Biased BBC: Sending journos on “how to break our charter” courses

Posted: July 4, 2014 by tallbloke in Accountability, alarmism, Big Brother, Education, flames, Incompetence, Legal, People power, Politics, propaganda

I had a brief chat with a journalist friend yesterday whose sister is a QC. He’s going to sound her out for me about the possibility of a class action against the BBC for breaking its charter. This from the Telegraph:

BBC staff told to stop inviting cranks onto science programmes
By Sarah Knapton, Science Correspondent –  04 Jul 2014

bbc-greenpeace-medBBC journalists are being sent on courses to stop them inviting so many cranks onto programmes to air ‘marginal views’

The BBC Trust on Thursday published a progress report into the corporation’s science coverage which was criticised in 2012 for giving too much air-time to critics who oppose non-contentious issues.

The report found that there was still an ‘over-rigid application of editorial guidelines on impartiality’ which sought to give the ‘other side’ of the argument, even if that viewpoint was widely dismissed.

Some 200 staff have already attended seminars and workshops and more will be invited on courses in the coming months to stop them giving ‘undue attention to marginal opinion.’

“The Trust wishes to emphasise the importance of attempting to establish where the weight of scientific agreement may be found and make that clear to audiences,” wrote the report authors.

“Science coverage does not simply lie in reflecting a wide range of views but depends on the varying degree of prominence such views should be given.”

The Trust said that man-made climate change was one area where too much weight had been given to unqualified critics.

In April the BBC was accused of misleading viewers about climate chance and creating ‘false balance’ by allowing unqualified sceptics to have too much air-time.

In a damning parliamentary report, the corporation was criticised for distorting the debate, with Radio 4’s Today and World at One programmes coming in for particular criticism.

The BBC’s determination to give a balanced view has seen it pit scientists arguing for climate change against far less qualified opponents such as Lord Lawson who heads a campaign group lobbying against the government’s climate change policies.

Read the rest, if you have the stomach for it.



  1. Was reading the global company news yesterday and there seems to be big push for ‘green energy/sustainability’ etc currently. (see Guardian/ sustainability section)
    I don’t pretend to understand how the big global companies make money out of the AGW propaganda / carbon credit stuff.?
    I read that global warming is causing the financial economy to collapse. LOL

    For a reason l don’t understand global companies have their fortunes/ control mechanisms hinged on this AGW scam.
    They obviously need to have the public on board to implement carbon trading or green credits?.
    Global companies have taken over the western media and beyond so it is no surprise that employees are being told to tow the line or ship out!

    There is no such thing as un biased reporting anymore. Companies control the lot. They feed the public what ever suits their corporate power population manipulation.
    Including universities and school education and the media

    Control, control..control
    and if they have infiltrated the judiciary system TB . You haven’t got a hope.
    They will try to make it illegal to be sceptical about AGW or anything that suits them for that matter.

    If companies control everything . Where is their accountability?
    There isn’t any.
    Monopoly . Game set and match

    If you make enough noise they may try to shut you down on wordpress or censor you..
    Your aiming to challenge the ‘big wigs’ of the New world corporate government.

  2. colliemum says:

    Don’t forget that propaganda is not just about the spreading falsehoods, it also means the suppression of anything which contradicts the propaganda item.
    I suppose we ought to count ourselves lucky that so far “deniers” haven’t been sent to prison, as some AGW religionists have been advocating.

  3. cornwallwindwatch says:

    Reblogged this on Cornwall Wind Watch and commented:
    nice one

  4. tallbloke says:

    WC: I read that global warming is causing the financial economy to collapse. LOL

    It’s global warming policy which is in danger of causing the financial economy to collapse…

    If you make enough noise they may try to shut you down on wordpress or censor you..

    I reckon the climate cops will think twice before darkening the doors of tallbloke towers again. I’m lawyered up and waiting for them, and they know it.

  5. I’m willing to help out with a contribution to a class action.

  6. Thanks to JO NOVA and DAVID EVANS for enlightening me !!!
    DAVID was onto this manipulation and control in 2012!! How prophetically true !!
    EXTRACTS.. . Serious stuff here!!

    But above all, they want to shut their critics up—by any means short of violence. Opinions and evidence counter to the interests of the regulating class are “illegitimate”, and are ruthlessly suppressed.
    Obviously the regulating class will now respond by regulating the Internet and lobbyist’s briefcases.

    The Regulating Class
    Consider the array of forces in the climate argument:
    Believers Doubters
    UN (including the IPCC) Independently-funded scientists
    Western governments Private sector middle class
    Major banks and finance houses Amateurs (from amore , the Latin for love)
    NGO’s and Greenies
    Totalitarian leftists
    Government-funded scientists[v]
    Renewables corporations
    Mainstream news media

    Why Global Warming is So Important to the Regulating Class
    If human emissions of CO2 are causing a major planetary problem, then there are only two plausible solutions: wait and adapt, or regulate and reduce. Only the second solution interests the regulating class. To regulate CO2 emissions effectively and fairly you must regulate nearly all energy use, and thus most of the economy, in every nation of the world.
    The regulating class promotes the dual beliefs that the “problem” of global warming is very scary and that it is caused by human emissions of CO2. The only solution they offer just happens to be complete regulation of the whole world’s economy by … the regulating class, of course.
    The theory of manmade global warming is not a conspiracy. It is a confluence of vested interests in increased political regulation of the economy and rejecting market forces.
    Bureaucrats, academics, government scientists, utilities, renewables manufacturers, bankers, most politicians—all these have a shared financial interest in imposing their solution to “manmade” global warming.
    The Copenhagen Treaty was an Attempted Coup
    Nearly all the world leaders met in Copenhagen in late 2009, expecting to sign the “Copenhagen Treaty” to limit CO2 emissions. But China and India torpedoed the negotiations, saying more research was needed to establish whether warming is manmade
    The Treaty would have set up a new bureaucracy with the power to regulate CO2 emissions worldwide, able to regulate any market, over-riding national governments as required. It could also fine and tax any signatory government. In the hands of a judge from the regulating class, it could be interpreted to give this new global bureaucracy the power to tax every signatory nation and regulate its energy use almost completely—just look at how the US Constitution has been extended by interpretation over the years, and that’s a much clearer document. A hint in the Treaty could become the basis for a full blown mechanism to do almost anything the bureaucrats wished.
    From experience with the monotonic growth of centralized power in federations of states, such as the United States or Australia, it is almost inevitable that within a few decades this new body would be parlayed up into a strong global bureaucracy regulating more than just CO2 emissions.

    If something like the draft Treaty had been signed, it would have been the biggest transfer of sovereign power in recorded human history: nearly all the nations of the world would have ceded much of their sovereign power all at once. Yet the media scarcely raised an eyebrow.
    All of that national sovereignty would have been ceded to an unelected group of global bureaucrats: Never in the field of human administration would so much power have been transferred by so many to so few. This was a narrowly averted global coup, an attempt to seize a great deal of power by stealth without the knowledge or explicit consent of the world’s people. It can only have been kept silent with the active support of the world’s media. But because of that silence, the coup has never been acknowledged, so the people of the world are unaware of it and further attempts could be made. Climate “science” is clearly flawed, but it is an excuse for a massive power play.
    Figure 2: It is one of the oldest scams in human history: witchdoctors go to the rulers and say “the Gods are angry, there will be (more) catastrophes … we know how to appease the Gods, but it will cost you”. [Credit: CDC]
    A Global Bureaucracy Would Be Bad
    If a bureaucracy is global, there is nowhere to run to from high taxes, persecution, exploitation, selective enforcement of regulations, and so on
    If their “solution” to global warming ushered in a global bureaucracy, people like these would be setting regulations worldwide, with no escape for anyone
    The Trademark Tactics of the Regulating Class
    If you oppose the regulating class, you will get called an “extremist”, a “nut”, a “conspiracy theorist”, “right wing”, and every variation of “stupid” and “ignorant”, irrespective of the merits of what you say. Say anything that mentions or might imply race and they will also call you a “racist”. Because they own the mainstream media

    They hold pretend debates in their media studios with an audience of their supporters or a panel predominately of their supporters
    The result: professionals and organizations appear to be all on their side. After all, they have all the government power, and all the taxpayers’ money.
    Climate criminals almost took control of the whole world by deception, a grand fraud. Money has changed hands on a vast scale
    All the beneficiaries are from the new regulating class, which happens to be in charge of the justice system. So no one will go to jail or even pay back their ill-gotten gains to the taxpayers. The rest of society paid for this nonsense, transferring huge quantities of money to the new class,
    The push towards a global bureaucracy, using climate change as an excuse,
    The real issue here is a grab for absolute power by those who already govern. They have grown tired of democracy and would like to do away with it, without ever giving the game away by actually saying so.
    “global warming” is the Trojan Horse the regulating class are hoping to ride to victory over the people.

    About the Author
    Dr David M.W. Evans consulted full-time for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005, and part-time 2008 to 2010,
    In 2007 .. skeptical …. there was more to the global warming issue than just the science..

  7. and more outstanding research from Jo Nova.
    Time to revisit this .. me thinks

  8. tallbloke says:

    Phil B: Good man yerself. I’ll put up what I can if the prognosis is favourable.

  9. tallbloke says:
    “So, is there a role of investors in the climate change debate? This year alone, investors have filed more than 140 climate-related shareholder resolutions with US companies. At the same time, a coalition of investors called the Carbon Asset Risk (CAR) initiative, coordinated by Ceres and the Carbon Tracker initiative, with support from the Global Investor Coalition on Climate Change, launched a coordinated effort to encourage 45 of the world’s largest fossil fuel companies to address the financial risks posed by climate change.

    But it is clear that investors could be doing more. There is a major opportunity for investors to demonstrate that they are increasingly ready for serious climate action from policymakers ahead of the UN Secretary-General’s Climate Summit in September 2014, ..

    …which is anticipated to build momentum for a strong global climate agreement in 2015.!!!!

  11. oldbrew says:

    ‘a strong global climate agreement in 2015’

    We’ve heard all this before e.g. Copenhagen 2009. Tell it to China and India 😉

  12. tallbloke says:

    WC: In their dreams.

  13. J Martin says:

    It would be interesting to hear the BBC explain their knowledge of the provenance of the “weight of scientific argument”.

    And when they can’t because of course they have no idea, I would then ask them what they would like it to be and then explain to them the misleading reality that it in fact is.

    Perhaps they think that the IPCC have polled the majority of the worlds scientists in a postion to express an opinion on the subject, numbering many tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of scientists, whereas the reality is little more than a student joke which the mass media have swallowed hook line and sinker, along with our gullible politicians who all seem to think that 97% of scientists think that global warming is a problem.

    If only our mass media and politicians weren’t so stupid and gullible and would make some effort to check for themselves.

  14. oldbrew says:

    ‘Lord Lawson’s views are not supported by the evidence from computer modelling and scientific research’

    The observed data doesn’t back up the so-called ‘evidence’ from computer modelling and scientific research either – in fact it clearly shows there’s a huge problem with it.

    On what basis is being demonstrably wrong an argument for suppressing an alternative view?

  15. tallbloke says:

    And there M’lud rests the case for the prosecution. Oh, except we’ll raise the stakes and bring in 28gate too.

    Your move BBC.

  16. J Martin says:

    I read the rest, and have submitted a complaint to the gullible fools at the BBC. I have asked them to tell me their understanding of the provenance of the 97%, I have also asked them to explain where they get their “majority of climate scientists” from. I also asked them to tell me where global warming had got to since there had been none for nearly 18 years

    I expect to get brushed off or to not receive an answer to my complaint.

  17. tallbloke says:

    JM: They will tell you they rely on expert judgement (not their own, obviously).

  18. catweazle666 says:

    Meanwhile, back in the real world, the RSS data shows zero warming for 17 years and climbing using a regression trend. and if we’re interested in statistical significance, no less than 26 years to 2-sigma probability.

    This little toy, courtesy of no less than arch-Warmists skepticalscience, is lots of fun and very informative if you like this sort of thing.

    One of these days, all these bedwetters are going to wake up and realise that it’s actually them that are the deniers.

    Now, that WILL be fun

  19. Anything is possible says:

    “There was an in depth briefing for key editors and correspondents organised by the College of Journalism ahead of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report on climate change, which was published in September. This consisted of a briefing from senior members of the IPCC, a panel discussion involving three climate change scientists representing a range of views and an internal discussion about the editorial implications for our output. We think this made a substantial contribution to balanced and proportionate coverage of the IPCC report.”


    The three climate change scientists “representing a wide range of views” were :

    Richard Betts, Myles Allen & Mike Hulme.

    Read more here :

  20. Jaime Jessop says:

    We have a barely functioning democracy in this country. The theory is, you vote for a party political candidate and if enough people do the same they get elected . . . . at least, that’s the theory! Same with the BBC. If you ‘vote’ for them by giving them your money in order for them to pursue their leftwing, EU-driven agenda, then you’re part of the problem. Unplug the aerial, tell them to get stuffed with their licence fee and – for the moment at least – legally watch the very limited amount of quality output which they still manage on iplayer (not live). They’re short of at least £1000 from myself personally because I made this decision five years ago. That’s a grand less for them to fund climate change propaganda and spew leftwing rhetoric. Apparently, 2 million other people have done the same. That’s a lot of money.

  21. michael hart says:

    Catweazle, I will not give them any clicks at all if I can help it. That helps them finance the site.


    I am glad Tony Abbott and the liberal party don’t won’t to play with the Global climate commission entirely and have their own plans

    Garnaut is a member of the
    The Economics Advisory Panel


    No wonder the GLOBAL syndicate is sending over reinforcements to overthrow TONY ABBOTT.
    ( Gore and ex world bank head have been on the media)

    At least l think our media is not totally controlled by the global elite

  23. Climate deniers are influencing UK prime minister David Cameron, according to former energy secretary Chris Huhne –

    Oh here we are . ( article below)

    Bringing in the religious heavies to make you feel spiritually guilty.
    Oh yes . They got the earths flat thing wrong as well , many centuries ago as well.
    I would like to see them and the flock ‘divesting’ from fossil fuels. LOL


    Well l am a Christian and disagree with the Anglican synod.

    Australian bishop accuses Tony Abbott of “denigrating” climate science – See more at:

    The Anglican Church of Australia has passed a motion at its General Synod encouraging churches across the country to divest from fossil fuels. The recommendation was passed alongside another motion scalding the Australian government for “denigrating” climate science.

    Wilmot told the General Synod that the Abbott government was not interested “in the inconvenient truths of climate change”. He accused them of “denigrating” science in general, and conducting a “phony” review conducted by climate sceptic Dick Warburton into Australia’s renewable energy target. – See more at:

    – See more at:

  24. Wayne Job says:

    I am an Australian, some of our churches have been doing political and green stuff for years, they keep loosing followers, but persist with the same pap. The left wing athiest press and our ABC gives them a voice, strange bedfellows.

  25. Jaime Jessop says:

    £700 actually. Lost track of how much the BBC are mugging the British public for these days.

  26. oldbrew says:

    More BBC scorn from the Delingpole.

    ‘So, according to this new definition, “impartiality” means privileging a narrow range of viewpoints and shutting out all those with which you disagree.’

    As commenter Ripsnorter says: ‘Bias is the new balance.’

  27. tallbloke says:
  28. oldbrew says:

    The BBC is still raking it in from the EU.

    ‘the EU paid the BBC €6,100,987 last year’

    That should be enough of a bribe to get the EU ‘message’ across.

  29. Gail Combs says:


    ‘So, according to this new definition, “impartiality” means privileging a narrow range of viewpoints and shutting out all those with which you disagree.’

    If I recall the Telegraph brought up the point that the majority in the UK consider CAGW hogwash. So I guess that makes the BBC “Fringe” and therefore the BBC should censor itself out of existence!

    Feb 2010 …A recent poll found the just one in five people believe climate change is man-made, compared to one in three a year ago….

  30. Andyj says:

    The BBC have already done this with Griffin of the BNP. As a party representative and an minority party (ex)MEP. He should of been on at least maybe 6~12 times.
    The only time he was on.. Was Question time but it was not Question time. Even the hard left wingers at my old works. Said it was just a bear baiting.
    So good luck! This scum really does need creaming off.

  31. oldbrew says:

    GWPF says Lord Lawson has ‘in effect’ been banned from the BBC as no producer will want the hassle involved in inviting him i.e. complaints from warmists.

    Lawson: ‘I’ve been banned by the BBC’

    ‘The fact is that, on this issue, the BBC has its own party line (indistinguishable from that of the Green Party) which it imposes with quasi-Stalinist thoroughness.’