Click to get your own widget

Wednesday, March 14, 2012

BBC - Not Only Not A Balanced News Organisation - They Don't Just Slant It They Make It Up Too

  Bishop Hill points to this article from Jo Nova comparing how the BBC, who have a legal legal requirement of "due balance" balanced their accounts of climategate and hackgate.

    It will come as an enormous surprise to anybody who thinks the BBC is a news organisation rather than a state propaganda one that their behaviour differed 180 degrees. For hackgate the BBC were straight off the ball reporting so fast that they didn't have time to even check with Heartland and find that the main document was a forgery. On climategate they simply didn't report the actual subject at all, simply that the CRU had been hacked, something for which there is no evidence whatsoever even yet. It is considerably more probable that it was leaked from somebody inside , disgusted at the way CRU was refusing to respect the FoI law. The first BBC story was not about Climategate, but about a possibly mythical “hacking”.
So when did the BBC report the emails? Short answer: I don’t know. Did they? (Can anyone find a story where they did? I can’t, but it’s a big site).
The big concession from the BBC was that one early news item (Mon Nov 23rd 2009, by nameless at the BBC) actually does quote one single Climategate email — though prepacked with the response from Phil Jones both before the email, and after it, lest anyone read it “uninoculated” and think for one second that scientists really ought not be using tricks to hide declines. The subheader above this devastating email is, wait for it, “Globally Respected”. That’s something science journalists at the BBC most surely will not be when the public realizes they’ve been carefully spoonfed only half the story.
The original BBC “News” item still headlines it as a “hack”, calls the person who released the emails an “offender”. It did not mention that it might have been a legal leak by a whistleblower, or that some of the emails were subject to FOI anyway, and all of the emails were work related emails funded by taxpayers. So the BBC didn’t report on ClimateGate, and they didn’t get much about that other “hacking” story right either.
When the BBC talks about the damage to science, they discuss how science is ‘damaged’ by leaked emails but not how science is damaged by scientists who hide declines…
It’s what they don’t say that advertises their bias.
At the same time as ClimateGate was running hot, Richard Black wrote a story about the mysterious lack of female skeptics, and he referred to me vaguely, but wouldn’t name me, link to me, or write and ask my opinion. Not too hot on the research eh Richard? I had the answer he wasn’t looking for: Why don’t women want to face global bullies? I can’t imagine…
When ClimateGate II broke, Black was fast — fast to do damage control for his favorite pet theory. See ClimateGate II: Handy Guide to spot whitewash journalism – The top 10 excuses for scientists behaving badly.
Always remember, in the handy-guide to journalist-spotting: Real journalists reort what happened and PR agents cover up what happened.
  However I also spotted how the BBC had  gone yet a further step beyond mere total bias to iinventive propaganda. They had invented a brand new name for the Heartlnad hacking - "Deniergate" - and claimed, falsely, that this was being used commonly across the blogsphere.. Obviously it failed to report, then or later, that the "deniers" had done nothing scandalous as the real scandal was that their pal had fabricated the important part of the "evidence".

I commented:

Though Black did write “”Denier-gate” is the label being applied in the blogosphere” but that is certainly not fully true and may be a deliberate lie.
When I read it I googled the term and found no mentions which clearly predated his own so it was certainly not generally applied across the blogsphere.
I did email the BBC asking for confirmation of which blogs he had seen it on but the BBC have decided not to reply.
I think it quite possible he invented the term and claimed it as general. This is not as unusual a tactic as it may seem as it adds non-existent public support to the journalists story. Hence, for example, the media insisted Milosevic was popularly known as the “Butcher of Belgrade” despite there being no fighting in Belgrade, him actually killing nobody (as proven in his “trial”) and the term only working in English. A similar example is the “Glasgow kiss” (headbutt) which appeared first in a newspaper article which claimed it was inn common usage & now IS in common usage.
Of course it is always possible that the BBC will indeed , belatedly, reply to the emial stating which blogsites had used the term "deniergate" before they did.

Indeed if the BBC is in any way whatsoever an honest organisation they will be able to and will wish to.

I am willi8ng to take betsw that the BBCis not, ionn the most minisclue degree, honest  and that nobody working for it believes it is. If there is anybody at all in the entire orgasnisation who thinks he/she works for an uncorrupt news organisation rather than a wholly dishonest, fascist propaganda organisation they will certainly wish to defend its good name by pointing out what facts Richard Black's calaim was based on. I will, of course, publish such a reply - nobody can accuse me of not being infinitely more honest than the entire BBC.

Labels: , ,

On using freshwater - Precisely (with those cycle rates) plus of course irradiated sodium and chlorine turn (small fraction) into their activated alter egos.

Although I live in Israel now I grew up in Chicago near a large freshwater lake (L. Michigan) and was thinking of that kind of basing. However, you could as easily put it near the mouth of the Clyde (access to tourists etc) the main thing is the ability to fill reservoir tanks over half an hour say that you can gravity drain within a minute or so into the ship tanks. And to wash and spray the salt off of the cargoes barge tugged (probably pushed) into the garage bay (fog spray the salt off) The extreme cycle rates postulated mean you have 5 minutes to refill the fuel (water reaction mass really:) and maybe another 5 to fill the cargo bay and 5 to do the prelaunch checks.Needless to say you need 48 rockets a day or so oming off your assembly line...

Much of the tropical sea gets 1-3 m of rainfall a year, collecting this over a few dozen sq km could fill the tanks year round. 8000 x 12000 is only 96 million m3, and for reasons of equatorial spin etc equatorial launch is favored...

There are a quite a few freshwater lochs in Scotland. Also a number of sea lochs which are fairly narrow and could be damed and allowed to beconme freshwater. The Gare loch, off the Clyde estuary might also be suitable. It is already the HQ of Britain's Trident missiles which, logically should make it more acceptable, thoughnlogic may not enter into it. Certainly Scotland is not short of rainwater.

If Israel were to try it and they would certainly be capable. I assume they would have to do it from a seasted, both because of a lack of freshwater and your difficulty launching westward.
nobody can accuse me of not being infinitely more honest than the entire BBC.

I accuse you of cowardice and censorship. I also submit you are as big a liar as anyone I have encountered on the web.

So you see, Mr. Craig, someone *can* do it.
Skip you walked into that - you just proved you are a nobody.

Of course to get that I had to rely on you making no attempt whatsoever to factually support your claim. Clearly my confidence in you was not misplaced.

Here it is you *liar*:

Please reprint our entire exchange regarding your *lie* about David King--that's right, you censoring lying coward: the one you clipped because you were embarrassed by the truth it exposed. To wit, the truth that you, Mr. Neil Craig, are a coward, a liar, a censor, a hypocrite, and a brainless brown shirt, repeating third hand idiocy from fourth rate intellects, such as Jo Nova and Anthony Watts.

That's right, you censoring lying coward: you *know* I'm right. You *know* you lied. You *know* you repeated an idiot's nonsenses, and guess what: I will *never*, *ever* let you forget it.

Now hurry up and censor me, Joseph Goebbels. It doesn't matter either way. You cannot run from the truth. It will haunt you in your *dreams*--tonight, and every night, until you die.

*Or* (and this is a very tentative "or") you can *repent*. I don't believe in God, Mr. Craig, but I still believe in the cleansing power of repentance. Admit your lie. Admit your mindlessness. Admit that you censored to try to hide your lie. Admit it all, and cleanse your soul of the evil that will haunt it until your very imminent death, old man.

Those are your choices, Mr. Craig. You can finish what little is left of your life as a mindless dogmatist, repeating idiocy from links you haven't even read provided by fools. Or, you can repent of your evil and die in peace, knowing that you at least *tried* to be honest in your dealings with the world.

Right now, you're on the road to spiritual ruin, ready to die alone and lonely, knowing that the final acts the world beheld from you were lies and censorship. Neither mourned nor loved, you will simply die, and your death will be the end of a miserable life of illiteracy and dishonesty.

Sadly, that is the way I see it ending.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

British Blogs.