Bishop Hill Surprise, surprise
The BBC has been caught taking illicit sponsorship for current affairs programmes from, among others, green campaigning groups.
One of the programmes in breach of guidelines was “Taking the Credit” made by for BBC World on the subject of Africa and climate change by the award-winning British production company Rockhopper television. The Trust found that the programme had effectively been sponsored by the Envirotrade organisation, despite the fact that current affairs programmes are prohibited from using sponsorship. Envirotrade was featured in a positive light in the programme but “viewers were unaware that there was a funding arrangement in place,” said the Trust report.
(Via Guido)
Bishop Hill
The BBC Trust report itself is here.
Bishop Hill
Here's an excerpt from one of the programmes involved, entitled Earth Reporters, Sea Change.
If anyone wants the full programme you can see it at UNESCO, who presumably funded it.
Reader Comments (39)
Think you have a duff link Bish:- "Read the whole thing."
Yes, wrong link
Fixed - thanks!
Funny that. I posted up a link to the story in the Mail and the post was deleted. Rather strange.
You mean on the other thread? Zed's posts and all responses to them there have gone. Sorry. Thread was getting out of hand (again).
The propaganda arm of the greenie left is also very mercenary when it comes to itself. When you have your pension fund in the green investments, why would you put it down?
Bias in the bbc oh sure............and taking money on the sly from eco-fundos- always! Caught, with it's knickers down, and taking it just like a strumpet would!
Wonder how Richard Black will spin this?
REPORT: "Internal inquiry, chaired by George Monbiot and overseen by Steve Jones [no bias]."
Interestingly, all these complaints were about the World Service arm of the BBC which is the only part that is allowed to accept sponsorship. The BBC pension fund obviously doesn't count ;)
.............. and this is only an audit.
So illicit sponsorship of BBC current affairs programmes could well affect 25% of all broadcasts.
Slick graphics, but the narration reduces any possible scientific content to mere propaganda.
Meanwhile, on the unthreaded thread :
Wow! I wonder whether anyone is feeling a teeny bit silly ... ?
This is, or should be, a major story. I see the BBC is admitting to the sponsorships (how can they not?), but of course affirming their "impartiality" which they insist was never compromised. How laughable that is. These people have no idea how ridiculous they look.
So, the BBC is in essence a Grand Master in the noble art of grift. Not only does it oblige everyone to pay a ransom in the first place, (for whatever we are about to receive may we be truly
thankful), and takes money from us again to add advocacy insult to Guardianista propaganda injury. And, for le digestif delectare, an entente degustation verte exceptionale:
Extract from Biased BBC blog post
'Andrew Mitchell, Cameron's international development secretary, has announced this weekend (reported in the Sunday Times P6, so not linkable)a £90m grant for the BBC World Service Trust (WST). This, as I have written before, is a body whose main purpose is to brainwash the developing world about eco loonery, and already spends millions doing so, ....'
http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2011/11/not-conservative.html#comments
Serious stuff. Propaganda indeed...
I wonder who sponsored the Steve Jones effort? Solyndra or Beacon Power Corp?
You should all ask for a refund from your tele tax, you should.
What does this all say about the Jones report? Seems to me it might need some revision...
Nov 15, 2011 at 8:27 PM | Pharos
Wow. I explained all this to you before last time you posted exactly the same thing on unthreaded, and you don't seem to have managed to take it in. Still, second time lucky, here's exactly the same response from me that I gave to you first time around:
"Did you even bother to look into the World Service Trust before posting your comment? Here are their main activities, as taken from their website:
Media and communication can be an immense and powerful instrument for change and empowerment in society. We argue that media is a critical element of strategies designed to alleviate poverty.
It enables people to access information on issues that shape their lives, without which they cannot make choices
It enables people and communities to understand, debate and reach decisions on the issues that confront them
It enables people to hold their governments to account and provides a critical check on government corruption
It enables people to understand the risks they face, such as from HIV and AIDS, and the steps they can take to protect themselves.
Which manifestly is not a climate propoganda cheque. That biased BBC website you linked to is for maniacs. It calls David Cameron a fascist and Ted Heath vile in its opening paragraph.
You seem so desperate to knock the Beeb and attack anything to do with AGW prevention, then you have abandoned any pretence at qualitative source analysis."
"Wow! I wonder whether anyone is feeling a teeny bit silly ... ?"
Nov 15, 2011 at 8:10 PM | matthu
You I hope. BBC World and the WST are different things.
The money will go directly to the BBC World Service Trust, a charitable organisation which works with hundreds of different broadcasters across the world - of which the World Service is one.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-15711864
Nov 15, 2011 at 9:14 PM | matthu
*sighs*
I'll try again.
This is an article about BBC World.
The WST is a totally different thing.
The WST working with hundreds of different broadcasters, one of which is BBC World, doesn't mean they have any more in common now then when I first explained it.
It's not a hard concept.
Are you just embarrased about getting confused?
I am afraid I do't understand what "a totally different thing" means when it relates to the BBC.
We already know that the BBC World Service is not averse to conflating news and programs which have been sponsored by outside organisations.
We also know that the BBC World trust works in partnership with BBC World.
We know that the government has given a grant of £90m to BBC World Trust. Do you honestly think that the government does not try to direct the use of that money?
BBC's own web site reports the news thus:
Now: do we still think that the Trust has absolute discretion how to use that money?
Sorry Matthu, I've deleted Zed's response. Bored with having threads trashed like this.
Okay - but oops - it was actually Political Junkie's response ...
We see again that the problem is not that particular organisations were funding the programmes, but that it was being done covertly. Now, some parts of the BBC are commercial, fair enough, but the requirement for transparency must take preference especially with current affairs, and where the content is being presented as impartial.
This is not rocket science, yet time and time again the greenies trip themelves up over things like this, What's wrong with honest debate and real facts? Why always the spin?
Cumbrian Lad
Watch this space.
Sorry about that regrettable barrack, but your headpost does state:
'The BBC has been caught taking illicit sponsorship for current affairs programmes from, among others, green campaigning groups'
I was pointing out that it appears that green campaigning groups appears to include Her Majesty's Government, (in the national interest, of course).
shrugs...what's new....maybe one day zeds or hengist or cedric katesby or jack o'dwyer will say someting with any meaning...as time passes the rapid response team dwindles away
Bishop
In the US we have a dog training show called "Dog Whisperer" with Cesar Millan who shows owners of unruly dogs how to be the "leader of the pack" and get their charges under control. I am just wondering if you have been watching that show and decided to apply his techniques to trolls.
Interesting experiment if you are. I do encourage that you continue to be the Alpha Blogger here. Makes BH much more readable. Thank you.
I made it to the 36 second mark when deja vue exploded like a star-shell inside my head and I could take no more!
I've suffered enough and ran whimpering into a full, headlong retreat from yet another barrage of self-loving, species-loathing and poxmarked exemplars of public-interest broadcasting!
Accuse me of lack of moral fibre if you will, but I'd already experienced the half-hour bombardment from the BBC-Radio4 artillery earlier in the day with its cast of car-hating, carbon-fearing phone-in jokers!
A man can only take so much and when our own fourth estate turn out to be fifth-columnists whom WE finance then I can only ask for your understanding to forgive my inability to watch any more of the video that the good Bishop allowed on his diocese.
Ben Pile has an interesting post on the seventh episode of "Frozen Planet". Activists are screeching "Censorship" because some broadcasting companies will not buy and broadcast this 'Climate Sermon'.
http://www.climate-resistance.org/2011/11/natural-history-a-morality-tale.html
The BBC defence:
"The seventh and final episode of the series “Frozen Planet: On Thin Ice” is presenter-led with David Attenborough in shot. Although it is filmed by the same team and to the same production standard, this programme is necessarily different in style. Having a presenter in vision requires many broadcasters to have the programme dubbed, ultimately giving some audiences a very different experience. It is for this reason and not the content – that we market the episode separately, giving broadcasters the flexibility in how they schedule the programme."
Anyway, watch episode 4 (Autumn), tonight on BBC1 at 21:00.
You have not realised have you your eminence.
Rockhopper productions is run by Richard Wilson, former BBC ENVIRONMENT CORRESPONDENT. On its payroll is Andrew Veitch, former CHANNEL 4 NEWS ENVIRONMENT CORRESPONDENT. It is also run by Anya Sitaram, former ITN ENVIRONMENT CORRESPONDENT.
Puts the story in a new light, eh.
Thank goodness that I no longer have to pay my tithe to the Beeb to be allowed to watch television since my return to NZ. Even if I have to switch my brain off during the adds that pay for it all, at least it is clear what the product is the advertisers are attempting to sell to me.
I made it to the 36 second mark when deja vue exploded like a star-shell inside my head and I could take no more!
Nov 16, 2011 at 12:16 AM | RoyFOMR
Roy, hands up for me! 20 seconds due to the doom laden music! You just knew what the narrative was going to be like from that point!
and as for you Bish...."Sorry Matthu, I've deleted Zed's response. Bored with having threads trashed like this."
I am sure you hate doing it but Its been along time coming, thank you! Maybe she will take her ass back to the D.M. Now wait for her fall back "Boys Club" comment!
While full of pr fluff and general warm fuzzies, this video says nothing specific. So no need to be concerned aboout content. They should have acknowledged their funding sources, of course. Nothing really to get excited about here.
if enough people signed a PM petition, then MP's would need to debate the whole thing. As it is, this will blow over in a few days
In the extract shown above, from "Sea Change", there are two distinct threads running in parallel in the program. The scientists, as far as I can tell, say nothing controversial whatsoever. All the ranting is from the commentary track - without this I can find nothing problematic.
harold
Ben Pile's take on Frozen Planet is well worth reading (as is most of his stuff). The re-definition of 'censorship' by the greenies is fascinating. Apparently instead of my stopping you from seeing something it now means your not watching it even though I think you should!
If there is a heaven I'm sure Orwell is there laughing himself sick at these antics.
(Lewis Carroll might likely be having a giggle as well.)
Established by the BBC in 1999, BBC WST draws on the reach, skills and creativity of the BBC, but it is legally, financially and operationally independent.
We are funded by external grants and voluntary contributions, mainly from the UK's Department for International Development (DFID), the European Union, UN agencies and charitable foundations. We receive a small amount of core support from the BBC (both in kind and cash).
This is on their website so how independent are they when their skills and funding comes from these sources?