NEW YORK, NEW YORK…

This is a wonderful example of BBC political bias, in this case pro-Obama. Even better it is gloriously self-unaware.  It’s by Reggie Nadelson and it concerns a  corner of New York that traditionally votes Republican – the city’s holiday destination, Brighton Beach.

“Everyone smokes on Brighton Beach. The waiters, on their break, smoke. Over a bench not far away, an elderly couple in wide-brimmed hats raise a pair of nylon umbrellas against the sun and light up. But why is that slightly scary fellow staring at me? Then I realise it is the “Re-elect Obama” button on my jacket. This is a little bastion of Republicans in an overwhelmingly Democratic city.”

Yes, and the BBC remains a bastion of pro-Democrat pro-Obama sentiment, just as it was in 2008.

Hat-tip to the eagle eyed B-BBC reader for alerting me to this..

Bookmark the permalink.

183 Responses to NEW YORK, NEW YORK…

  1. Whitman says:

    Surely that’s irrelevant? I don’t believe he commonly reports on the BBC, and so surely he’s giving an interesting angle on a less liberal part of a liberal city, of which he is a part. It’s observation and quite interesting.

       1 likes

    • johnnythefish says:

      Immaculate BBC/Guardian credentials:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reggie_Nadelson

         15 likes

    • Craig says:

      More commonly that you might think, Whitman. To re-post part of a comment on the Open Thread…Reggie Nadelson may be a freelancer but she’s now a regular on the BBC’s ‘From Our Own Correspondent’…She’s done twelve reports for them on that programme in the last year.
      http://www.bbc.co.uk/search/schedule/?q=Reggie%20Nadelson

         12 likes

      • Whitman says:

        Okay, I stand corrected, but I still feel it’s a cultural insight and the politics of the reporter don’t matter an awful lot.

           2 likes

        • john in cheshire says:

          But if you were working for an organisation that protests its impartiality, would you display your political preferences, while out doing your job? Regardless of the insight that this reporter may be giving us, she is there in a partisan mode and she has admitted it. In that case, nothing she says can be taken as untarnished by her political leanings. I’ve never been to Brighton Beach, but I wonder if I’d find it as she appears to have. I suspect not. Why do I say that? Because the bbc cannot be trusted to be even handed on just about anything.

             20 likes

          • Whitman says:

            Selon toi. La plupart des gens et moi trouvons le BBC fantastique. I think it’s time we were a bit prouder of what this nation has. The world service is fantastic, BBC news is fantastic, education is amazing, the NHS is fabulous.

               1 likes

            • Wild says:

              Who decides?

                 8 likes

            • john in cheshire says:

              a) why are you speaking French?
              b) I don’t think you live here because your assertions are so wrong.

                 13 likes

            • Millie Tant says:

              Is there some reason, other than that you’ve gone nuts, for posting in French on an English-language blog?

                 7 likes

              • Whitman says:

                No. It was despair. And it’s a useful skill to have, n’est pas?

                   0 likes

                • Span Ows says:

                  Que?

                     3 likes

                • Millie Tant says:

                  It’s a loopy thing to do. I would wonder about the mental state of someone who would do that.

                     4 likes

                • Whitman says:

                  Would you? Thank you for your concern. Salope.

                     0 likes

                • Owen Morgan says:

                  “And it’s a useful skill to have, n’est pas?”

                  Writing in French on an English-speaking blog? No, that’s not especially useful, except to the extent that it demonstrates your mindset: dislike of bbc = dislike of eu = dislike of foreigners = inability to understand any foreign language. You’re pretty disappointed that, in fact, no-one needed to ask you for a translation.

                     4 likes

                • Roland Deschain says:

                  I think he means n’est-ce pas

                     1 likes

                • Whitman says:

                  No I’m not disappointed, just happy and surprised actually. N’est pas means no? Doesn’t it, it’s what I’ve been told anyway. I think it’s useful as a huge distraction, which has worked here, and French is useful in general. There’s presumably BBC bias here, that every year they mourn the loss of people doing languages, pretty damn liberal isn’t it?

                     0 likes

        • Guest Who says:

          ‘Okay, I stand corrected’
          It seems to happen so often, standing seems unlikely.
          Scattergun approaches too often result in fatal ricochets. But as we’re dealing with the undead here they’ll just tickle.
          I simply am in awe of the patience of those still trying to engage sensibly.
          Drs. Scezandy from Oslo must either be worshiping a new Messiah or cursing all that has been undone in just a few hours ‘work’.
          The BBC must be thanking their lucky stars they have pretty much closed down all interactivity on their means of ‘wanting our views’, whilst enjoying just how a commitment to free speech can so easily be manipulated and messed with by those with the will, and time, to do it on their behalf.

             0 likes

        • deegee says:

          It is a cultural insight. Into the BBC!.

          I can’t think of a single organisation that I have worked for government, semi-government and private that would tolerate an employee displaying party political material, especially a customer-facing employee. That Nadelson didn’t think about this, nor apparently did anyone else syas as much about BBC corporate culture as it does Brighton Beach.

          Somehow I can’t imagine they would be as tolerant if he had been wearing a Romney button.

          BTW Obama beat McCain 62.9% to 36.0% Extremely comfortable (Kerry won 58.4% to 40.1% against George W. Bush) but hardly overwhelming. One out of every three voters didn’t vote Democrat. I’m sure with the slightest effort Nadelson would have found them.

             2 likes

    • Scrappydoo says:

      It is not irrelevant once you realise that he would not have been given the reporting job at all if his political sympathies lay elsewhere. You have to know the right people and say the right things before you get onto the BBC.

         11 likes

      • Whitman says:

        And you know that how?

           0 likes

        • john in cheshire says:

          You are Jim Dandy and I claim my £5.

             8 likes

        • Wild says:

          “And you know that how? ”

          Maybe you should to watch the BBC before commenting. Just a suggestion.

             7 likes

          • Whitman says:

            Watching the BBC, as I’m in the process of doing, does not show me why a correspondent got picked for the job. It’s a presumption to fit this agenda.

               0 likes

            • john in cheshire says:

              And just to extend the childishness of this exchange, since you are so prone to it – whitman was the name of the filter paper we used to use in chemistry classes, to collect all the crap that wasn’t wanted from an experiment.

                 7 likes

              • Whitman says:

                I was questioning the source of the evidence, which seems to be his or her head. I have tried to debate but if this is all you can offer I think you should evaluate you position.

                   1 likes

                • Wild says:

                  Questioning the source of the evidence – watching/listening to the BBC? Would you prefer the source of the evidence to be CBS?

                     3 likes

                • Whitman says:

                  No, if you read the full exchange and maybe you’ll get a fuller idea why I said that.

                     0 likes

                • Wild says:

                  Watching or listening to the BBC is the basis for concluding that its recruitment is politically biased – it is you who do not understand.

                     5 likes

                • Whitman says:

                  No, I was responding to your assertion that I should watch the BBC, which I said I was doing.

                     0 likes

                • Millie Tant says:

                  Do you really think “evaluate you position” is proper English?

                     0 likes

                • Whitman says:

                  What else would it be?

                     0 likes

            • Wild says:

              I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. No intelligent person could watch or listen to the BBC for very long before noticing its sermons. If you are saying you do not notice or comprehend these sermons this tells us more about you than the BBC.

                 13 likes

              • Whitman says:

                Or does it tell us that you’re ideologically opposed to it and so search out this propaganda. I have to say it’s ridiculous. The BBC makes the best programmes in this country – I’d be a fool not to watch them.

                   0 likes

                • deegee says:

                  That it is so easy to find BBC propaganda, particularly but not exclusively in the News show, shows this taxpayer funded organisation has failed its legal (BBC Charter) obligation to neutrality. One can’t be ideologically opposed to an organisation without ideology.

                  If you hang around Biased-BBC for any length of time example after example will be produced. If you can provide any significant amount of BBC material (or indeed, any) in the opposite direction please bring it forward for discussion.

                     2 likes

        • Jeff Waters says:

          Whitman – ‘And you know that how? ‘

          Have a read of this article by ex BBC presenter Peter Sissons: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1349506/Left-wing-bias-Its-written-BBCs-DNA-says-Peter-Sissons.html

          ‘I am in no doubt that the majority of BBC staff vote for political parties of the Left. But it’s impossible to do ­anything but guess at the numbers whose beliefs are on the Right or even Centre-Right. This is because the one thing guaranteed to damage your career prospects at the BBC is letting it be known that you are at odds with the prevailing and deep-rooted BBC attitude towards Life, the Universe, and Everything’.

          Quite compelling, n’est-ce que pas? 🙂

          Jeff

             11 likes

          • Whitman says:

            Thank you, all I wanted was some evidence, instead of abuse. But what can you expect? It still doesn’t prove that this person got the job because of it, but it’s as near as we’re going to get.

            Merci beaucoup, monsieur, je t’aime.

               0 likes

            • Jeff Waters says:

              But would you concede that Peter Sissons’s first hand account of the culture of the BBC is evidence of its bias?

              Jeff

                 5 likes

              • Whitman says:

                You can find claim and counter claim wherever you look. It’s an interesting and harmful way to do things, on the part of Peter Sissons, as it further spreads this myth.

                   0 likes

                • Wild says:

                  The biggest purveyor of the myth of BBC political impartiality is the BBC itself.

                     13 likes

                • Jeff Waters says:

                  Whitman – What do you know that Peter Sissons doesn’t that allows you to so confidently accuse him of peddling a myth?

                  With respect, he worked at the BBC for several years, so I think he’s a bit better qualified than you are to comment on its culture…

                  Jeff

                     7 likes

                • Whitman says:

                  Read that article then.

                     0 likes

                • Jeff Waters says:

                  Whitman

                  The Guardian article you quote says that:

                  In 2010, I interviewed Mark Thompson in Edinburgh, with the aim of tackling the myth of BBC leftwingery. The plan backfired. He argued against my assertion that political critics of the BBC were wrong, and said that the BBC had suffered from a “massive leftwing bias”.

                  I think you’ve scored an own goal there! 🙂

                  Jeff

                     11 likes

                • Whitman says:

                  No I haven’t. You’ve just seen that bit and practically wet yourself. Read what the author is arguing. The point is that the director general is wrong and that it’s distracting the BBC.

                     1 likes

    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      Every single “From Our Own Correspondent” is done by someone on the Left, written from a Left-wing perspective. Every single one. Look it up.

      And it’s more than an “interesting angle”, if you want to be honest about it: it’s a Left-wing angle. To wit:

      These are people who remember the Soviet Union all too well and resist what they see as big government and anti-business programmes.

      They may be liberal on social issues, like abortion, but anything that feels like socialism – even if it is not – makes them queasy.

      There’s no reason to add that bit I’ve bolded, unless the writer is trying to dismiss her subjects’ opinions.

      As for that “slightly scary fellow” who stared at her O button, I think the reaction shows that she’s slightly xenophobic. The rest of her piece makes it clear she’s a bit uncomfortable around all these foreigners and their different culture. She can’t even imagine Romney’s people mingling with these nasty old Russians for too long.

         14 likes

      • Whitman says:

        Well I love that program, and I think you’re just picking up on stylistics.

           0 likes

        • Wild says:

          “program”

          Says it all really.

             7 likes

          • Whitman says:

            Ooh no an Americanism.

               0 likes

            • Jeff Waters says:

              ‘Ooh no an Americanism. ‘ – People might take you more seriously if you dropped the sarcastic tone. 🙂

              And I think the stylistics are pretty important when they amount to left wing bias.

              I’m sure members of this forum could point you to literally hundreds of opinion articles on the BBC website that are written from a left wing perspective. Can you point us to just one that takes a right wing view? One arguing against multi-culturalism, for example, or advocating the death penalty?

              Jeff

                 5 likes

              • Whitman says:

                No, I don’t intend to search through and find it, as it’s simply not worth the toil trying to prove or show anything on here.

                   1 likes

                • Jeff Waters says:

                  Whitman – Fair enough. I think it would take you quite some time to find a right wing article on the BBC news website, so I don’t blame you for declining. 🙂

                  If you ever do come across one, you will let us know though, won’t you? I think you’re more likely to stumble across the Golden Fleece, however…

                  Jeff

                     13 likes

                • Whitman says:

                  I shouldn’t though should I, as I shouldn’t find any left wing articles. I should find balance, which I do.

                     0 likes

                • Roland Deschain says:

                  it’s simply not worth the toil trying to prove or show anything on here.

                  I feel a flounce coming on.

                     6 likes

                • Whitman says:

                  Oh I wouldn’t bet on it. I wouldn’t give you the satisfaction.

                     0 likes

                • Demon says:

                  Whitman – you don’t see widespread bias. I believe that you don’t as there are none so blind as those that don’t want to see. You not seeing widespread bias is, as I said before, because from your extreme left-wing viewpoint the BBC is perfectly neutral. That is:- it expresses all shades of opinion from middle Labour to Stalinist, Maoist and Trotskite. As you believe it to be unbiased between those positions, then it would indicate that that is where your views lie.

                     5 likes

              • Demon says:

                Whitman – “as I shouldn’t find any left wing articles. I should find balance, which I do. ”

                I can’t believe you have written that in a thread about an unquestionably left-wing article. Obviously you see balance because the BBC reflects your own left-wing views. For you that is balance, for people not on the hard left, that is bias.

                   9 likes

                • Whitman says:

                  Hard left my arse. This article is poorly written I grant, but I don’t see widespread bias.

                     0 likes

                • Whitman says:

                  Furthermore, I am left of centre, but I believe there are none as seeing as those who wish to see, if you understand. You search it out for ideological reasons, for something that isn’t there.

                     0 likes

        • David Preiser (USA) says:

          Stylistics? Wrong. This is about the perspective of the “correspondent”, the angle from which they approach their topic. Wearing a political campaign button is more than a style choice.

             5 likes

  2. johnnythefish says:

    Message 1: all Republicans are smokers. How much more out of touch can they be? You can sense little right-on Reggie looking down her nose at these poor unfortunates.

    Message 2: they are scary. Must get the hell out of here before I get beaten up by these right-wing thugs.

    Impartial as ever.

       18 likes

    • chrisH says:

      If Nadelson did this kind of report from a Pakistani, Turkish, Ghanaian or Jamaican beach; he`d be before the race police already.
      What gives this class warrior the right to sneer at Russian emigres in their own damn country?
      And only a God blessed land like the USA could welcome these folk, and create the conditions where they can now afford caviar and a good cigar as they wish to.
      Obama will deal with that if he`s let to…and that`s exactly the reduced Eurorump that the BBC hopes the USA will yet become.
      Being a beacon to us-as opposed to Mecca or Brussels-is the real crime of the USA in the eyes of the BBC.
      F666`em!…God Bless the USA!

         16 likes

      • john in cheshire says:

        Quite so, Chris. Can you ever recall a report of mass migration from the West to a muslim country, for example? I can’t. Can you recall a mass migration from the West to one of the soviet countries before the fall? I can’t. If the socialist/muslim way of life was so wonderful, and better than ours, then why aren’t we all clamouring to be let into their fabulous utopias? We’re not because they aren’t. Fact beats fantasy every time.

           15 likes

  3. chrisH says:

    Typical Beeb…and I hope that you note it Whitman.
    If you read the blurb on the BBCs site, Nadelson says this-
    “anything that chimes with socialism-EVEN IF IS NOT-makes these Russian emigres queasy”….or the equivalent, if you want to be picky.
    You able to explain the rights of a BBC hack to tell expat Russians anything about their “over-reaction” to what is perceived to be Socialism..or Communism -lite if you prefer that-or Obamas plans if that is how the grandkids of Gulag refugees choose to see it.
    It`s that smug, prim sly opinionated detail-mere liberal posturing-that makes us all sick at this site.
    How dare a BBC rent a gob tell the Russian emigres what is fearful Socialism…and what is mere reflux.
    Had I escaped any Soviet style leader from Stalin to Putin…I too would be chary of “Socialism”-and would cheerfully send the likes of Nadelson to Katyn to shut the queasy little creep up for a while.

       18 likes

  4. Wild says:

    If all BBC reporters wore Vote Labour/Democrat badges while reporting their opinions I might have some respect for them, but they don’t, and I don’t.

    The BBC is a house of lies. They claim they work for peanuts, and that union bloated rates, overmanning, and expense accounts on the nod are a myth. They claim to be impartial between high tax, big State, large public sector advocacy, and those who advocate a low tax, reduced State, and smaller public sector. But they are not.

    In short they are liars and thieves, and worst of all, in my opinion, they subvert our democracy (indeed everything great about this country) for nothing more than greed, knee jerk Guardian reader totalitarianism, and complete narcissism.

    Remind me again, who asked me if I want to pay for them? They are the agitprop arm of middle class public sector workers – whose laziness and greed are neatly demonstrated by the behavior of doctors in the NHS refusing to treat patients until they get an even bigger pension. They make me puke – the whole lot of them. A bloated elite of greedy sanctimonious freedom hating nihilist shits.

       30 likes

  5. chrisH says:

    That last line sums it all up!
    Welcome back Wild!

       9 likes

  6. David Preiser (USA) says:

    I think I’m going to have to go out there sometime this summer. I’ve been there a couple times in the past for an afternoon, and knew it was very Russian but that’s about it. There’s also a big orthodox Jewish neighborhood not far from there.

       2 likes

  7. phil says:

    We never hear of correspondents admitting to voting Republican, and we don’t see them in a hat with a Republican candidate’s name on.

    And we won’t hear of a correspondent crying when an Israeli prime minister nears death.

    The only thing preventing correspondents who did any of these things from being sacked is the fact that they wouldn’t be hired by the BBC in the first place.

       15 likes

  8. Jeremy Clarke says:

    “When one arrives in Brighton Beach, one is struck immediately by how backward everything is. For a start there is no Starbucks; and when I do eventually find a coffee-shop, there is no free wi-fi. It is hard to believe this is 21st-century America.

    “The locals glower suspiciously above their high Slavic cheekbones; their crooked, yellowed teeth, cheap clothes and bad hair merely add to my growing sense of superiority.

    “I feel as if I have entered Cold-War Moscow.

    “The Soviet-era attitudes; the cheap caviar and vodka; the watery cabbage soup; everyone smoking, all the time: Brighton Beach is a barren wasteland for pampered metropolitan snobs like me, yet at the same time a precious gift for a supercilious writer to engage in tedious racial stereotyping.

    “Did I mention there were lots of Russians here? It’s like Cold-War Moscow, only we are just 30 miles from Wall Street. Yet it could be Moscow in the 1970s for all the Slavic attitudes and cheekbones. And why does everyone smoke? Don’t they realise this is New York in 2012, not 1970s’ Moscow?

    “Unsurprisingly, these glowering, surly Slavic types are spectacularly ignorant and backward. No one uses Twitter or Facebook, and there isn’t a Gay Pride rally to be seen anywhere; Muslims are suspicious by their absence. Just lots of Slavic types who smoke a lot, drinks lots of vodka and quaff cabbage soup by the gallon.

    “This is is a land that time forgot. The locals seem to be more preoccupied with working and eating than talking to me about the most important presidential election campaign since the last one.

    “I ask one brooding, glowering Russian how he will vote in the election.

    “He says he is a committed Republican while he glowers scarily, broodingly, menacingly at my ‘re-elect Obama’ badge. I feel a chill go down my spine and quickly retreat to the safety of my car. As my chauffeur drive out of Brighton Beach, it feels as if I am leaving Cold-War Berlin, passing broken-down Trabants and chain-smoking goose-stepping Russians dressed in rabbit hats and (cont’d p. 94)…”

    Sod the ‘re-elect Obama’ reference. This article is beyond parody.

       28 likes

    • chrisH says:

      Great writing Sir.
      I`m there already-and surely the Johann Hari Award for “Passionate and Committed Writing in the Cause of the New Soviet” is in the (rabbit-lined) bag!

         10 likes

    • Roland Deschain says:

      and there isn’t a Gay Pride rally to be seen anywhere

      Is there supposed to be? Is that how people are judged in Beebland? By whether there’s a Gay Pride rally?

         4 likes

      • Louis Robinson says:

        “Great writing” – I second that. You took the sub-text and made it visible. Long live satire.

           5 likes

        • Jeremy Clarke says:

          I certainly wasn’t playing it for laughs, Louis. This piece is quite offensive and irritating on a number of levels.

          Look at those Russians with their quaint little habits and their sequins and their naive and simplistic, Soviet-era attitudes, she appears to be saying.

          Okay, so the Soviet education system was one of the finest on Earth and modern-day Russia still churns out far more graduates per capita – in proper subjects – than most Western countries, but our Reggie just sees a group of funny foreigners who don’t think like her and her bien-pensant Beltway buddies.

          The reference to Russians’ view on abortion is spectacularly condescending. The writer appears to give credit to the Russian arrivals because they have the ‘correct’ view of abortion. Well done, them.

          Okay, so the Soviet Union was one of the first countries to legalise abortion and the procedure has been commonplace for decades; indeed, in the USSR abortion was the most common form of birth-control, given the lack of contraception available there. Moreover, the abortion-rates in modern-day Russian are far higher than most nations on the planet. That being the case, I don’t think Russian women should have to take lectures from condescending American hacks on this particular issue.

          But, as is often the case, the article is awash with the usual, tired old eastern European stereotypes – I was surprised that there was no reference to Borat.

          Or maybe I am being harsh and reading far too much into this article?

             1 likes

  9. jim smiles says:

    As with the mass of anti GOP (I was going to write anti republican, but on this day it wouldn’t quite be correct), pro democrat and anti tory tweets this website seems to easily find. Its the absance of pro GOP, pro conservative tweets that are impossible to find.
    We wouldn’t have a website like this, or at the very least there’d be a biased-bbc to high light the right wing biased of the BBC, but there isn’t and the thought of anybody even remotely associcated with the BBC proudly saying they were wearing a Pro Bush badge is laughable.

       11 likes

    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      Exactly, jim. The challenge is still open for defenders of the indefensible to find a single tweet by a BBC employee coming from a Right-wing perspective.

         9 likes

  10. Jeff Waters says:

    Whitman: ‘I shouldn’t [find any articles advocating only left wing positions] though should I?’

    Anyone want to disabuse Whitman of this delusion?

    Here’s one for starters: Will Self telling us why wind turbines are so great – http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15295769

    Not a hint of balance in sight…

    Jeff

       4 likes

    • Whitman says:

      That’s a Point of View, which is the whole point of it, is it not?

         0 likes

      • Jeff Waters says:

        Absolutely. But when all of the weekly Points of View advocate only left wing positions, you have to wonder whether there is bias afoot…

        Jeff

           6 likes

        • Whitman says:

          But they are given as Points of View, not the view of the BBC. That’s the view of Will Self and not the corporation. It seems to me that they can’t get anybody else to do them to be honest, as Will Self has done a lot, which is no bad thing, but they can’t have done it consciously.

             0 likes

          • Jeff Waters says:

            Whitman – It’s possible that all of the country’s right wing journalists won’t touch the BBC with a bargepole, and they therefore have no choice but to use left-wing commentators for the A Point of View articles. But I think we both know that that’s extremely unlikely…

            If the BBC choose only left-wing journalists to write their opinion articles, then they can legitimately be accused of bias…

            Jeff

               10 likes

            • Whitman says:

              They only choose Will Self is what I’m saying, so I’m saying it is likely that either right wingers won’t or can’t write articles for the BBC.

                 0 likes

              • Jeff Waters says:

                ‘I’m saying it is likely that either right wingers won’t or can’t write articles for the BBC. ‘ – Do you have any evidence at all for that outlandish assertion?

                Jeff

                   5 likes

                • Whitman says:

                  Do you have any that the BBC only asks left wing journalists and writers? I think it’s a possibility that either they haven’t been asked, which seems strange, or that they refuse. But the are points of view and not the view of the BBC.

                     0 likes

              • john in cheshire says:

                What is your definition of right-winger?

                   2 likes

                • Whitman says:

                  A Tory, UKIP, etc. Someone generally on the right wing of politics. What’s your’s of a left winger?

                     0 likes

          • chrisH says:

            Yet no room for a (point of) view that goes against the grain of Beeb thinking.
            The EU…immigration…capital punishment…green rubbish about global warming?
            Yet not a dicky bird-and no dissent allowed….
            Thought it was MY BBC Whitman…how come everybody on Radio 4 voxpox-and Radio 5…are all clones of Labour and bien-pensant thinking.
            (There you go-bit of French for ya!)

               14 likes

            • Whitman says:

              It’s subjective. They aren’t. Evidence on this site is not evidence, apart from that of Peter Sissons etc. because it’s just what you think. They aren’t clones of Labour, they just aren’t. And am I right in thinking that nobody here believes in global warming?

                 1 likes

              • Wild says:

                If and when the BBC attack New Labour (as it used to be called) it is from the Left not the Right. The argument about global warming is the manifestly one sided character of the “discussion” of the issue on the BBC.

                   8 likes

                • Whitman says:

                  But who is the opposition? Jeremy Clarkson? There’s very little scientific opposition.

                     0 likes

                • Whitman says:

                  Oh and I want evidence for the first claim, as everyone does for mine.

                     1 likes

          • David Preiser (USA) says:

            They can’t get anybody else to do them? Or just don’t ask?

            I can name ten prominent non-Left writers and broadcasters who would do one for them. But the BBC wouldn’t dream of it.

            I volunteer right now to do one for the BBC, and will happily wave my fee.

               7 likes

            • Whitman says:

              Well write to those writers (Hitchens, Glover etc.?) and ask why they don’t write. They’ll probably be under contract as well. And I suppose you could, but then people want reasoned thought, from time to time. Damned lefties.

                 0 likes

              • David Preiser (USA) says:

                Reasoned thought? Please fisk one of my posts and tell me how it isn’t reasoned. Not whether you disagree with my points, but how it isn’t reasoned.

                As for your point about asking those people why they haven’t done one of those “From Our Own Correspondent” pieces, I think that’s a near miss. It’s never a big British name, but is generally someone outside the mainstream media, often from the region in question. It’s certainly a good idea to figure out whom to ask why they’ve never been invited by the BBC to do one. But I have the feeling that no matter how many people I asked and told me they were never invited, you still wouldn’t accept it as proof of anything.

                   2 likes

                • Whitman says:

                  I don’t accept your interpretation of events as evidence, it’s true, as it’s subjective. Give me something real. And a misuse of whom in there to.

                     0 likes

                • Guest Who says:

                  ‘Whitman says:
                  And a misuse of whom in there to.’

                  Not sure, not being an A*double+withcherry&sprinkles student ‘n all, but in that sentence correcting another, I think the word being sought at the end is ‘too’.
                  With luck the forthcoming English exams will be the new variety that don’t worry about such things.

                  ‘I believe there are none as seeing as those who wish to see, if you understand.
                  And have folk more skilled in communications from another planet, perhaps cutting some slack for the attempt at using our language, even if it comes across more as Yoda mangling ‘War… we come in’.

                     0 likes

                • Whitman says:

                  Ad hominem, Guest Who. Go on, justify with tu quoque.

                     0 likes

              • johnnythefish says:

                ‘There’s very little scientific opposition’ (to global warming). True, if you are informed only by the BBC on the subject.

                   3 likes

                • Whitman says:

                  Prove to me it’s a not a fact of our time then. It must be pretty tricky, unless you want to quote Jeremy Clarkson, like I said.

                     0 likes

  11. Dom Fisher says:

    Considering that her efforts culminated in article about a Republican enclave in New York (is this the same New York which hasn’t elected a Democratic mayor in over 20 years?), it is at least strange behaviour that she turned up on location with a re-elect Obama lapel. It’s almost like she was trying to provoke a reaction. Try flipping the story with a BBC reporter dripping sarcasm in an article in a different ethnic area which happens to be a ‘Democrat enclave’ wearing a McCain/Palin badge. Such a report simply wouldn’t be filed, never mind published.

       10 likes

    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      New York elected Giuliani because of the horrific state of the city in the 80s. Crime was the number one issue, as well as the number two issue, and the number three issue on everyone’s mind at the time.

      The only reason the city hasn’t elected a Democrat mayor since is that the current mayor actually is a Democrat but ditched the label. Bloomberg is a lifelong Democrat who switched to Republican for his first run because there was no strong contender and he didn’t want to have to bribe the Democrat machine bosses in the outer boroughs. He quit being a Republican and now lists himself as independent. All the Nanny State stuff he’s been doing lately is pure Democrat.

         2 likes

  12. Harry says:

    “But why is that slightly scary fellow staring at me? Then I realise it is the “Re-elect Obama” button on my jacket. ”

    You blatantly just made that up, Reggie.

       9 likes

  13. Baron says:

    Whitman, sir, Baron wouldn’t give a double toss for what the likes of this woman or anyone at the BBC says if he didn’t have to pay for the tossing club, let the BBC compete in the market place, then they can rap themselves in whatever flag they like, start each programme humming the Red Flag or whatever…

    you follow?

       8 likes

    • Whitman says:

      Get rid of your television if you’re that averse to it. It’s quite simple.

         1 likes

      • john in cheshire says:

        why should we have to get rid of our televisions to avoid paying the bbc tax? Let the bbc compete on an even playing field with Sky and we’ll then see which is the money-draining sump and which is actually a viable business. Me, I want to keep my TV and I don’t want to have to pay £145 per year to be allowed to do so.

           9 likes

        • Whitman says:

          Well why should most people have to put up with adverts and a reduction in quality just because of the complaining of a minority?

             0 likes

          • john in cheshire says:

            well, let them pay the bbc tax. I’m not saying people shouldn’t have that dubious pleasure. I’m saying we all shouldn’t be forced to pay for something a lot of us don’t want. Then all the guardian readers can congregate around the box each night and relive their glorious achievements over the past century. maybe you’d be at home in their company. You know, praising every muslim who pops around to preach hatred, all those Jew-haters, all the anti-capitalists, all the big-statists, all the Labour party liars and cheats. What a wonderful world you would live in, watching bbc bias 24 hours a day. Your righteousness would probably light up the world; and shut down a few nasty fossil fuel electricity plants.

               10 likes

            • Whitman says:

              Given none such nonsense exists I think I would be pretty happy, yes, thank you very much. I’ll take that world as better than this stupid daily mail forum.

                 0 likes

            • Whitman says:

              And how would this optional tax work exactly? What if we all just chose not to pay tax, that’d be excellent. We could all put our money in our spouse’s name on the Cayman islands, that’s a good way to do things.

                 0 likes

          • Wild says:

            If the BBC were a minority channel watched only by Guardian readers it would fail in its primary task – the re-election of a Labour government. It is a propaganda channel which seeks to re-educate the masses – who are forced to pay for it by a compulsory poll tax on anybody who has a radio or television.

               12 likes

            • Demon says:

              Radio licence was scrapped years ago I believe. But I fully agree with your point.

                 2 likes

          • Reed says:

            “Well why should most people have to put up with adverts and a reduction in quality just because of the complaining of a minority? ”

            Should you have to pay the makers of Persil for the right to own and use a washing machine? If not, why should people have to pay the BBC tax in order to own a TV – it’s not the only broadcaster.

               3 likes

            • Whitman says:

              No, you’re just calling for something which the majority of people don’t want or don’t care about because of your own delusions.

                 0 likes

              • Reed says:

                How do you know the majority of people want to pay for the BBC? They could put it to the test, and allow an opt out for those that don’t. See how it goes.

                   5 likes

              • Demon says:

                Whitman,

                Give people a vote:-

                Do you want to pay an annual TV license of £145+ every year or keep the money to spend as you wish?

                Which way do you think that vote would go? And by what huge percentage would the result be won by?

                   6 likes

                • Whitman says:

                  I think there’s a huge majority who feel an affection for the BBC and would keep paying. Not everyone cares as much as you.

                     0 likes

                • Demon says:

                  Whitman. Now you’re being stupid. Ask people if they want to hand over £150 or keep it themselves, and you think that they will all want to hand it over. I would give up now if I was you before you make that hole too deep to exit from.

                     1 likes

                • Whitman says:

                  If you asked this site, yes, but the whole population, I don’t think they mind paying for it.

                     0 likes

      • johnnythefish says:

        How very totalitarian. If you don’t want to pay for the BBC, you can’t have a television. Smart. See where you’re coming from now, O’ Brien.

           2 likes

        • Whitman says:

          Yep, god I love Communism and dictatorship. Yum. Don’t be so ridiculous, it was a silly reply to a silly suggestion. Instead we’ve got this optional tax system, which is going to be tricky to enact.

             0 likes

      • Baron says:

        Whitman, you what, illogically mischievous, retarded from birth or both, your response shows what sort of people watch and admire the monopolistic mammoth, where did Baron say he didn’t like television, he doesn’t like paying for something he doesn’t need, doesn’t want, has no time for, if the likes of the deluded fruitcakes like you mind not paying for a bunch of solipsistic, anointed tossers pursuing an agenda on the principle ‘we know better’, it’s fine, but why should those who can do without also pay, ha?

           6 likes

        • Whitman says:

          Why the fuck does Baron talk in the third person?

             0 likes

          • Baron says:

            and why not, if it makes someone like you angry, that’s alone worth abit, just address the subject matter, will you, forget the third person.

            you keen to pay, you pay, the rest of us will do with Sky and the other networks that do not threaten anyone with imprisonment for not paying for what they do not need, want, comprende, comrade?

               0 likes

            • Whitman says:

              Because you sound like the mother of all tits. Yeah, you pay for quality programming which I’m happy to do.

                 0 likes

    • Jeff Waters says:

      I don’t see why the BBC can’t be available on a purely subscription basis. That way, people who wanted to fork out £150 per year to watch the BBC could do so, and those of us who would rather spend that money on something else could do so…

      Jeff

         3 likes

  14. A quote springs to mind on this thread:

    “Don’t fight with the pig. You only get covered in mud and the pig loves it”

       5 likes

    • Roland Deschain says:

      Quite right. One really shouldn’t encourage a sad soul who has nothing better to do than post 39 times since 2:00, despite considering it a “stupid Daily Mail forum”. I shall desist.

         4 likes

  15. Backwoodsman says:

    My dogs a bit late for this fight, but here goes :
    A) How politically committed do you have to be to wonder round with a badge supporting a candidate FFS ! That settles the impartiallity question fairly decisevely.
    B) We had a pet troll before here, we let him go. Suggest you peeps do the same with this one.
    C) @ the troll, while bbc sport was showing freestyle hopskotch, Mr Murdoch managed to show every Super 14 rugby match played in the Southern Hemisphere , so don’t give me any bbc quality bullshit.

       6 likes

    • Nicked emus says:

      I will reply to your late dog with an even later one. Firstly I am not any of the people you seem to think I am, I don’t know who they are.
      I think this chap Whitman is a brave, but ultimately foolish, chap. Foolish because he has assumed that people on here argue from a position of good faith; you don’t. The only debate that takes place on here is about “how” biased the BBC is, not whether it is or not.
      This site doesn’t exist to debate the issue of BBC “bias”‘, that is taken as read. It exists to give a place for a group of people the chance to exchange their views on it.
      By way of example point A above is the sort of “evidence” presented; an assetoric statement with no support.
      B shows the usual way of treating those who don’t agree with the prevailing viewpoint
      C, as he well knows, reflects the differences between being a national broadcaster with a public service remit, and a commercial satellite broadcaster.
      When that view is challenged, as Whitman has done, it doesn’t take long for him to be dismissed as a “troll”, and for a string of ad hominems to ensue. He will, at some point, give up and then the coterie will go back to looking for anything and everything that confirms their view of the world. If the BBC doesn’t run a story then that is evidence of bias, if it does but somehow fails to mention some minor side point, that is bias. Everything is bias.
      Of course what is meant by bias here is “does not confirm to the views expressed here”, reactionary right-wing, largely anti-Islamic, largely anti-immigration, largely anti-homosexual.

      I expect The usual tactics to be deployed.

         1 likes

      • Wild says:

        “I am not any of the people you seem to think I am, I don’t know who they are”
        If you do not know who they are, how do you know you are not one of them?
        “Whitman is foolish..because he assumed that people on here argue from a position of good faith..This site doesn’t…debate…BBC “bias”‘…it exists to give a place for a group of people the chance to exchange their views on it.”
        If you are appalled that a site which articulates concerns about the Leftist bias of the BBC has comments from people concerned about the Leftist bias of the BBC the naivety is entirely your own.
        “evidence presented with no support.”
        Presenting evidence is what this site does all the time, frankly it is overwhelming, you just choose to ignore it.
        “those who don’t agree with the prevailing viewpoint”
        If you come onto a Biased BBC site claiming that the BBC is not biased you are going to get challenged. You are surprised by this?
        “If the BBC doesn’t run a story then that is evidence of bias, if it does but somehow fails to mention some minor side point, that is bias. Everything is bias.”
        Is that the best you can do in defence of the BBC? Feeble. You believe (for example) that the BBC does not have an agenda when reporting about Murdoch? Again, the naivety is entirely your own.
        “Of course what is meant by bias here is does not confirm to reactionary right-wing, largely anti-Islamic, largely anti-immigration, largely anti-homosexual.”
        As I understand it Right-Wing views are not yet banned. There is frequently hostility towards homosexuality on this site, it is called freedom of speech; but I have not noticed anybody saying that homosexuality should be banned or homosexuals should be murdered, on the contrary, I read people objecting to Islam precisely because of its intolerance and hatred of difference.
        In the end the desire to live in a free society is what animates this site – and the belief that the BBC is a direct attack upon that freedom. You are either too naïve to notice its incipient totalitarianism, or are keen to endorse it. If the latter, tough shit. Freedom is worth fighting for, and this country is full of people prepared to fight for it.

           9 likes

        • Nicked emus says:

          “If you are appalled”. I am not

          “you just choose to ignore it.” No, I choose to test it. There are instances where a case can be made, but in most examples the instance of “bias” is the observer bias of the person reporting it, not evidence of some intrinsic bias by the BBC. But it is easier to posit some co-ordinated conspiracy of malfeasance.

          “You are surprised by this?” No

          “the naivety is entirely your own.” And the observer bias is entirely yours. Where is the evidence — by which I mean testable evidence not the circumstantial or just ‘well it’s obvious’?

          “As I understand it Right-Wing views are not yet banned.” My understanding too.

          “There is frequently hostility towards homosexuality on this site,” True.

          “this country is full of people prepared to fight for it.” Yes — they are called the Armed Forces; typing splenetic posts on a blog isn’t really fighting for freedom.

             0 likes

          • Guest Who says:

            Guessing the workload today must be pretty lean?
            ‘“this country is full of people prepared to fight for it.”
            ‘Yes — they are called the Armed Forces; typing splenetic posts on a blog isn’t really fighting for freedom.
            You have managed some fair points, but before I return to my now skinned-over pot of Matt Vinyl, I do have to ask if you are prepared to stand by that assertion and all it infers?
            I took you more as a Gandhi fan than a Dubya cheerleader… was I wrong.
            The pen is mightier than the sword, even in its more modern incarnation, so I’d prefer some stout hearts doing their best against online threats before they get supported in more tangible forms requiring a squaddie with an SA-80 on clear-up in aisle Tower Hamlets thanks to a QT-selected panel and audience going beyond their usually spleen-venting.
            If you wouldn’t mind.

               1 likes

            • Nicked emus says:

              Stupidly I am rather caught up in this — when I really should be working.

              We need both pens and swords, blogs and SA80s, but I was rather pricking the pomposity of the suggestion that posting replies on blogs was some sort of glorious struggle for freedom. I would suggest it is more akin to arguing with your mates in the pub.

                 0 likes

              • Reed says:

                If, during that argument with your mates in the pub, you were to say the wrong word, or offend someone unintentionally, you might well expect a visit from our new community cohesion enforcement service, also known as the police. This is why the struggle for true freedom of speech is so important, on ALL fronts. There’s nothing pompous about it – people are being arrested and even imprisoned for the simple act of typing words into their computers which don’t even constitute incitement, but are merely considered to be offensive to some people’s sensibilities. Free speech is being slowly boiled alive in the UK, and many are completely numb to the situation.

                   2 likes

              • Guest Who says:

                ‘Stupidly I am rather caught up in this — when I really should be working.’
                Yes, you have mentioned that. Rather going to the wisdom or otherwise, in engaging with blogs whilst at work. Were you forced to stop what you were doing to come here?

                ‘… I was rather pricking the pomposity of the suggestion that posting replies on blogs was some sort of glorious struggle for freedom.
                To be fair, at best you thought, or hoped you were. Frankly the pomposity seemed from where I’m looking more originating with that statement. Some of the most courageous stances have involved no more than getting the word ‘enough’ in black on white and in the minds of others. Meanwhile your dogged refusal to shift from a less than stable first foundation in this seems familiar. I never thought I’d find myself in the role of pacifist conciliator in face of aggressive militarism. Must be a Syrian thing.
                ‘I would suggest it is more akin to arguing with your mates in the pub.
                Suggest away. In part I’d tend to agree. Though I’d be hard pressed to see much in what has gone down these last few days as between mates.
                More akin to a popular local getting crashed by an oaf high on speed whose mates are lurking nervously at the door as he loudly demands of all and sundry that they stop drinking that offensive ‘beer’ and embrace his beverage of choice. Most will ignore him, but as he works around sometimes butting into conversations, the more polite will try and engage, the less tolerant will direct him to the door, and a few… will make him look and sound even more stupid than he already appears.
                At which point he starts screaming victimisation, and a few of his less forceful colleagues, aware that they will need to deal with his mood later, will half-heartedly try and chip in with a mild… yeah.
                The nice thing about this pub is no one is in it who has not come of their own free will, the conversation is basically amenable, the prices great, and no one has been turned away or banned.
                The only downer is that there is a tithe simply to sup in this convivial spot, imposed by the vast ‘club’ next door, and from whence these gatecrashers seem to emanate to stir up some trouble before retiring hurt (in ego) back to be told what they want to hear from all those nice bartenders who send them to that pub in the first place.
                Many of whose regulars have been banned.
                I take it you can accept the differences (taking the continued avoidance of my direct questions and offers as tacitly so), and especially in behaviour that is unacceptable yet seems possible via the invocation by only one party of an exception that can only be described as ‘unique’.
                Ain’t analogy grand?

                   4 likes

                • Nicked emus says:

                  I salute your analogy — it genuinely made my LoL (and not in a David Cameron sort of way).
                  I couldn’t quite work out my role in it. Am I the oaf on speed, or one of his mates? Or just one of the people from the club next door? I am sure I am not supposed to come out well in it.
                  You don’t think that it is more than a touch self-aggrandizing to claim some sort of “freedom fighter” epithet just for bashing out a few replies on a blog?

                     0 likes

                • Guest Who says:

                  Like Eric Morley, I shall reply, as it makes more sense (sadly than this thread system once we get to this point) in reverse order.
                  ‘You don’t think that it is more than a touch self-aggrandizing to claim some sort of “freedom fighter” epithet just for bashing out a few replies on a blog?’
                  Can’t speak for others as I don’t know the full back story. I certainly would not equate myself with any who put themselves in harm’s way; that would be an insult to their courage.
                  However… I do see the need to fight to maintain freedoms, and as I see the BBC as a major threat to that I take them to task when they fail in their remit, which is a lot.
                  I discuss it here to be sure, but I also do invest a lot directly.
                  The cost is only time and hairline, but I do ‘fight’, a lot, through the Complaints to ECU to The Trust.
                  And it is a war of attrition, albeit of concepts and words. But from the wrong words or, worse, skewed editorial, worse…physically, can ensue. I’d prefer it did not get there.
                  And, for my pains, the BBC has tried to get me banned, in course of which it (or at least a division) has crossed a line into a very dark place.
                  For which I am holding them to account. For me, my family and, possibly a greater good.
                  Bullies must not prosper.
                  Speaking of which..
                  I couldn’t quite work out my role in it. Am I the oaf on speed
                  No.
                  I’ll leave the rest for you to figure out and, more crucially, where you feel the nicer environment to be mates with folk might really be.

                     1 likes

          • Wild says:

            ” I choose to test it”

            Zero evidence of that from you so far

            “the observer bias is your own”

            Again, is that the best you can do?

            “”this country is full of people prepared to fight for freedom” – “yes they are called the Armed Forces”

            That response tells me that your re-education is almost complete. You do not even know what a free society means.

               4 likes

            • Wild says:

              “I was rather pricking the pomposity of the suggestion that posting replies on blogs was some sort of glorious struggle for freedom”

              Your not even able to comprehend the threat to a free society that a near monopoly State broadcaster supplies, so you are hardly going to be able to understand the destruction of those liberties. Your arrogance is to assume that everybody is as complacent and ignorant as you are, or as content to give up their liberties. Unless of course you view your abject conformism (claiming that the BBC has no agenda is truly pathetic) as serving the end of justifying the politics and greed of the bloated public sector, because that is how you earn your living.

                 2 likes

              • Nicked emus says:

                If you trule see yourself as some sort of “freedom fighter” then you deserve to have that pomposity pricked. You are a chap who posts things on a blog. You are not Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi.

                “because that is how you earn your living.” I am not in the public sector. I was once — in a manner of speaking — I think our technical status was a Crown Servant.

                   0 likes

              • Whitman says:

                I may not be Nicked Emus, and I just speak on behalf of myself when I say what nonsense that is. We live in a free society, the BBC is not impinging on that, I promise. And as for the public sector, you want proof that the Public Sector is more important? The General Strike, those in the private sector stepped in to fill the vital jobs of those on strike. I’d very much like to know how our hospitals shall run with less nurses, and how less firefighters is going to help, and indeed how less teachers will be a good thing. This is what will happen if the government get their way, because why would anyone like to be a nurse unless there was some reward. I’d like to see you being a nurse and going through the days they have.

                   0 likes

                • Wild says:

                  You are both demonstrating what you claim to be refuting. You both dislike the “Right” and are big supporters of the BBC. I leave it to you to spot the connection.

                     2 likes

                • Nicked emus says:

                  I am not a public sector worker. I do not work for the BBC, nor have I ever been employed by the BBC. They have paid me money in the past to appear on some programs.
                  I was, in the past (a very long time ago) technically a crown servant. I am no longer.
                  I am not a big supporter of the BBC — truth be told I hardly watch TV at all, although I do listen to the Today prog as I drive to my private sector employment.
                  I am aware of the issues of state — or even any — monopoly and they would have to demonstrate a public good argument.
                  Yes, I don’t find much common ground with those on the Right, but more than political labels I don’t like bigotry, racism and homophobia.
                  I think that is about it.

                     2 likes

  16. Guest Who says:

    ‘it doesn’t take long for him to be dismissed as a “troll”’
    Especially when it is confirmed eloquently enough..
    http://biasedbbc.org/2012/05/30/fauxtography/#comment-29337
    ‘Well hopefully. If I’m taking your money off you and pissing you off at the same time I’d be more than happy to do that. ‘
    I am not even sure who or what he is replying to, or if he does. Or cares.
    That rather falls under the definition* of troll I am aware of.
    So, hitching yourself to this particular wagon (there’s a claimed but unconfirmed flounce in progress) seems less brave than ill-timed.
    *You may also like to look up what ad hom means, as your hero, despite being steeped in the subject, rather got that wrong too, before plunging past into what seems a Tourettes-fuelled final Kamikaze dive into the middle of the desert.
    On your attempted generic point about the site, you are quite right in the basic premise, but it seems quaint you think this is some astounding insight you have uncovered.
    What possible point on such a site would there be setting off with the premise ‘This isn’t biased… so… er.. ignore that last waste of typing and carry on with what you were doing’.
    So bias is identified, and set up for debate, which is pretty much how any debate is created, outside the world you appear to inhabit.
    What would be nice is to get back to the few coherent BBCphiles who actually argued cogently back without simply stating ‘No, it isn’t’, ‘I read it somewhere and believe it to be true, but can’t be expected to prove it with URLs’, ‘Proooooveit!!!!’ and, when that fails, starts casting about for an archive error or insult to excuse a flounce, or sets up a cushion for their own fall with the silly excuses you have deployed, again trying to make different individuals into a homogenous whole that suits your own pre-determined, irony-free mindset.
    What I can’t understand is why you feel the need, at least on the terms you set yourself.
    Folk come here voluntarily. A lot of them, if the new stats are any guide.
    Some may be seeking validation. Some may be undecided and are interested in what’s being discussed. A few (evidently) come to take issue. And that, if done well, is great, as it makes it less of an echo chamber.
    If done like Whitman (and all previous incarnations), it is pretty clear it is not done well, with honest intent.
    Sorry if that does not conform to the views you hold, or the views you appear, without any irony, to be demanding of the likes of me to comply with, having located a place I am happy to spend time in, but you having barged into with no better intention than to flail about.
    I’m not convinced by your arguments as you have none to speak of beyond rhetoric and mantra. I’m guessing you won’t be convinced enough to change your stance here by what I written. Stalemate.
    What then can only matter is how those less decided (in this case on the value of BiasedBBC as a means of holding an unaccountable BBC to account on accuracy and impartiality – versus what… simply gurning that they ‘get it about right’ and are above critique in all things, for ever?) feel about your case vs. others put up in counter.
    Sadly for you, when things start to fall off the narrative rails, unlike the BBC you cannot get the Mods in to refer away or House Rule into oblivion or pull the plug.
    Unlike the BBC, it is all there to see, preserved, unevolved, without stealth edits, not behind FoI-excluded barrriers, for ever.
    ps:
    ‘..taken as read. It exists to give a place for a group of people the chance to exchange their views on it.’
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7736311.stm
    Only here it is broadcast only. So no chance even to exchange views upon what’s raised, despite the headline being a question. Almost like Aunty has decided this one. Agree or disagree, I’d be interested in how you approach the BBC on that.

       7 likes

    • Nicked emus says:

      First of all thank you. That was a very reasoned reply. Thank you for taking the time.
      One of the joys of the internet is that it is permission-less; you don’t have to ask someone to set up a site dedicated to whatsoever you want. If, as you say, your figures are going up, then you are filling a need.
      You say “What would be nice is to get back to the few coherent BBCphiles” but would you really? Would you really welcome them? Having seen a few people try to argue here, the responses very quickly degenerate. I see no evidence that this site would welcome that at all. This is not a site that invites debate. This is for the most part, an echo chamber.
      You say I make the mistake of “trying to make different individuals into a homogenous whole” but surely the premise of this site is that the BBC is a homogenous whole and that one speaks for all.
      The BBC holds a particular position in society and must be held to account. I see little evidence that this site is capable of doing that task simply because it is so easy to dismiss. So many of the arguments are specious and are little more than a product of observer-bias and filter bubble. That a story is run on, say Gates of Vienna — a site that wears its bias on its sleeve — is not evidence of bias on the part of the BBC when it choses not to run it.
      That differences exist between media outlets isn’t necessarily due to “bias”; it could be due to any number of reasons.
      Foolish partial tweeting by BBC employees certainly does nothing to help its stated position of impartiality.
      You could quite rightly comeback at me and say “so bloody what?” We don’t want to do be some dry, fact-based site that counts the minutes given to each side in a debate, we simply want to come on here and air our grievances to people who feel much the same way about the BBC (and other topics), how ever subjective that might appear to others — and I would have no answer but to apologise for “flailing around” and to go back to observing.
      I think I read this joke on here so it may not be original, but this site does remind me of the two people sitting in a restaurant complaining about it to each other. “The food they serve here is terrible”, says one. “And such small portions,” replies the other.

      PS You (as in the homogenous whole of this site) are right. The jubilee pageant coverage was awful. “HRH the Queen”?

         1 likes

      • Wild says:

        “This is not a site that invites debate. This is for the most part, an echo chamber.”
        All that amounts to us the claim that the Biased BBC is full of people complaining about the bias of the BBC. Again. Pitiful.
        “The BBC holds a particular position in society and must be held to account. I see little evidence that this site is capable of doing that task”
        Again. You have said nothing. You do not think the BBC is biased and so you think that claims that it is are specious and biased. Is that it? Is that the best you can do?
        “Foolish partial tweeting by BBC employees certainly does nothing to help its stated position of impartiality.”
        But it does tell us about their political views.
        By the way the “Annie Hall” Woody Allen joke is a comment about life – it is bloody awful but we still want as much of it as we can. There is no analogy with the BBC. We want the freedom to decide if we want to pay for that democracy subverting pro-Statist Guardian reader crap, we do not want even more of it. You got it yet?

           4 likes

      • Guest Who says:

        Thank you for taking the time.
        You reply in kind, no waste, no foul. So far, so good.
        ‘If, as you say, your figures are going up, then you are filling a need.
        I don’t think you are doing so with the malicious intent some have attempted, but please avoid the inaccurate inclusivity. ‘My’ figures are not going up and ‘I’ am not filling a need. ‘We’… that is you and I, are but posters on a site whose exchanges add value. Like those on moneysupermarket.com. In further irony to that site’s host gaining great support from the BBC to generate his rewards (I wonder if he will be under a ‘guest’ spotlight on the Breakfast sofa as are some others who made their money without the benefit of such vast, free PR/A&P)?
        ‘You say “What would be nice is to get back to the few coherent BBCphiles” but would you really? Would you really welcome them?
        What more can I say than yes… which is why I wrote it. Are you going to keep asking until you get the answer you like? It’s not an EU Referendum.
        ‘Having seen a few people try to argue here, the responses very quickly degenerate.
        They can do, yes. Cause and effect, often. Having seen a few Graun CiF or BBC blogs (that remain) I’d have to say the same. What you may consider is that they do have moderation so you may not be seeing the true spread of robust input any blog attracts.
        ‘I see no evidence that this site would welcome that at all.
        A personal view. Legitimate if coloured perhaps by predetermination? More oddly, and from personal experience on modded sites as hosted by the BBC, I see things left up that break every house rule in the book on ‘isms, abuse, etc, yet comments obliterated for spurious reasons such as ‘off topic’, etc.
        ‘This is not a site that invites debate. This is for the most part, an echo chamber.’
        Er… yes… it is a site that invites debate. I’ve seen the invitations, from site owners and posters.
        What you seem to be doing is confusing ‘not agreeing with me as a delicate flower who has come here to tell everyone they are wrong’ with ‘not debating’. There is a difference. I don’t hold with abuse, or ad homs, but I can enjoy the odd robust counter if warranted, and it amazes if not surprises how many who come here to pick fights suddenly run to Aunty wailing when they get back better than they feel they should be protected in giving exclusively. I used to respect some posters for decent argument and stout defences, but even after cutting some slack decided enough was enough and gave back as good as I was being served. Dr. Gregory was one, but soon his [sighs] and sarcasm wore thin, especially when he didn’t like it back, suddenly pleading he was joking or the ever-facile…’you ‘ist! faux victim flounce. He used to bombard me with ‘I’m genuinely interested’ questions, which I politely always answered but soon tired of the time investment when he refused to answer most back. The final straw was him accusing me of accusing him of being a media whore when I had clearly accused Diane Abbott of being one. She is, he was wrong, opted to get the wrong end of a very nasty stick and I have never heard from him again once I set him straight (as it were).
        ‘..surely the premise of this site is that the BBC is a homogenous whole and that one speaks for all.’
        This site is a small, barely funded, free blog forum of independent individuals. The BBC is a vast, uniquely-funded corporation of tens of thousands all well aware of their place in the hierarchy, and what is required of them from hiring to promotion. It has a head (albeit one exuding a nasty whiff, even as it gets changed… without any public say… again) and a structure & culture that pervades, in every sense of the word (bar a few noble exceptions) down.
        Why… on earth… are you trying to even attempt to equate the two?
        I opted to engage here. I had no such choice with the BBC. By writing to you now on a broadcast signal enabled PC I am obliged by law, on threat of fine or prison, to pay the BBC no matter what. Irrespective of Charter-busting incompetence or lack of impartiality.
        Is it any wonder I, as do others, come to places to share and discuss such abuses, especially when the BBC, in the form of its utterly rigged ‘complaints system’ (from complaints to ECU to the hilariously ironic ‘Trust’), is designed at every turn to crush, reject or outright persecute to the point of expulsion any who dare question them.
        Tell me, do you think it is right for the BBC to spend licence fee payer’s money on teams scanning the ether to see who is being critical of them in blogs to cross-index with who may be succeeding in holding them to account, in some perverse self-justifying effort at ‘proving’ ‘bad faith’?
        Tell me… does not that seem, to you… just the littlest bit creepy… with poor historical precedent.
        I dare you to challenge the BBC to deny they do this. Not me. Ask them. Here. See what you get back. I simply remind the left hands that the even lefter hands may well have served up a very hot potato if they fail to get their semantic ducks in a row…IF they deign to exit the bunker and reply.
        Because I don’t deal in ‘feelings’ or ‘thinks’ or ‘beliefs’ or ‘levels of comfort’. I deal in cold, hard, facts, supported by cuts, pastes and (now the BBC is in the habit of retroactive stealth edits and bare-faced lying), page grabs and A/V captures.
        I have an appeal sitting with the Trust that will doubtless get delayed in response in hope that I will forget. I won’t. Or that they set me a deadline that they always break. Or they use terms such as ‘bad faith’ and add up strikes based on their own internal, secret tallies, based on ‘having looked and decided there is no case’. Where one person’s unacceptable comment is a BBC market rate’s ‘little quirk that doesn’t count’ or ‘simply being lighthearted’ when it suits vs. being grounds for firing when they are so minded to be… utter hypocrites.
        ‘The BBC holds a particular position in society and must be held to account.’
        Yes. But if not BBBC, then by whom? Please state who is currently, and who should could? Objectively. Helen Boaden keeps saying this exact same thing… yet all her “The Editors” blog outings garner not one reply from her before early closing, and she brags (in are position as Head of Complaints) that she has an email to nowhere in case the gatekeepers fail and anything reaches her level. And you talk of bubble echo-chambers on BBBC?
        ‘I see little evidence that this site is capable of doing that task simply because it is so easy to dismiss.
        Evidence is weighed by juries. You appear, here, to be a jury of one. Vs. the site stats in counter. Are you going to suggest these are not correct? Would you demand a verification that you would not hold the BBC to, knowing they will pull the FoI exclusion out of the hat and make themselves, and you, simply look more foolish in comparison?
        ‘So many of the arguments are specious and are little more than a product of observer-bias and filter bubble.
        So…what? Many may well be (if depending on how prone the observer is to their own observer-bias filters – guessing you feel you don’t have any?), but many are not. You seem again to be applying a broad brush taint across this entire site you appear comfortable with forgiving a £4Bpa broadcast monopoly on.
        Why the difference in standard? It rather takes the ‘unique’ catch-all to a whole new level.
        ‘That a story is run on, say Gates of Vienna — a site that wears its bias on its sleeve — is not evidence of bias on the part of the BBC when it choses not to run it.’
        Sorry, but I have no clue what equivalence you are attempting here.
        ‘That differences exist between media outlets isn’t necessarily due to “bias”; it could be due to any number of reasons.
        Yes, they could. But for the love of Mike, surely you could concede that tribal agenda could also be a factor too? From my first visit, I have always felt this site could have been better branded. Not because BBC bias is not clear, present and a danger, but because it is by definition almost impossible to ‘prove’. Much easier to deal in facts and supported-sourcing (hence the collective panic at The Trust currently) of out and out bad work and/or unprofessional behaviour. So…
        ‘Foolish partial tweeting by BBC employees certainly does nothing to help its stated position of impartiality.’
        Thank you. Tell me, as an evident supporter of the BBC, have you written to the powers that be to ask them what the heck they are doing indulging in this, especially as it serves to weaken any case you may seek to make? If yes, what is the reply? If no… why not?
        ‘You could quite rightly come back at me..
        I could, but I haven’t. You appear to be trying to assist my response. Maybe best to let me say what I want and we’ll work around that., eh?
        ‘I think I read this joke…
        Humour is always good. Not everyone can carry it off.
        If you wish to engage on the basis you have here, I am up for it. You may be pleasantly surprised how many others are too. I am not responsible for any who may cross boundaries; those you set or more extreme.
        But… try and tell me what I am thinking, or how to think, or it’s not the right way to think… especially with evasion and distractions and multiple standards… and I will say so before seeking more stimulating fare.
        Deal?

           2 likes

        • Guest Who says:

          ps: Given the latest tirades (I thought he was off… if evidently like a 70’s rock dinosaur’s final concert, then. Too many incarnations in too few days and it’s out for me), and the mostly reasoned responses still being attempted, may I ask you Nicked Emus, if you still feel empathetic and represented by your multi-lingual, potty-prone colleague?
          Remember some judge others by the company they keep, however unfair that may be.
          Often… too often… the BBC, and when unfair or irrelevant.
          I’m sure some can oblige from previous threads if you need examples. Would you like that?
          You have a choice. Stand with your avowed principles in debate, or stand with tribal loyalty in the face of all reason being obliterated in a vortex of rage and hate.
          Which is it to be?

             2 likes

          • Nicked emus says:

            I have no colleague on this site – i have only posted a few replies.
            Again I am impressed by the passion and length of your reply. Alas not all of us are on a holiday today so I can’t reply with the length it deserves. So I will pick a few points (and thereby leave my self open to accusations of dodging the issue — so be it).
            I don’t confuse “not agreeing with me” with “not debating”. I do not expect agreement, but debate, to be effective, has to be based on respect for the other person’s viewpoint.
            Now I can only deal in generalities and impressions here as I don’t have time to go through and cite chapter and verse but I have seen quite a few attempts at debate here where someone tries to counter the prevailing Weltanschauung to be met with a torrent of abuse. Not by everyone, but certainly by many. Not surprisingly most give up — would you stay in a place where people abuse you?
            You reject that this site (of what, 40+ regular contributors) has a voice or an overall approach, and yet suggest that the BBC, an organisation of many thousands has somehow a single view of the world, and that every employee speaks for the entire organisation, yet each contributor on here cannot be taken as having some part of the collective identity. That seems a dual standard.
            Yes my observer bias is as great as everyone else’s, however I would (with some modesty) suggest that I am at least aware of my own. There are contributors to this site who, on the evidence of their posts, seem unaware of their own prejudices.

            I completely agree with you that it is better “to deal in facts and supported-sourcing”. Were this site to do more of that (and when it does do it it can be very effective) then it could be a very credible counter. I agree that the BBC needs to have a counterweight, it needs to be held to account.

            And I am sorry about the stupid name — it was my iPad doing an autocorrect (which is itself a very odd autocorrect) and I didn’t notice until I had submitted it. I seem to be stuck with it.

               1 likes

            • Roland Deschain says:

              Likewise am not on holiday so any reply must be brief. In my (admittedly rather skimmed) reading of your post, this stood out:

              You reject that this site (of what, 40+ regular contributors) has a voice or an overall approach, and yet suggest that the BBC, an organisation of many thousands has somehow a single view of the world, and that every employee speaks for the entire organisation, yet each contributor on here cannot be taken as having some part of the collective identity. That seems a dual standard.

              My initial reaction is that the difference here is, I think, one of status. As an employee, you know what side your bread is buttered on. You go to the training course, you learn what your employer wants and expects – whether said or unsaid – and if you want your career to go anywhere you toe the line. And you are exposed to this much of your working day. That is going to give you much more of a single view of the world than people who drop into this site for relatively short periods but whose career does not depend on it. The only thing most contributors here have in common is that we perceive bias in the BBC’s output.

                 3 likes

              • David Preiser (USA) says:

                There’s plenty disagreement among people here on a whole host of issues. At the BBC, on the other hand, certain issues are covered from the same perspective across the spectrum of broadcasting.

                I’d bet you’ll find far more consensus at the BBC on a variety of hot-button issues than you will here.

                   3 likes

            • Guest Who says:

              ‘I have no colleague on this site – i have only posted a few replies.

              Well, I do believe our first encounter was as a result of your leaping into a dogfight… and not to pull them apart but assist one. And frankly, not the rabid one. But OK, I guess I don’t get answers to those questions.
              ‘Alas not all of us are on a holiday today so I can’t reply with the length it deserves.
              Glad to impress, though as one grabbing a quick break between coats I am equally constrained in time. But am well impressed that if you are at work you do have enough to commit here, and that your employer allows the office PC to be so used. Few are that sanguine where cookies, etc are concerned.
              ‘(…leave my self open to accusations of dodging the issue — so be it).
              Well, they do say recognition of a problem can be a path to addressing it. Baby steps.
              ‘I don’t confuse “not agreeing with me” with “not debating”.’
              That’s pretty much what I took from what you wrote, in various rehashed forms, so it would appear more a matter of communication than comprehension. Good. All to play for still.
              ‘I do not expect agreement, but debate, to be effective, has to be based on respect for the other person’s viewpoint.”
              Not sure I can fully agree there. I can of course respect that they have one, and are entitled to it, and even respect them for how they articulate it. But mandated respect FOR the viewpoint? That is a step too far for me.
              And you, possibly, if in an alley with a group of thugs whose viewpoint is that they want your wallet and you in a heap on the ground.
              ‘Now I can only deal in generalities and impressions here as I don’t have time to go through and cite chapter and verse …’
              Hmn… well maybe it’s best to wait for that point then? Otherwise one again gets into taking what ‘sources ay’ and projecting way beyond what actually is.
              ‘…where someone tries to counter the prevailing Weltanschauung to be met with a torrent of abuse. Not by everyone, but certainly by many.
              Forgive me, but after the the various forays into European patois by your ‘not my colleague’ whose defence you leapt to, I’d prefer English if one is debating comparisons.
              ‘Not surprisingly most give up — would you stay in a place where people abuse you?’
              What… like Graun CiF? Allll the time. Well if not modded out for community stardards reasons (code for.. showing the house bullies up, who oddly can screech obscenities all day long. Even more oddly, BBC mods will leave up less than well concealed threats from those serving the hive purpose ).
              ‘You reject that this site (of what, 40+ regular contributors)…
              No idea how many. Haven’t counted. Good job I am not minded to treat such stat-gathering as your erstwhile coll.. travelling partner (noting a reluctance to admit any connection, whilst still staying loyal..ish in the face of Livingstonesque implosion), who was less pleasant in his retort.
              ‘…has a voice or an overall approach, and yet suggest that the BBC, an organisation of many thousands has somehow a single view of the world, and that every employee speaks for the entire organisation, yet each contributor on here cannot be taken as having some part of the collective identity.
              I reject in the terms you are trying to lay out, for obvious reasons. Read my earlier post again. Employees: Free visitors. Free: Paid. Compelled: Optional…etc.
              As a stakeholder I hold the BBC to a standard it claims for itself and fails near hourly to get near. This site is but one I visit to share my disappointment and concerns upon, mainly to garner information and support as I deal with the risible CECUTT.
              I do also note that you have dodged this simple challenge too (and saying you are going to do so at the outset my be cutely disarming to some, but I find it wearily inevitable as evasion. Why won’t you ask the BBC to answer the question I posed?).
              ‘That seems a dual standard.’
              To you, maybe. And even less worthy of much more attention if even to you it warrants a ‘seems’. Moving on..
              ‘Yes my observer bias is as great as everyone else’s, however I would (with some modesty) suggest that I am at least aware of my own.’
              You be as modest as you feel necessary. I don’t know you and only have what you have written thus far to go on. I’m still talking which means you are still worth taking with. Doesn’t mean I agree with what you claim.
              ‘There are contributors to this site who, on the evidence of their posts, seem unaware of their own prejudices.’
              Undoubtedly. So? It’s a free, open and unmodded blog. Until the government and the BBC have all plugged into the Matrix there may well be as many extremes as there are varieties. What do you expect me, or the site owner to do about them? I don’t go running to the Graun CiF mods whingeing Smithers Minor is being beastly so all the 5th form should be put in detention; I give as good as I get, only without the bad language. And if I score I usually get modded out as the other side does go running. Such ‘give it but can’t take it’ seems a trait in some quarters. Put up or shut up is probably the best advice here. And if the kitchen temperature is not to taste… then it’s probably best not to walk in voluntarily, especially in a fur coat and high heels, spoiling for a dust up, and expect not to trip up, get the mascara smudged and find it all gets a bit sweaty. By the evidence of my eyes, a calm counter, using facts and even well-argued subjectivity, gets near universal courtesy and respect. Barreling in with the usual tired mantras, flip comments and sniping… less so. Reap ‘n sow.
              If any who you would call ‘home team’ do err in excess, it is my experience they have been hauled up by others.
              Guessing you have a book full ready to counter. Don’t bother. Don’t care.
              ‘I completely agree with you that it is better “to deal in facts and supported-sourcing”.
              Good.
              ‘ Were this site to do more of that (and when it does do it it can be very effective) then it could be a very credible counter.
              Does pretty well (a few slip-ups); which is why I hang around. But it is… to repeat… a free, unfunded blog/forum. May I suggest you get your head out of whatever rarified cloud of equivalence that makes you believe one mistake hereabouts by a ‘person’ is the same as whatever excusable multiplier your actuaries have told you ‘is just about right’ for the BBC to get away with.
              ‘I agree that the BBC needs to have a counterweight, it needs to be held to account.’
              To repeat again… who then? If not already, where?
              ‘And I am sorry about the stupid name — it was my iPad doing an autocorrect (which is itself a very odd autocorrect) and I didn’t notice until I had submitted it. I seem to be stuck with it.
              No worries. Mine got imposed by a system glitch years ago and as it has become what my posts are known under I have stuck with it (unlike some) for continuity.
              It’s the power of the argument that matters… not the person or their name or anything else.
              But I think you already know that.

                 2 likes

    • Whitman says:

      Ad hominem is attacking the arguer, is it not, and I think if you follow it back you’ll find that often enough from your ‘side’. You aren’t all perfect in your ability to argue, you know. And I believe if you’re going to take comments out of context like that you’re a fool. Look back and find why I said it.

      And thank you, you’ve given me the opportunity to piss quite a few people off.

         0 likes

      • Jeff Waters says:

        Whitman – ‘Ad hominem is attacking the arguer, is it not’ – Indeed. And calling someone a w*nker is a case in point…

        BTW, just a tip for you – When you start going to pubs when you’re a bit older, you might want to avoid that kind of tactic, as it’s liable to get you beaten up… 🙂

        Jeff

           1 likes

        • Whitman says:

          Well you say it’s ad hominem but I’m not using it as reasoning, not to discredit the arguer, he just really pissed me off with his idiotic snobbery.

             0 likes

          • Jeff Waters says:

            Calling someone a w*nker is poor form, even if they have annoyed you.

            Just take a deep breath and walk away. You’ll feel better than if you get embroiled in a petty schoolyard squabble.

            Jeff

               0 likes

            • Whitman says:

              What would you prefer? I’ve just read a post calling the BBC employees shits or something to that effect? Is that acceptable conduct? I just can’t call other people who are actually here wankers, to their faces, no it’s much more acceptable to come on here and do it like a child, behind their backs so they don’t know about it, that’s really mature. I’m not saying what I said was right, I just take acception to that attitude. That’s one of Wild’s, by the way.

                 0 likes

              • Jeff Waters says:

                You can’t control what other people do, so you shouldn’t worry about it. Focus on your own game. 🙂

                Jeff

                   0 likes

                • Wild says:

                  “A bloated elite of greedy sanctimonious freedom hating nihilist shits” is the exact quote I think.

                     6 likes

  17. johnnythefish says:

    Whitman, your post above on global warming: ‘Prove to me it’s a not a fact of our time then. It must be pretty tricky, unless you want to quote Jeremy Clarkson, like I said’.
    To me, if somebody comes up with a scientific hypothesis, it is up to them to find the evidence to prove it. So you show us how the gradual warming seen since the Little Ice Age is caused by the tiny proportion of CO2 that itself makes up a tiny fraction of the earth’s atmosphere, that is man-made. And whilst you’re at it, explain also why the catastrophic warming predicted by the environmentalists’ – sorry – scientists’, models, have proved woefully incorrect. Oh, and where is the ambiguity in ‘hide the decline’? And explain why Trenberth found it a ‘travesty’ that he and his fellow ‘scientists’ couldn’t account for the lack of warming for the preceding 10 years (though they have all been falling out with each other ever since over possible explanations – none of which are ‘perhaps we got it wrong’)?
    But then, you know, and we all know, it’s just a front for a whole raft of Left Liberal ideologies, driven by a toxic mix of environmentalists, anarchists, megalomaniacs , scientific activists, and politicians (all pretty well interchangeable) and driven forward by Robert Mugabe’s favourite travel sponsor, the UN. You know, people you call your friends.
    And please stop the childish taunting with Clarkson – whilst he’s not a scientist, his opinion is just as valid as yours. And in case you don’t know of any sceptical scientists (but I really, really think you do) I’ll be more than pleased to supply you with more than a few links.

       2 likes

    • Redwhiteandblue says:

      You’re perfectly entitled to believe this, of course. But climate sceptics also have to appreciate that among scientists, these views are held by a tiny minority – a few per cent at best. It’s a fringe view. When scientific opinion is so overwhelmingly in consensus, expecting equal airtime for an alternative view is naive. Incidentally, science works by disproving hypotheses, not by proving them.

         0 likes

      • Richard Pinder says:

        That is the view of morons with Art, Drama, Politics, Genetics and Environmental qualifications at the BBC, not people with Mathematics, Physics, Astronomy in Mensa. The BBC won’t give us or anyone at I know at Oxford with qualifications in Atmospheric Physics a say on the telly. The BBC thinks it is impartial, but it needs to appoint a goon from the Labour Party as the next Director General because only morons in the Labour party think the BBC is impartial.

           5 likes

      • johnnythefish says:

        ‘You’re perfectly entitled to believe this, of course…’ I simply take on board both sides of the argument and look at the facts, which show no warming for over 12 years despite the catastrophic predictions of the warmists’ models.
        ‘these views are held by a tiny minority – a few per cent at best’ – who says? The IPCC and its supporters do, ad nauseam, without proof – a very tired argument trotted out when the warmists are confronted by inconvenient truths. This reluctance to engage in any debate – which incidentally you have done by refusing to answer my points – is what the majority of the public see through – that and the dirty tricks exposed by Climategate and the rising energy bills they suffer driven by huge subsidies for ‘renewables’ (a con of a misnomer, if ever there was one).
        ‘When scientific opinion is so overwhelmingly in consensus…’ Who says? See IPCC argument above. Anyway, science by majority opinion? Doesn’t sound much like science to me. I reckon it only takes one good scientis to disprove a theory. Do you?
        Perhaps you’re familiar with The Royal Society’s motto ‘Nullius in verba’, which roughly translates as ‘take nobody’s word for it’. Except it doesn’t seem to apply to man-made global warming, according to president Paul Nurse. I find that quite disturbing, don’t you? Especially for a science which is so complex and so little understood.
        I note you haven’t used the mantra about the IPCC comprising ‘the world’s top scientists’. Perhaps word about Donna Laframboise’s expose is getting around and your lot are getting a bit panicky. Have you read it? Really think you should – but a warning: it’s really, really inconvenient for you warmists.
        So, for a bit of balance, and to get some sceptical views, immerse yourself in this and please note, not a sign of Jeremy Clarkson anywhere – but plenty of ‘top scientists’.

        http://thegwpf.org/who-we-are/academic-advisory-council.html

           3 likes

        • Nicked emus says:

          Isn’t most science majority opinion until it is disproved? Science is not axiomatic.

          Interesting panel – but many of them seem to be rather outside their field:
          Six economists (McKitrick, Henderson, Mendelsohn, Peacock, Prins, Tol); three journalists (Berry, Brittan, Ridley); a metallurgist (Kelly); an electrical engineer (Rudge); a medical biochemist (Kealey); a Medical Entomology (Reiter); a Transport expert (Gerondeau); a theoretical physicist (Dyson) and an optical physicist (Happer).
          Now I am sure they are all great experts in their own fields, but I am not sure what insights, for example, metallurgy gives us on climate change?
          In the interests of completeness it is possible that Messrs Courtillot (geophysicist), Plimer, Radhakrishna (Geology) and Stott (Biogeography) may have some/ a lot of relevant experience and knowledge.
          So that just leaves the Meteorologist Lindzen as the only person on that panel who uncontroversially an expert.

             0 likes

          • johnnythefish says:

            Er, spend a little time on the website and read up. Lots of links, lots of scientific papers, lots of scientists – of many different disciplines (this is common to both sides of the debate).
            Yes, Lindzen is Professor of Climatology at MIT. So he’s not Clarkson, is he? Even you would find it difficult tro spin that one.
            Oh, just noticed – still not addressed any of my points. So the reason ‘hide the decline’ is ambiguous is……

               0 likes

            • Nicked emus says:

              So the reason ‘hide the decline’ is ambiguous is……
              Absolutely no idea.
              I think that Climate Science is one of these topics which is beyond most people — and you have to rely on what others say about it. I am certainly not qualified — but I look at the debate and I look at those lined up on either side of the argument, and I look at the history of the debate and where the counter-arguments come from. On that basis I have to say I find the arguments in favor of AGW are more compelling than those against it.

              find it difficult tro spin that one. Nor did I try to. But equally well let me ask you, what does a transport expert, an entomologist and an electrical engineer have to contribute? Would you like to spin them?

                 0 likes

              • johnnythefish says:

                Apologies for the italicised quotes from my post, meant for someone else (who stubbornly refuses to engage in debate).
                I too believed the scientists and the AGW theory in the early days, even though it followed a volte-face on their previous proposition that increased CO2 would actually lead us into another ice age.
                Then I started to be a bit concerned about how these so-called scientists were behaving, culminating, I suppose in Climategate: the erasure of the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age to produce the ‘hockey stick’ graph, the cornerstone of Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’; ‘hide the decline’; the ‘travesty’ that temperatures had not risen for a decade; withholding of data, despite FOI requests; erasure of key data; tweaking of historical temperature records to fit the narrative; discrediting of sceptical colleagues; control of scientific publications so sceptical research papers could be excluded, and so on.
                Then came the revelation that chunks of the IPCC report were verbatim extratcs from environmentalists pamphlets. Then the Himalayan glacier scandal. And now Donna Laframboises excellent expose on the compostion of IPCC – the dominant role of environmentalists and rookie scientists. please read it, or at least go to her website if you really are as open-minded as you claim.
                I suppose only time will tell who is right and who is wrong, but at the moment it isn’t looking good for the proponents of catastrophic warming (predicated, I should add, on the positive feedback mechanism – one hell of an assumption when you read up about it). Temperatures have shown no discernible rise for 12 years, despite increased CO2 levels. Like the guy said, ‘it’s a travesty’.

                   1 likes

    • Whitman says:

      I know of none, as it happens, so please do. If there’s more than a few, it still seems to be incredible against the massive pro-climate change opinion. And who exactly gains from this? Nothing’s being done about it, so it’s not like there’s much money in it. Tell me why it’s biased.

         0 likes

      • johnnythefish says:

        ‘And who exactly gains from this’ – please re-read my post regarding the UN-driven world leftist agenda. Add to that: governments (of all persuasions) who can tax the hell out of us (and are doing, to some fine tune); scientists who won’t get funded now unless they can demonstrate their pro-AGW credentials (see Climategate); scientists who use it as a smokescreen for their failure to find a viable alternative to fossil fuels; anyone with ‘environmental’ in their job title (especially journos); anyone with ‘climate change’ in their job title; Al Gore and likeminded charlatans who have cashed in personally to the tune of tens of millions. I’m sure I’d think of more given time, but that should do to be going on with.
        ‘Nothing’s being done about it…’ Well, old Mother Earth certainly isn’t doing her bit as despite an 11% rise in CO2 levels over the last 12 years temperatures haven’t budged. As my old grandad used to say, ‘It’s a bugger, it really is’.
        And, like your alter ego, you are not engaging in the debate, just trotting out tired old mantras.

           5 likes

        • Whitman says:

          Scientists shouldn’t need to find an alternative to fossil fuels if there is no such thing as global warming, surely?
          UN-driven world leftist agenda? Do you know how insane that sounds? You do see some bullshit around, but really, you’ve excelled yourself with that one.

             1 likes

          • Reed says:

            …except that fossil fuels are a finite resource, so there will indeed come a time when a replacement source of energy is needed, regardless of climate change. They will probably be around as a source of energy for a lot longer than eco-campaigners would like, as new technologies are created to exploit newly discovered deposits.

               2 likes

            • Whitman says:

              Ah so it’s pick and choose science here, I thought so. This is pretty old fashioned and out of touch, even for this. Maybe something could be done if this opinion wasn’t so widespread. Having studied this in science, it seems pretty clear that it’s a fact, and that’s in those piss-easy GCSEs.

                 0 likes

              • Reed says:

                You reply to my post, but seem to be replying to something completely different. What are you on about?

                   1 likes

              • johnnythefish says:

                I really think you’ve lost the plot now. A bit of overheating, perhaps?
                Anyway, as you’ve managed thus far to avoid answering a single point of mine regarding your pro-AGW stance, or to support your rhetoric with any kind of evidence or reasoned argument, I doubt you are going to start now.
                Like you said in a previous post, you are only on here to piss people off anyway.
                Well, sorry mate – you’ve failed there too.
                Next!

                   1 likes

          • Baron says:

            Whitman, sir, listen, compounds other then CO2 comprise 99.96% of the atmosphere, the hike in the gas density in the last two hundred years was just a mere 0.02%, and this is supposed to kill us when farmers pump CO2 to boost plant growth in green houses, arghhh.

            Also, if we all dropped dead, the seven billion of us, if we stopped cooking, bashing steel, driving and stuff, the CO2 discharge into the atmosphere would drop just 4%, FOUR per cent, the rest is down to nature, you reckon then we should all commit suicide to reduce the release of CO2 by that amount? You what, a masochist?

               2 likes

            • Whitman says:

              Again, didn’t realise we had fully qualified experts on here. So that’s Islam and the environment so far. Why should I need to provide evidence for a scientific fact? I’m glad this is the last bastion of idiocy.

                 0 likes

          • johnnythefish says:

            ‘Scientists shouldn’t need to find an alternative to fossil fuels if there is no such thing as global warming, surely’.

            Complete non-sequitur.

               1 likes

  18. Richard Pinder says:

    Looking at the papers for debate within the Space Special interest group of Mensa.

    The scientists that provide the key elements for using the CO2 Atmosphere of Mars as a proxy to establish that AGW is irrelevant to changing climate on the Earth where Ferenc Miskolczi, Ned Nikolov, Karl Zeller and Gerhard Gerlich.

    The scientists that provide the key elements for the simple jigsaw that makes up the real cause of Climate Change are Henrik Svensmark, Jasper Kirkby, Nir Shaviv, David Archibald and Nicola Scafetta.

       0 likes

  19. scrappydoo says:

    So “whitman” let me guesse , do you work for the BBC , the Guardian, are you a teacher, or some other public sector money sponge ? Because of people like you, I am quite happy to do without BBC propaganda and forgoe a TV. But unfortunately because of Jackboot lefties , I will still have to fend of the TV licensing police.

       1 likes