Plus the commissioners, producers, directors and journalists who can of course by personal choice decide what ingredients get fed into this mixing pot in the first place.

I laid... lay great value on facts, and at least qualified this by adding ‘honestly presented’. This is key in much we are served on air, because while what we are shown or hear can shape our views, there is equal power in doing so through influencing what is omitted. And by golly that is much harder to measure because, by definition, you probably don’t know about it!

Hence my greater concerns, not just from the BBC but any who would set themselves up to provide ‘us’ with information. And here is the value of open source blogs such as this, when a convenient fact can be exposed to be less compelling when placed in proper context, or set beside some others that may show it to be but one take of many. Which is why I am valuing this blog’s debate as I am being introduced to pieces of some jigsaws that I did not know were missing.

My personal interest is in the environment, and now more than ever the phrase ‘not all that is green can be viewed in black and white’ sums up my frustration with the media grabbing extremes (from all sides) more to stir up a ratings-fest than to adequately inform an audience enough to come to a decent personal conclusion. Hence I am often even quite critical of the oft-lauded last bastion of journalistic integrity that is Newsnight, for what I have deemed their ‘twofer’ style of debate. Here two polar opposites are wheeled in to knock spots of each other (and their arguments), with the moderator in the centre picking off morsels to keep things bubbling along. Most unsatisfying for my purposes. I want to get to the core issues, see them rationally debated by a decent cross-section of views, but of course with all nailed to what they say and then held to them. This seldom happens. Where on earth are these ‘experts’ and/or talking heads that are presented as representatives, or our proxies, sourced? The wine bar next door?

But at least in such cases there is some measure of exchange, though again shaped by the choices of those to appear. And they are live, though often what gets served up subsequently can become a version of what I call ‘enhanced reality’ (i.e.; agenda driven fabrication, for either venal (ratings) or ‘personally passionate’ (‘we’ need to be ‘helped’ to understand what’s best for us) reasons. Which is why the Newsnight ‘re-arrangement’ in the Gordon Brown piece was my tipping point (along with Andrew Marr, I believe). That, and the subsequent inability of almost all involved to comprehend why I, and others, were so outraged.

Personally (and despite the questioning of an 'Anon'), while I would still hesitate to use the word ‘biased’ for the whole organisation, I hope I may be semantically accurate in offering the subjective view that I think the BBC is often... perhaps too often... unbalanced. Whilst recognising it’s easy to expect, and much more difficult to practice. Or ever be seen to be carrying out perfectly.

I don’t want rid of the BBC. But I do want it to remember what made it the unique and valued entity it was, and hence get back to oscillating more evenly about, and not as wildly from a balanced mean. There are much smarter folk than I to figure out how to achieve this, assuming they want to, but I’d say a reduction in scope, and hence size would be a good step towards to getting back to focussing on doing what has been done well, well again.

Sadly, with growing populations come ever growing empires in government, quangos and public services not just to serve but also feed off them, so I am not holding my breath.

But I will continue to stick to my expectation that all the relevant facts available are presented faithfully, and in order, by my public broadcaster, ta very much.

And if they are not, I guess I will need to rely on sites such as this to find out if and when they stray.

ADDENDUM 2 - For a copywriter I can be a wordy bugger. This little lot wouldn't upload, so I tried on another PC and it still didn't work... until I chopped out a few paras. Seems there is a limit I didn' t notice applied. Mea cupla.

There's being done. And there's being seen off in being done.

The bbc-is-biased blog is proving a tad too addictive, especially for my objectivity. But from this thread on some climate wheeze the Beeb has/had, can I really get my jaw of the ground that the head of Ofcom's boss has the CV he does, and yet is expected to oversee this little lot???!

I await confirmation before commenting further.

This, by the way, was my contribution (so far):

If the BBC really is trying to push the climate agenda with the aim of reducing personal environmental footprints on the part of viewers, the choice of Ross is astounding.

His 'performance' during Live Earth (which worked soooo well) was positively cringe worthy to anyone sincere in trying to share positive solutions and/or encourage reasonable self-sacrifice by positive example.

I'm afraid this all smacks/ed of simply yet another celebrity-fest for some local D-listers to play with lots more toys and uber-cool global A-listers in a very exclusive, self-serving crib.

And it's not like Live Earth even cranked up much by way of the great God 'ratings'.

As awareness went, about all I can recall is a Spice who took one week to forget she was ‘doing it all for her baby’ to getting her own private jet on tour in case she and the power sisters had hissy fits (and I’m sure half of the entertainment crew will be flying along for the ride, if they are not up in helicopters over the Antarctic to show us what ‘we’ are doing by er, taking helicopters to visit the Antarctic).

The use of 'celebrity' to promote the notion of restraint is facile. They have nothing but money and time, and the demands of screen time ensure that they have to seen with loads of 'stuff' and in as many exotic locations as possible all of the time. Popping out of the limo to walk a bit or claiming you offset your trips just doesn't cut it. Just one tabloid shot of a Lemar of Siena or Richard Branson in their new Aston, on a beach in Barbados or lighting the touch paper on a tourist spaceship undoes any positive awareness their brief dalliance with ‘doing their bit’ may achieve. The media is totally complicit because it’s a quick and lazy way to look like you are concerned and ‘doing’ something whilst getting the faces that attract the viewers and some backstage cred in the 'green' room. Message is secondary.

Yes, I think we do need to do all we can to understand and educate on what climate change is all about, and what can and should be done to address what ever it is possible and prudent to do to mitigate any adverse affects.

Having another, now possibly to be aborted, party was never going to be it.

Shame about the waste.

CAN ROCK 'N' ROLL SAVE THE PLANET?

For most of the reasons you articulate... no.

Is it any wonder we are cynical when such as a Spice Mum is up there 'doing it for [my] child' and then next week getting a personal jet to tour in 'cos she and the powersisterhood might have a spat en route.

It's not the message (though I think we are beyond needing any more awareness or consciousness raising) but the choice of messengers.

How can one empathise with someone who makes squillions and, with the best will in the world, pretty much would need to be a saint not to use them to consume and/or travel? All supported by a media industry that demands such excess to have stuff worth watching, reporting upon and getting invited along on for the ride.

The reaction to the latest 'we're in with the in-crowd and you're not' ,BBC Green Elite in The VIP Green Room notion, Planet Relief, is but another case in point. At least some news (if not ents) editorial staff are at last questioning their roles in all this.