Only Slightly?

October 8, 2018 Longrider General News, misanthropy, Political 8

The BBC got it slightly wrong, apparently.

I love the BBC but I did feel that during the Brexit campaign they slightly got confused about what impartial journalism meant,’ said Peston, who left the BBC in 2015.

I would suggest that Peston is the one who is slightly confused here. The BBC has never done impartial journalism, sucking up to every religious cult that knocks on its door from Islam to Gaia. They will present junk science without question as if some “research” into obesity or alcohol is some sort of fact, preferring not to counter the narrative.

The BBC and impartial journalism are not ships passing in the night, they are ships passing on different nights sailing on different oceans.

In a way, we were slightly patronising. People like me were basically saying “don’t you know this is making the country richer?”

That sightly is doing an awful lot of work there.

8 Comments

  1. Perhaps you could see it as an imitation of the feminine use of language, as in “Don’t you think you’re being ***a little bit*** selfish.” Homoeopathic – the more mildly put, the more seriously meant; understated to get under the other person’s outraged-defence radar (in this case, the BBC’s).

  2. The Beeb used to do impartial journalism but it was a long time ago when the quality newspapers also did impartial journalism. There was a time when you could read most newspapers (i.e. not The Sun or The Mirror) and get a semblance of the truth in the news pages, comments on the news in the editorials and you could tell which was which. Now they all seem to be editorials.

    Or am I looking through rose tinted glasses? 🙁

  4. “This evening, an important lecture is being delivered in London on the subject of man-made or anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory.

    If you follow BBC news programmes, you are extremely unlikely to hear anything about this important lecture.

    That is because the scientist delivering it is saying that man-made global warming theory is a scam.

    BBC policy is to report no challenge to AGW theory at all. The explicit statement of this policy was set out in a four-page memo by Fran Unsworth, the BBC´s Director of News and Current Affairs, which was leaked to Carbon Brief last month…”
    https://goo.gl/9EJ9wq

    Impartial BBC?

  5. “History will not judge them kindly.”
    This is exactly my thought. The catastrophic climate change bubble has to burst eventually, there seems to be more and more credible scientists sticking their heads above the parapet. When it does what little credibility the BBC has left will be gone. What will they do? Are they going to announce that they have been wrong all this time and those stupid deniers were right all along? The alternative is to keep plugging away pretending that reality doesn’t exist.

    • Dates:

      U.N. Predicts Disaster if Global Warming Not Checked

      A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.

      Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of “eco-refugees,” threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP.

      He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control.

      As the warming melts polar icecaps, ocean levels will rise by up to three feet, enough to cover the Maldives and other flat island nations, Brown told The Associated Press in an interview on Wednesday. [June 28, 1989]

      Coastal regions will be inundated; one-sixth of Bangladesh could be flooded, displacing a fourth of its 90 million people. A fifth of Egypt’s arable land in the Nile Delta would be flooded, cutting off its food supply, according to a joint UNEP and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency study…by the year 2000

      Oops big time – yet people still believe these charlatans.

      It’s beyond a religion, it’s a cult.

  6. Good news: we now have until 2030 to save the earth

    Phew! The dangers of global warming are receding. Admittedly that is not how most news sources are reporting the publication of the latest IPCC report this morning. But it is the logical conclusion of reading coverage of the issue over the past decade.

    According to today’s IPCC report we now have 12 years to avert climate catastrophe. That might not sound long, but it means we are a good deal further away from doom that we were in 2007, when the WWF said we had five years to save the world. The doomsday clock hadn’t moved in 2011 when the International Energy Agency warned us that we had five years to start slashing carbon emissions or lose the chance forever. By last year it had shortened to three years, according to Christiana Figueres, the executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. But now it’s right up at 12 years, presumably meaning that we can pretty twiddle our thumbs until 2030 – a whole 18 years after the WWF told us the world would come to an end if we didn’t slash carbon emissions….

    ROFL

Comments are closed.