The Director General of the BBC has resigned. On the face of it the resignation is over Newsnight standards. In the case of the Savile story Newsnight pulled a major report which might have been seen as embarrassing to the BBC which had hosted and featured Savile prominently for a generation. In the case of Lord McAlpine, Newsnight reported allegations which turned out to be false.
After 54 days in post the BBC's DG resigned after a couple of interviews in which he appeared to be not on top of his brief. Some critics described him as 'incurious' about events around him.
This week witnessed another instalment in another ongoing saga at the BBC which has received comparatively little publicity but which concerns a matter of rather greater significance than either the Savile debacle or the false accusations against Lord McAlpine.
It concerns a meeting of invitees to a BBC strategy gathering in 2006 on the subject of how to report climate change. Some believe this meeting was key in setting and confirming the direction of the BBC in cheer leading an overly alarmist agenda instead of reporting more dispassionately. In fact, many of us feel the BBC has been more than a little 'incurious' in its slavish following of an alarmist agenda. Propagandist rather than investigative. There are certainly plenty of investigative opportunities which call into question the basis of alarmist policies which cost billions every year.
The BBC is refusing to release details of who attended the meeting at which the direction of reporting seems to have been set in a manner which chose to exclude or minimise more critical voices. The BBC has spent a considerable amount of money to keep secret how it came to that position. Public money.
The latest part of the story is here.
Ignoring its duty of impartiality the BBC has regularly been partisan on this issue. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that, hopelessly compromised by its policy takeover by partisan environmental groups, it is now fighting to cover its tracks. The problems at the BBC are more deep seated than a couple of Newsnight programmes being badly handled.
Here is a more detailed account.
Update 111112: Here is an extract from one dissident attendee at the 2006 meeting (full article here).
After 54 days in post the BBC's DG resigned after a couple of interviews in which he appeared to be not on top of his brief. Some critics described him as 'incurious' about events around him.
It concerns a meeting of invitees to a BBC strategy gathering in 2006 on the subject of how to report climate change. Some believe this meeting was key in setting and confirming the direction of the BBC in cheer leading an overly alarmist agenda instead of reporting more dispassionately. In fact, many of us feel the BBC has been more than a little 'incurious' in its slavish following of an alarmist agenda. Propagandist rather than investigative. There are certainly plenty of investigative opportunities which call into question the basis of alarmist policies which cost billions every year.
The BBC is refusing to release details of who attended the meeting at which the direction of reporting seems to have been set in a manner which chose to exclude or minimise more critical voices. The BBC has spent a considerable amount of money to keep secret how it came to that position. Public money.
The latest part of the story is here.
Ignoring its duty of impartiality the BBC has regularly been partisan on this issue. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that, hopelessly compromised by its policy takeover by partisan environmental groups, it is now fighting to cover its tracks. The problems at the BBC are more deep seated than a couple of Newsnight programmes being badly handled.
Here is a more detailed account.
Update 111112: Here is an extract from one dissident attendee at the 2006 meeting (full article here).
‘Though they purported to be aware that this was an immensely important topic, it seemed to me that none of them had shown even a modicum of professional curiosity on the subject … I spent the day discussing the subject and I don’t recall anyone showing any sign of having read anything serious at all. I argued at the seminar that I thought most broadcasting coverage on climate change was awful. But I also said there was no need for them to become self-conscious about it, This was because, although the issues were scientifically, politically and economically difficult, the BBC’s reporting of the thing would improve as soon as their audience was asked to vote or pay for climate change policy.’And here is an article on the Coffee House blog by Sebastian Payne. As he says, 'sunlight is the best disinfectant'.
