Discussion > Why BBC bias is unlikely
Because being fair to foreigners is second nature to the BBC but being fair to CO2 belching, capitalist westerners isn't. To try to see both sides of the AGW debate is to offend Gaia and her worshipers' feelings. Tut, tut, can't upset minority religions... or plants or animals. The BBC prides itself in championing the underdog which is one reason why we should realise sceptics are not in the minority.
CAGW appeals to the left wing, publicly funded (ie doesn't have to pay), people hating, petty rule generating, eco loons. Don't expect the BBC to experience a personality change any time soon.
TinyCO2
The BBC prides itself in championing the underdog which is one reason why we should realise sceptics are not in the minority.
Ha, very good.
Richard Drake
I looked at the vid and did not buy its thesis. I thought it was 60 seconds of hack journalism. It was looking at the question from the point of view of "could it have been an attack by a major known terrorist group".
Whatever has happened was clearly something strange and unusual so explaining why a particular commonplace explanation doesn't apply contributes very little.
Martin A
Points partially taken Martin. I was aware it wasn't beyond criticism - though I share its conclusion that it wasn't terrorism as normally conceived. (When the passengers realised that their flight to Beijing was unlikely to end well they would surely have been terrified but this wouldn't be enough to qualify under most definitions.)
I think you need to go back a stage though and see that I was looking for a moment through the eyes of an 'ordinary, fairly apolitical, young punter'. I think such a person may often have quite a lot of trust in the BBC and it will partly be because pieces such as this made a perceived positive contribution to their understanding. And if this is true it does qualify as quality journalism for me. The fact you may not feel it has enlightened you at all is not the litmus test!
Are you saying by the way that from your point of view this was as bad as any sixty seconds on CAGW the Beeb has inflicted on us? I'm saying it was way better and there may be things to learn from that.
Richard Drake
Are you saying by the way that from your point of view this was as bad as any sixty seconds on CAGW the Beeb has inflicted on us?
Richard, I said to Chandra when he asked me "Are you really saying that the planet is no warmer for the CO2 in its atmosphere?" after I had said that the evidence for radiative imbalance comes from models and that the halt in warming might be a clue that the models are wrong, please re-read what I wrote and I think you'll find I said nothing at all like that.
Martin A
Mostly cross purposes, I think, as I want to consider the difference in quality between pieces like this and the typical fare on climate. I retract the "Are you saying ..." as it's potentially misleading. Instead, I'd be interested where you put this in the spectrum of BBC output.
I was influenced by this piece being just 60 seconds, which is considered (I believe rightly) the right sort of thing to lay before today's yoof, with their short attention span, with so much other information flowing their way via mobile devices every second. I take a Stephen Fry-like unscared view of this development mostly. But I continue to think this was a good use of 60 seconds. Why can't the Beeb do something this good on global warming science and policy in 60 seconds? It seemed worth asking.
An MH370 theory that was simple, compelling and wrong is a longer textual piece that may be more for oldies therefore but where is its equivalent in the climate field? Again, streets ahead in my view. Are there only venial reasons for the difference, as Tiny has intimated?
Richard Drake
The story about the plane is a trick of presenting a piece of gossip and then debunking it. It’s a twofor. Appeal to the lowest common denominator by speculating and then be all grown up as they debunk it. As a quick set of headlines and irrelevant images, it doesn’t even explore all the key evidence. Those details keep changing so all the initial ideas are worthless anyway. As a story, the only way they can justify endless reporting on it is to generate the news.
CAGW is different. For the BBC there are no downsides to buying into it. Who are most likely to be the victims? The developing nations and nature. Tick. Who is guilty? Business, especially oil companies and developed nations, Tick. What are the perceived solutions? Planting trees, pollution free windmills, wave power, solar panels, cycling, recycling, organic food, making daisy chains, free (non reproductive) love and singing :-) To even question the fallacies, no matter how silly is heretical.
As a story, it’s the gift that keeps on giving. Weather, energy, government inadequacies, international politics, disease, etc can all be woven into more and more lurid speculation. The BBC doesn’t even have to generate the material, there is an endless stream of scientists, journalists and public figures all eager to do it. And the old hippies of the BBC can indulge in their favourite pastime of telling us all what to do to save the planet. Be smug and heroic in the same breath.
Do da youf buy into it? Possibly. It appeals to their sense that they’re being short changed by the rest of us. Since they’re not paying the bills it’s easy to be generous with government money and the moment they grow up they’re not da youf any more. On the other hand, there’s a generation of kids who have felt the pinch of the recession. Maybe green austerity doesn’t look so appealing any more? But like many members of the public, they can be fooled into thinking that extreme weather events are part of a pattern. With modern image capturing and instantaneous reporting and an ever hungry 24hr news industry to be fed, it’s unlikely they will get a sense that climate isn't changing radically.
Why would the BBC try to stem fodder for their lazy news teams?
TinyCO2
The story about the plane is a trick of presenting a piece of gossip and then debunking it.
I don't think that's fair at all, because the idea MH370 had disappeared as a result of a terrorist attack was perfectly natural, has been considered by the Malaysian and Chinese authorities from the beginning and has been floating round social media ever since. It's well worth tackling.
CAGW is certainly different but I'm not convinced that the Beeb cannot begin to make amends, simply by taking a more impartial and forensic approach. Watching this one-minute video triggered that basic thought. Respect to Frank Gardiner who's credited with the analysis behind it.
Richard Drake
"I don't think that's fair at all"
Well it wouldn't be if this was the first time they'd done it or if they'd got some special insight. No offence to Frank Gardener who’s a fine reporter, but he’s not connected to any of the key agencies in this. At the moment nobody knows what happened. There's nothing wrong with this kind of reporting and all of the newspapers do it, but it's just gossip, albeit gossip of international interest. The BBC likes to think it's better than the rest.
They can't say for sure that it isn't terrorism, even though it doesn't look like it. One of the pilots could be part of it. Not every terrorist organisation 'chatters' before an attack or we'd never be taken by surprise. Not every terrorist organisation is noticed by the authorities, even when they’re under observation. Nobody thought 9/11 was possible till it happened, although Hollywood had a good try. The US didn't really think anyone hated it enough to kill loads of innocent men, women and children. China certainly has enemies, both within and outside. Claims of terrorist ownership are sometimes not made by the perpetrators if it goes badly wrong. Can we agree this looks like an out of control event? There's no obvious motive but there are plenty of manufactured ones out there - cargo of gold, protest against government gay oppression by the pilot? Background checks are only as good as the available information. Since at least two people were on stolen passports that's not fool proof. Their families claim they were looking for new lives but relatives of terrorists are sometimes the last to know and sometimes they lie through their teeth.
One or both of the pilots could have been incapacitated by gas or a small bomb. They could have been drugged and behaved irrationally. It could be a strike on the cockpit window. Airplane fault. Mental break down. You name it. There's even a theory that a passenger trained in air craft computer systems hacked the auto pilot and flew the jet by remote control. We won't know till we know and it might forever be a mystery if they don't find the wreckage.
There's nothing wrong with speculation, not even over CAGW but too often the BBC takes a position and looks no further. This is not one of those occasions because none of the elements involved are pet hates of the BBC. Had it been a US or Israeli plane they'd have been interviewing people with questions like 'do you think this is retaliation for aggression against Muslims?' Minds would already be made up.
TinyCO2
I was struck last night by what David Hare, left-wing darling of the BBC, I suppose one could say, said about discovering the limitations of one's own imagination as a writer. That resonated, as did a number of others things the playwright said. You know, I sometimes even feel we lack imagination of climate blogs, despite our generally right-wing politics being superior, certainly in our own minds, to that of Hare. What makes me strange in these circles perhaps is that sometimes I feel even the BBC manages to pierce the gloom of those limitations. I recommend the two and a half minute clip with Stephen Sackur from August 2011, not least for the man's honesty about how the move to the right at the end of the 1970s almost blew his leftie creative juices. (Hare went on to join Harold Pinter and Salman Rushdie in the '20 June Group, an allusion to the 20 July plot to assassinate Hitler' as I learned, rather late in the day, in a fascinating piece in The Observer in December last year.)
Being able to benefit from the thoughts of one's ideological enemies - a good habit, if not always praised on either side of the contemporary barricades.
Richard Drake
Andrew Neil is just interviewing 'Happy Mondays star Bez', who's standing for MP in Salford. He's already talked about fracking meaning your drinking water gets regularly set on fire. Sadly for him he also sounds rather drunk. It takes all sorts in a pluralistic democracy. Neil finishes it off with elan, having given the guy a chance to put his point of view.
Richard Drake
Probably not a program actively followed by politically-active warmists, but on Radio Two Steve Wright's show yesterday afternoon (24th March), there was a rare outbreak of common sense. Alain de Botton was being interviewed, explaining to the nation (in quite a calm and entertaining way) why we should question what we are told on the news. Because the news is selective, chosen according to agendas, emphasises the negative or extreme events, etc.
Ref: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01w562d
Quoting from his book's blurb:
Alain de Botton turns now to look at the manic and peculiar positions that 'the news' occupies in our lives. We invest it with an authority and importance which used to be the preserve of religion - but what does it do for us? Mixing current affairs with philosophical reflections, de Botton offers a brilliant illustrated guide to the precautions we should take before venturing anywhere near the news and the 'noise' it generates. Witty and global in reach, The News will ensure you'll never look at reports of a celebrity story or political scandal in quite the same way again.
("The News: A User's Manual " on Amazon UK)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alain_de_Botton
Keith Macdonald
Not to me, but to the ordinary, fairly apolitical, young punter. Just watch the sixty seconds of Why terrorist attack is unlikely produced yesterday on the missing Malaysia Airlines jet MH370. Has any other major news outlet done something this good with this highly complex story, that began less than two weeks ago? It's not saying impossible, of course, just unlikely, and it gives very good reasons. Sixty seconds of pure British quality.
Why can't the same organisation take another complex story, that's been going since 1988, and do half as well? Or even 1% as well?