I received this very well written and detailed example of BBC BIAS and wanted to share!

“I have done some research on today’s items on the BBC website concerning Iran and Syria, with results that you may find of interest. To cut to the final conclusion, the BBC is hiding from its readers essential information on the Iranian involvement in Syria on the side of the murderous Assad regime, reported amply by other MSM. This allows them to present the deal between the western powers and Iran as an unblemished positive development, rejected only by Israel. Iran is consequently whitewashed, Israel vilified as usual, and the persecuted Syrian people sacrificed to this simplified and distorted narrative.

Although I am Israeli and naturally worried about the rehabilitation of Iran, it seems to me that the true Czechoslovakia of this ‘peace in our time’ approach is in fact Syria, with BBC approval. I wonder if they even realize where their blinkered view of the Middle East has led them.

Here are the details: One BBC report on Syria fails to mention Iran at all.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-2512595 Another, discussing the proposed peace talks for Syria, mentions towards the end that the Syrian opposition powers object to the participation of Iran. Nothing is said as to why Iran is at all relevant in this context

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24628442 Contrast this with the reports on Syria from other MSM, which do refer to Iran’s role, and of which I link two of many: France 24:

http://www.france24.com/en/20131127-syrias-assad-hails-iran-resilience-nuclear-deal

Bloomberg: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-27/iran-dips-into-nukes-bank-to-back-syria.html

To which may be added a leading blog, and a left-wing one at that, the Huffington Post:http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/robin-lustig/iran-nuclear-deal_b_4332506.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

As noted, the deal with Iran is treated by the BBC as an unrelated subject, opposed only by Israel. Even the opposition of Saudi Arabia goes unreported: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-25133824“

It’s interesting how the BBC itself is actually seeking to be the Opposition to the Coalition..

The government has denied BBC reports it is seeking a commitment from energy firms to hold their prices down until 2015.

The companies told BBC News ministers had asked them to keep bills on hold so long as there is no significant move in global wholesale energy prices.

Government sources deny this, and say they are focusing instead on boosting competition and reducing green levies to cut annual bills by about £50.

The BBC has decided that Miliband’s stunningly cynical and undeliverable policy to “freeze” energy prices for 18months is beyond serious critique as you would have concluded had you heard the easy trot afforded Caroline Flint on Today this morning.

Ok folks, this is the one to see us all off into the wide blue yonder of the weekend. Detail  the bias here!

An all attack on the energy companies is in progress….the BBC, rather than standing back from the fray and giving us impartial news and information, is more than happy to land a few punches of its own.

We had ‘green’ companies complaining about their state subsidised profiteering being taken away from them…and linking it to yesterday’s scare stories about winter deaths….much exaggerated as shown in a previous post.

The company spokesman telling us that 50% of deaths were due to high fuel bills.

The BBC didn’t challenge that.

The BBC itself was questioning the profits made by the energy companies…and then this interview with Tim Yeo, the reinstated chairman of the Energy and Climate Change Committee.

Once again it ‘tackled’ the subject of Cameron cutting the ‘green crap’…with Yeo demanding no cuts be made…or else the poor will suffer.

As the not so very poor Yeo has many vested interests in green companies every time he or his committee promotes global warming or programmes to deal with it there is the potential that it puts money in Yeo’s pocket.

Conflict of interest?  I can imagine any member of the Public would say so.

Yeo also states that there are no costs put onto the national grid system due to renewable energy infrastructure development….that’s just wrong….there are massive costs associated with connecting up wind farms to the Grid.

The interview seemed scripted…designed just to tick off and tidy up ‘myths and misconceptions’ about green politics and those involved in it….the final segment just confirmed suspicions.

Winifred Robinson asked Yeo about those apparent conflicts of interest…this is a subject that the BBC has avoided for a long time…and it is a separate question to that which was being asked by the Standards Committee in reference to the Sunday Times report.

Yeo claimed that if you read the report  , and he invites you to read it from cover to cover, you will find it cleared him of all charges…‘you will find I have behaved properly in every possible respect’.

Yeo’s reply was highly misleading….because the Committee didn’t examine the potential conflict of interest generally, just in regard to a specific case, and in fact they suggested that they will investigate further such possibilities….and Robinson didn’t challenge his reply ending the interview there.

Yeo was allowed to slip out of that one almost as if it was designed that way.

Here are some extracts from the report to help you decide if the Committee cleared Yeo of having a conflict of interest as he claimed, by being chairman of a climate change committee advising government policy whilst also have large financial stakes in green companies…..

 The committee concluded that Yeo had not breached the rules of the House, stating that “Mr Yeo made no improper commitments, despite the tone of the Sunday Times articles, and the energetic attempts of the journalists concerned to draw him into doing so”.

However, the committee confirmed it was now ready to move forward with a consideration of concerns raised by Speaker John Bercow that there might be “an inherent incompatibility between chairing a Select Committee and having commercial interests, even though fully transparently registered, in the sector covered by that committee”.

The Parliamentary Commissioner who investigated the allegations against Yeo said: “I have not found Mr Yeo to be in breach of the rules of the House but nevertheless have concerns about the external perception of the relationship between a Member’s outside employment and interests and his work for the House,” she wrote.

This is from the report itself:

His comment that he told the director what to say in his evidence and linked to this is his comment that “What I do in private is another matter”. Taken together and at face value they could give the impression of a senior member of the House who has little regard for the rules and can easily find his way round them in order to suit his own purposes. This of course is the perception which is conveyed by the Sunday Times and strongly denied by Mr Yeo.

While the House takes a very reasonable position that a Member’s knowledge and interests may well enhance his or her ability to contribute to the work of the House and in particular to some of the specialist committees, there is equally a reasonable concern that that Member is then placed in a privileged position which he or she may be able to exploit for their own interests with few checks and balances to control this.

...A privileged position…to exploit for their own interests….????

Guess Yeo will be in the news again…maybe not the BBC news, but perhaps Sky will pick it up when the time comes.

Victoria Derbyshire has a love-in with the IPCC. (10:40)

Derbyshire looks at the Kyoto Agreement….she is in full support of it and is shocked that it is being disregarded…‘it’s hugely disappointing’….because of course climate change is the world’s greatest current threat to global security with famine, floods, disease, extreme weather and mass migration.

Naturally she links Typhoon Haiyan to climate change.

Note what the IPCC’s vice chair, Mr. Jean-Pascal van Ypersele,  says…to meet Kyoto targets would mean zero emissions of CO2 by the end of the century.

We are told that the climate has been stable for the last 10,000 years…no it hasn’t…it’s been warming consistently as it emerges from the last ice age…with numerous cold snaps and warm periods just as warm as today’s world.

No questioning the ‘science’…far from it, just all out belief from Derbyshire.

Of the IPCC’s ambitions to get agreement…Derbyshire ends the interview with this…

‘Good luck!’

Yesterday saw the SNP unveil its vision for an Independent Scotland. Now, leaving aside whether one sees this as an act of sublime delusionalism, the question I have for you is how did you think the BBC covered it? I listened to Jim Naughtie wax elegant on the document itself, apparently the sheer number of pages made him think the tome was weighty. In my view, the BBC coverage was pretty much pro SNP, although it is interesting to see that the SNP would remove the BBC from Scotland in the event of them gaining Independence. Sadly of course Salmond would replace with an even more fervently Statist broadcaster! Thoughts on their coverage then?

Here you go, a new Ope thread to keep detailing the bias! Off you go and share what is bothering you.

The BBC tells us that:

The energy regulator Ofgem has launched a scathing attack on the record and profits of the big gas and electricity suppliers.

Sky has a much better report….and mentions something the BBC misses out…curiously:

He also warned that Labour’s proposed energy price freeze “puts at risk the proper functioning of the industry”

Why does the BBC not mention such an important statement about the leading policy of Her Majesty’s Opposition?

Carrying on from the last post about excess winter deaths, Victoria Derbyshire had a guest on her show to talk about just that (11:07)

She introduced him as Professor John Ashton, President of the Faculty of Public Health…‘the Association for the country’s most senior health officers‘ she tells us.

So the FPH is a government body yes?

No.

Though you may have thought so from her introduction….An assumption that might mean you listen less critically to what Ashton said…though when you hear it,  perhaps not.

Ashton’s statements were clearly highly political….he said ‘we don’t seem to care enough about our elderly folk to look after them…to make sure they have enough money in their pensions and to pay their energy bills’.

Derbyshire asks….’Are you saying they are dying because they don’t have enough money and we don’t look after the?’

Ashton replies...’Exactly right…..I hope the government will do something with the energy companies and their approach to poor people’

All very worthy you might think…until you realise the FPH is not a government body but a campaigning charity…..which Derbyshire only mentions in the last three words of the interview….’the Faculty of Public Health…which is a charity’…presumably a listener has contacted the BBC and complained.

What she doesn’t mention is that Ashton is a ‘stalwart member of the Labour Party’ and that the BBC has been castigated for not mentioning this before, though Ashton, who has the Labour Party in his DNA, thinks he is above bias:

 “The fact that I am a member of the Labour Party has never interfered with my professional objectivity. For me, being a member of the Labour Party is like being Church of England, or black or gay. It is where my values come from. It is the fundamental right of citizenship to belong to a political party.”

A Conservative Party spokesman said: “The BBC has a responsibility to report news objectively. They should always inform their viewers if the person they are interviewing has political motives, and it is absolutely appropriate for us to request that they do so.”

Any chance that Ashton is just by chance travelling down the same road as Ed Miliband and his attack on the energy companies?

Nice of the BBC to give him such a platform to continue the politics by stealth.

What also isn’t mentioned is that today sees the launch of a campaign on this very subject by a whole raft of groups:
 

“George Osborne has an opportunity when he gives his Autumn Statement in two weeks’ time to solve this problem once and for all, by increasing funding for energy efficiency,” said Mr Matthew [Ed Matthew, director of the Energy Bill Revolution]  “If he cuts the energy efficiency budget he will be condemning people to death.”

Next Tuesday fuel poverty campaigners will be marching on the offices of the UK’s big energy suppliers. A range of anti-austerity groups including Fuel Poverty Action, UK Uncut, Disabled People Against Cuts and the Greater London Pensioners Association will target Npower in the City of London.

Further protests are to take place at British Gas’s new HQ in Oxford, and at Lewes and Bristol. The campaigners will march under the banner “Bring down the Big Six – Fuel Poverty Kills!”

On Tuesday morning they will deliver a coffin filled with energy bills and a “peoples’ invoice” to German-owned Npower to recover energy as a public good. In addition, a speak-out will be held where those hardest hit by fuel poverty will tell of their experiences.

An estimated 31,100 excess winter deaths occurred in 2012-13 – a 29% increase on the previous winter.

What the BBC doesn’t say is that summer deaths also rose compared to the previous year….by 25%.

So that actual ‘excess winter death rate’ is  only 4% above what might be the expected rate in comparison to the summer rate.

Not such a headline grabbing, politically powerful message for all those with vested interests.

Things are never as simple as the BBC presents them.

Which country in Europe has the highest excess winter death rate?

Answer….Portugal…followed by Spain.

Here is a report from the Office of National Statistics

Death rates plunge despite coldest winter in 14 years

Date:23 November 2010

There was a dramatic drop in excess winter deaths in the severe winter of 2009/10, the coldest in 14 years, compared to the milder winter of 2008/09, according to a new report out from the Office for National Statistics. The winter brought an estimated 25,400 excess winter deaths in England and Wales in 2009/10, a 30 per cent drop compared with the figures for 2008/09. There were 10,600 excess winter deaths in males and 14,800 in females, the majority occurring amongst those aged 75 and over.

The report, Excess winter mortality in England and Wales, 2009/10 (provisional) and 2008/09(final) points out that excess winter mortality is mostly not caused by conditions directly related to the cold, such as hypothermia. The majority of additional winter deaths are caused by cerebrovascular diseases, ischaemic heart disease and respiratory diseases. Exposure to cold or to influenza infection can be fatal to people who are already vulnerable because of these pre-existing health conditions.

“Although the winter of 2009/10 was the coldest one since1995/96, excess winter mortality fell by almost a third. This is may be because levels of influenza were low for most of the winter season. The highest excess winter mortality in recent years was in1999/2000 when influenza reached epidemic levels in a relatively mild winter.”

Here is the latest from the BBC for last winter’s deaths:

There was a big rise in the number of winter deaths last year, official figures for England and Wales show.

An estimated 31,100 excess winter deaths occurred in 2012-13 – a 29% increase on the previous winter.

This is the latest from the ONS:

Excess Winter Mortality in England and Wales,

In 2012/13 19.6% more people died in the winter months compared with the non-winter months, up from 15.5% in 2011/12. There were an estimated 31,100 excess winter deaths in England and Wales in 2012/13 – a 29% increase compared with the previous winter.

[Hmmmm….a rise in excess deaths, compared to summer deaths, from 15.5% to 19.6% is a rise of nearly 20%……..so where does that 29% come from?….that must be taking other factors  into account….

Looking at the figures…summer deaths also went up…by 25% from 2011/12 to 2012/13

(summer deaths from 20,875 to 26,000…..winter deaths….from 24,111 to 31,100)

That means that the excess winter death increase isn’t quite so bad….if summer deaths went up 25% then excess winter deaths would also presumably at least go up that much…but have actually gone up 29%…..

…therefore, if my maths is correct….the actual, unexpected, genuinely ‘excess’, increase is around 4%

Now 4% of course is not just a statistic, somebody has died….but it puts things into perspective…..if I calculate correctly]

Here is the main factor, as the BBC admits but then ignores for the more eye catching ‘profiteering by evil energy companies kills pensioners’ narrative:

The number of winter deaths peaked in the first week of January, which coincided with a peak in rates of influenza-like illness over the Christmas weeks.

So…the Christmas period…any chance it is all those relatives visiting, who have spread influenza around, being the likely cause of these deaths rather than the cold?

Ban Christmas!

I showed you the excess death figures for 2009/10…here are the previous years figures, 2008/09 which was apparently a comparatively mild winter:

“In the winter period of December to March 2008/09 there were an estimated 36,700 more deaths in England and Wales, compared with the average for the non-winter period (see definition below). This was an increase of 49 per cent compared with the number in the previous winter 2007/08. This is the highest number of excess winter deaths since the winter of 1999/2000, when excess winter mortality was nearly a third higher than in 2008/09.”

So 2008/09, a milder winter, had 36,700 excess winter deaths.

2009/10 had the severest winter in 14 years…and a 30% drop in excess winter deaths compared to 2008/09…….25,400.

2012/13 there were 31,100 excess winter deaths.

If you can work out the causes let me, and the BBC, know….because they seem to be swallowing press releases uncritically and not doing some basic journalism, exactly on the day a campaign has been launched by charities and politicians on this subject…..which hasn’t been acknowledged by the BBC:

Next Tuesday [26th Nov] fuel poverty campaigners will be marching on the offices of the UK’s big energy suppliers. A range of anti-austerity groups including Fuel Poverty Action, UK Uncut, Disabled People Against Cuts and the Greater London Pensioners Association will target Npower in the City of London.

Further protests are to take place at British Gas’s new HQ in Oxford, and at Lewes and Bristol. The campaigners will march under the banner “Bring down the Big Six – Fuel Poverty Kills!”

On Tuesday morning they will deliver a coffin filled with energy bills and a “peoples’ invoice” to German-owned Npower to recover energy as a public good. In addition, a speak-out will be held where those hardest hit by fuel poverty will tell of their experiences.

The problem is possibly far more complicated than the BBC, and others, are letting on.  It suits many people’s agenda of course for that to be the case and for there to be yet another cause to rally around that can be used to try and force the government to spend more money on their pet projects such as ‘socioeconomic progress’….and climate change.