Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Climate change is another subject where dissenters can be unpopular. There may be now a broad scientific consensus that climate change is definitely happening, and that it is at least predominantly man-made. But the second part of that consensus still has some intelligent and articulate opponents, even if a small minority.IE nobody intelligent denies that climate change (by which they mean warming) is happening now despite the fact that temperatures have marginally declined since 1998The problem is the BBC always puts both sides, but first decides what these 2 particular permissible sides are.
The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts, and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus which implies they once did give equal space to sceptics like professor Singer - I would be interested to know when that was. Certainly not when Newsnight's reporter was saying they got beyond reporting warming with "due balance".........
dissenters (or even sceptics) will still be heard, as they should, because it is not the BBC’s role to close down this debate. They cannot be simply dismissed as ‘flat-earthers’ or ‘deniers’, who ‘should not be given a platform’ look at the loaded language here or will "deniers" that our government consists of war criminals also be grateful to learn that they are not going to be wholly excluded from the BBC
During the KLA war they seriously debated both sides of the question whether Milosevic & the Serbs were evil people who ought to be bombed into submission (though that the casualties were 8)% civilian) went unmentioned, against the alternate view that Milosevic & the Serbs were evil & should be destroyed by a ground invasion. The fact that ever body knew a ground invasion from Albania over 5,000 ft high mountains was militarily nonsense was always censored & made the entire "debate" fake. This "debate" completely ignored the primary question of whether our KLA employees were not actually the evil ones (the government had admitted that they not the Serbs were responsible for the majority of racial murders) & therefore of whether it was right to go to war to assist in their genocide. The BBC deliberately censored the primary debate replacing it with a false choice.
It Is also impossible to dismiss this reprinted from Ian Dales Diary as an attempt at impartial reporting on Kosovo"....knew EXACTLY what she intended to say on that evening's news before the day had begun, and I can assure you that odd things were done to achieve it if the day didn't quite offer up the required backdrops. We spent one afternoon looking for a burning building and racing to get there before it went out!!". |Finally on the same subject there is the BBC's deliberate censorship of ANY mention of the genocide of 210 Serbs & Gypsies in the British sector in the suburb of Dragodan under direct UK command authority. Compare this with the US media's eventual reporting of the comparable My Lai massacre in Vietnam, though the German massacre of Lidice received comparable non-coverage under Goebbels. There is no question that this was deliberate censorship of UK government racial genocide. The BBC's Damian Whyte did promise to me that the BBC wouldn't do this & to get back to me with their defence - but still has not done so.
In a different instance BBC Scotland had a formal debate on our energy future between 2 people committed to more windmills & less nuclear power against 2 people committed to 100% windmills & other renewables & zero nuclear. That this did not quite run the full gamut of possible options is obvious.
Compare the language about David Irving "but Holocaust-denial is not a crime in Britain, and it is legitimate every now and then to challenge a maverick in person" with the recent introduction of Boris Berezovsky, a man who openly called for the violent overthrow of a popular democratically elected government as a guest on Question Time - this could hardly be described as "challenging him", particularly in light of Mr Dimbleby's supportive attitude. I suspect, that in the unlikely event of Nick Griffin, whose absence from a programme nominally giving an airing to all viewpoints, he would get such supportive questioning from the BBC.
By comparison where was the supportive reporting of Milosevic when Dr David Owen said, on oath, that he was a man to whom any sort of racism is "anathema". After all the BBC had spent years saying nice things about the Bosnian Moslems & their leader who, if the BBC is to be believed was a "moderate multi-culturalist Moslem" but in fact was a an unrepentant ex-Nazi publicly committed to the genocide of the Christian & Jewish communities.
If the BBC are to achieve their promised "balance" they will have to spend as many years on as many bulletins apologising or at least acknowledging their lies & censorship as they did making the censored or biased statements, both these statements were made in the cause of Ludditism & racism.
ADENDUM A few days ago on BBC radio they were reporting on the fighting in Paleastine between Hamas (currently being treated as the baddies) & Fatah (the goodies!). The interviewer in Britain said that Hamas were thought badly of because the media had been showing video tapes of them throwing people off buildings & we don't see Fatah doing that in the west bank. The person she was interviewing, a local journalist, said that such things were happening there & such videos did exist. He didn't quite say that it was just that the BBC was only going to show such videos from the side they were portraying as the baddies but no other conclusion was possible.