Sunday, December 19, 2010
However the programme producer did say that these lies were in accord with the companies Editorial Guidelines as is the fact that with 10s of thousands of hours of airtime having been given to catastrophic warming propaganda the BBC's public commitment to "due balance" did not require them to devote as much as 1 hour to balancing it with the sceptical position.
So I decided it would be worth seeing what it says:
Impartiality lies at the heart of public service and is the core of the BBC's commitment to its audiences. It applies to all our output and services - television, radio, online, and in our international services and commercial magazines. We must be inclusive, considering the broad perspective and ensuring the existence of a range of views is appropriately reflected.
The Agreement accompanying the BBC Charter requires us to do all we can to ensure controversial subjects are treated with due impartiality in our news and other output dealing with matters of public policy or political or industrial controversy. But we go further than that, applying due impartiality to all subjects. However, its requirements will vary.
The term 'due' means that the impartiality must be adequate and appropriate to the output, taking account of the subject and nature of the content, the likely audience expectation and any signposting that may influence that expectation...
The BBC Agreement forbids our output from expressing the opinion of the BBC on current affairs or matters of public policy, other than broadcasting or the provision of online services.So there we have it - being impartial officially means ensuring only one side is ever broadcast. The word "inclusive" means total exclusion rigorously applied. "Due impartiality" in BBCspeak mean total partiality & maintaining any lie. Being "forbidden from expressing opinion" means that official BBC lies must be expressed & indeed maintained even when they have been openly acknowledged as lies.
whether the BBC is totally dishonest & in breach of their rules or alternately (the only alternative) that catastrophic warming really is more widely accepted in the scientific community than the Law of Gravity, as they have decided to maintain.
If so, can we ask for the names of 30,000 scientists who reject gravity, since I am sure you are familiar with the Oregon petition
Alternatively let me know who said it and I will send 'em an enquiry e-mail