Political bias at BBC - something has to be done surely
Discussion
0000 said:
Bluebarge said:
Well there's a whole other thread for the climate change debate but I'm afraid well over 90% of the scientific community disagree with you
It genuinely surprises me that well over 90% of the scientific community have reviewed the evidence available from the niche of climate science.I only took Maths and Computer Science but I'm also a bit put out that no one asked me.
The 90% plus nonsense was never real in any case as demonstrated N times over on the very climate threads that Bluebarge points us to...before going O/T while cautioning others not to (but there's no problem here with that hypocrisy).
It's the same old carp trotted out by faithful believers lacking any clue about the data and the actual opinions of scientists.
Back to the BBC's self-confessed and self-evident left wing bias.
0000 said:
It genuinely surprises me that well over 90% of the scientific community have reviewed the evidence available from the niche of climate science.
I only took Maths and Computer Science but I'm also a bit put out that no one asked me.
Given the paucity of actual evidence it didn't take long I only took Maths and Computer Science but I'm also a bit put out that no one asked me.
It seems the Greens aren't too happy with that Quintin Letts piece:
'Quentin Upsets BBC’s Greens'
http://order-order.com/2015/08/06/quentin-upsets-b...
'Quentin Upsets BBC’s Greens'
http://order-order.com/2015/08/06/quentin-upsets-b...
chris watton said:
It seems the Greens aren't too happy with that Quintin Letts piece:
'Quentin Upsets BBC’s Greens'
http://order-order.com/2015/08/06/quentin-upsets-b...
Very informative. I wondered what the kerfuffle was about the met office. 'Quentin Upsets BBC’s Greens'
http://order-order.com/2015/08/06/quentin-upsets-b...
Now I see it, fking disgraceful. What the fk are they doing with political lobbying when they should be
forecasting weather? Obviously they have too much money in their hands.
Cheese Mechanic said:
chris watton said:
It seems the Greens aren't too happy with that Quintin Letts piece:
'Quentin Upsets BBC’s Greens'
http://order-order.com/2015/08/06/quentin-upsets-b...
Very informative. I wondered what the kerfuffle was about the met office. 'Quentin Upsets BBC’s Greens'
http://order-order.com/2015/08/06/quentin-upsets-b...
Now I see it, fking disgraceful. What the fk are they doing with political lobbying when they should be
forecasting weather? Obviously they have too much money in their hands.
zygalski said:
I hate bias. That's why I get all my climate info from car enthusiast websites.
Where you will find - in the case of this site - links to the data as well as peer reviewed papers that neither the IPCC nor the BBC will tell you about, as well as those they do want you to see, plus critiques from both PH and non-PH scientists on all of them including those that you do get spoon fed. One place not to go is the BBC so stay around and be better informed.Then if you want you can make your own mind up with a wider information base rather than be willingly or unwittingly propagandised like so many of your peers. Or you can be just like them, signalled by a lack of awareness and a facile line in commentary which usually involves parroting one of numerous false claims.
So, good move and the climate threads are easily found whenever you want a top-up or update.
This is selective, deliberately so, because it highlights the key element of the quotation.
Paxman said:
the BBC’s coverage of the (climate change) issue abandoned the pretence of impartiality long ago
That's almost as chillingly hilarious as the Royal Society, with motto "Take Nobody's Word For It" who then expect the media and wider population to take their word for it, but only in the matter of manmadeup climate change. chris watton said:
It seems the Greens aren't too happy with that Quintin Letts piece:
'Quentin Upsets BBC’s Greens'
http://order-order.com/2015/08/06/quentin-upsets-b...
Roger Harrabin getting a mauling for wading in to the debate:'Quentin Upsets BBC’s Greens'
http://order-order.com/2015/08/06/quentin-upsets-b...
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/08/...
Bluebarge said:
But not evidence of bias by the BBC given that an unpopular viewpoint held mostly by people on the right was given a full and unchallenged airing. Which I think is why FiF mentioned it.
Twaddle. It was perfectly clear why I posted it from the post. In a thread discussing alleged bias at the BBC, where the clear bias in favour of the alarmist man made climate change theories has been discussed, it was interesting to note that no comment about the programme had been made. A programme which hitherto one couldn't have imagined the BBC would let slip over the airwaves.I thought it didn't need to be said but clearly it does, namely a brief questioning whether BBC attitudes are changing. But seeing the frothing from Harrabin and the usual suspects, including your own gratuitous Daily Mail journalist swipe, suggests plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
In the programme the Met Office were allowed to defend themselves and generally confirmed that they're pretty good at short term forecasting but way off the mark longer term, and didn't even attempt to answer the issue of why they ignored certain factors or played politics.
But I can see why you didn't like the programme but there's another thread for that.
FiF said:
Bluebarge said:
But not evidence of bias by the BBC given that an unpopular viewpoint held mostly by people on the right was given a full and unchallenged airing. Which I think is why FiF mentioned it.
Twaddle. It was perfectly clear why I posted it from the post. In a thread discussing alleged bias at the BBC, where the clear bias in favour of the alarmist man made climate change theories has been discussed, it was interesting to note that no comment about the programme had been made. A programme which hitherto one couldn't have imagined the BBC would let slip over the airwaves.I thought it didn't need to be said but clearly it does, namely a brief questioning whether BBC attitudes are changing. But seeing the frothing from Harrabin and the usual suspects, including your own gratuitous Daily Mail journalist swipe, suggests plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
In the programme the Met Office were allowed to defend themselves and generally confirmed that they're pretty good at short term forecasting but way off the mark longer term, and didn't even attempt to answer the issue of why they ignored certain factors or played politics.
But I can see why you didn't like the programme but there's another thread for that.
My assumption was obviously incorrect but I'm a bit baffled by your aggressive reaction. As to the Daily Mail reference - well, that is a right-wing newspaper so the fact that one of its journalists got a programme all to himself to have a pop at one of the Right's bêtes noires is surely a counter to those who perceive left-wing bias at the BBC.
But I guess you don't agree with that. Hey ho..
Have a listen to this car crash interview with Alan Yentob, this is a guy who, according to Wiki:
"In July 2009 he was revealed to have accumulated a pension worth £6.3m, giving an annual retirement income of £216,667 for the rest of his life. This is one of the biggest pensions in the public sector.[5] He has been on the Board of Trustees of The Architecture Foundation."
http://order-order.com/2015/08/07/yentob-demands-c...
These BBC left wing luvvies do like their money, don't they!
"In July 2009 he was revealed to have accumulated a pension worth £6.3m, giving an annual retirement income of £216,667 for the rest of his life. This is one of the biggest pensions in the public sector.[5] He has been on the Board of Trustees of The Architecture Foundation."
http://order-order.com/2015/08/07/yentob-demands-c...
These BBC left wing luvvies do like their money, don't they!
Mr_B said:
Is it now standard to pre qualify your reply on PH about how the other person is aggressive, frothing, angry and generally have to try and taint everyone as such ?
I don't know. But starting a post with "Twaddle" seemed to me a fairly aggressive way to start a post in the context of what I originally wrote. You'll note I was accused of "frothing" by FiF so maybe it is now de rigeur. Who knows?Bluebarge said:
I'm guessing you're not a morning person.
My assumption was obviously incorrect but I'm a bit baffled by your aggressive reaction. As to the Daily Mail reference - well, that is a rigat least-wing newspaper so the fact that one of its journalists got a programme all to himself to have a pop at one of the Right's bêtes noires is surely a counter to those who perceive left-wing bias at the BBC.
But I guess you don't agree with that. Hey ho..
In the context of your other input twaddle and frothing was not aggressive, and certainly not intended as such, but pretty much on the mark. Guess you're maybe a touch sensitive having been accurately called out on the inaccuracies within your posts by quite a number of contributors. Hey ho indeed.My assumption was obviously incorrect but I'm a bit baffled by your aggressive reaction. As to the Daily Mail reference - well, that is a rigat least-wing newspaper so the fact that one of its journalists got a programme all to himself to have a pop at one of the Right's bêtes noires is surely a counter to those who perceive left-wing bias at the BBC.
But I guess you don't agree with that. Hey ho..
0000 said:
Bluebarge said:
Well there's a whole other thread for the climate change debate but I'm afraid well over 90% of the scientific community disagree with you
It genuinely surprises me that well over 90% of the scientific community have reviewed the evidence available from the niche of climate science.I only took Maths and Computer Science but I'm also a bit put out that no one asked me.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff