Back
to top
It's now against BBC policy (and TSR's!) to criticise climate change.
WatchPage 1 of 1
Go to first unread
Skip to page:
n.b. Just as an aside, it appears as though this policy has been adopted by TSR, too. See my original post here: http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...&ct=clnk&gl=uk It has now been put into review.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-journal...er-wrongthink/
This is climate change, a political issue. Much like multiculturalism, and other outcomes of third-way politics, the BBC now treats it like it's sacrosanct.
A few people a journalist (Quentin Letts) interviewed made some 'disobliging' remarks about the manner the state-funded meteorological organisation has been hijacked by climate alarmists.
Quentin's programme was subsequently removed from online channels (a transcription is available on the link above). Further to this, Quentin's ENTIRE DEPARTMENT were ordered to engage in 're-education' training on the topic of climate change.
Here's what Quentin said:
"Meanwhile, the BBC top brass held meetings about my allegedly scandalous programme.
Apparently we should have done more to explain the science of climate change. There was a danger that listeners were ‘misled’ by my interviews with Mr Lilley and Labour MP Graham Stringer, who argued that the Met Office were ‘excellent’ at short-term forecasts but ‘very poor’ at climate and medium-term predictions.
I was on the naughty step. That was the last I thought of the matter until last month, when I received a long document from the BBC Trust — a draft of an official inquiry into my misdeeds, complete with a conclusion that there had been a ‘serious’ breach of BBC rules on impartiality in my programme.
I was given a few hours to offer any comments before the finding was likely to be made public.The report, which must have cost thousands of pounds to prepare (rather more than was spent on our programme, I’d wager), included news that from the outset of the production process it had been agreed that we would never touch on climate change.
Er, hang on, chaps. No one ever told me that. Why on earth would independent journalists accept such a stricture? Why should climate change be given such special protection?"
http://www.breitbart.com/big-journal...er-wrongthink/
This is climate change, a political issue. Much like multiculturalism, and other outcomes of third-way politics, the BBC now treats it like it's sacrosanct.
A few people a journalist (Quentin Letts) interviewed made some 'disobliging' remarks about the manner the state-funded meteorological organisation has been hijacked by climate alarmists.
Quentin's programme was subsequently removed from online channels (a transcription is available on the link above). Further to this, Quentin's ENTIRE DEPARTMENT were ordered to engage in 're-education' training on the topic of climate change.
Here's what Quentin said:
"Meanwhile, the BBC top brass held meetings about my allegedly scandalous programme.
Apparently we should have done more to explain the science of climate change. There was a danger that listeners were ‘misled’ by my interviews with Mr Lilley and Labour MP Graham Stringer, who argued that the Met Office were ‘excellent’ at short-term forecasts but ‘very poor’ at climate and medium-term predictions.
I was on the naughty step. That was the last I thought of the matter until last month, when I received a long document from the BBC Trust — a draft of an official inquiry into my misdeeds, complete with a conclusion that there had been a ‘serious’ breach of BBC rules on impartiality in my programme.
I was given a few hours to offer any comments before the finding was likely to be made public.The report, which must have cost thousands of pounds to prepare (rather more than was spent on our programme, I’d wager), included news that from the outset of the production process it had been agreed that we would never touch on climate change.
Er, hang on, chaps. No one ever told me that. Why on earth would independent journalists accept such a stricture? Why should climate change be given such special protection?"
0
reply
Report
#2
Everyone, comment quickly ... this will be removed by the mods as soon as they see it! 
0
reply
Report
#3
So it's against the rules to criticise a series of chemical processes which damage the planet?
0
reply
Report
#4
Climate change by people is not real people! Wake up!
There I said it. The truth is out there.
There I said it. The truth is out there.
0
reply
Report
#6
(Original post by Trevormacdonald)
What why hasn't my post been deleted?!!?? ^
What why hasn't my post been deleted?!!?? ^
0
reply
Report
#7
Breitbart is the last place I'd look for reliable information about climate change. Forgive me for being skeptical of this story, considering that breitbart has sensationalised rubbish numerous times before and promotes climate change denying conspiracy theories.
Like the time a paper was rejected from a scientific journal and they claimed it was because of pro-environmentalist bias, even though there was no evidence for that, and an article being rejected from a journal is not in any way unusual. Or when environmentalists complain about the BBC including people like Nigel Lawson in their coverage, and Breitbart et al claim censorship (Nigel Lawson heads the GWPF and has refused to answer questions about its funding, so the complaints made about his inclusion were actually perfectly reasonable).
So I'm going to need reliable sources before I start believing conspiracy stories about those evil greenies censoring climate change deniers. Most of the time they turn out to be perfectly reasonable actions or policies which have been exaggerated and sensationalised.
Oh, it's worth noting that Peter Lilley has interests in the fossil fuel industry. He's one of the ones mentioned in the OP.
Like the time a paper was rejected from a scientific journal and they claimed it was because of pro-environmentalist bias, even though there was no evidence for that, and an article being rejected from a journal is not in any way unusual. Or when environmentalists complain about the BBC including people like Nigel Lawson in their coverage, and Breitbart et al claim censorship (Nigel Lawson heads the GWPF and has refused to answer questions about its funding, so the complaints made about his inclusion were actually perfectly reasonable).
So I'm going to need reliable sources before I start believing conspiracy stories about those evil greenies censoring climate change deniers. Most of the time they turn out to be perfectly reasonable actions or policies which have been exaggerated and sensationalised.
Oh, it's worth noting that Peter Lilley has interests in the fossil fuel industry. He's one of the ones mentioned in the OP.
0
reply
(Original post by RF_PineMarten)
Breitbart is the last place I'd look for reliable information about climate change. Forgive me for being skeptical of this story, considering that breitbart has sensationalised rubbish numerous times before and promotes climate change denying conspiracy theories.
Like the time a paper was rejected from a scientific journal and they claimed it was because of pro-environmentalist bias, even though there was no evidence for that, and an article being rejected from a journal is not in any way unusual. Or when environmentalists complain about the BBC including people like Nigel Lawson in their coverage, and Breitbart et al claim censorship (Nigel Lawson heads the GWPF and has refused to answer questions about its funding, so the complaints made abou his inclusion were actually perfectly reasonable).
So I'm going to need reliable sources before I start believing stories about those evil greenies censoring climate change deniers. Most of the time they turn out to be perfectly reasonable actions or policies which have been exaggerated and sensationalised.
Oh, it's worth noting that Peter Lilley has interests in the fossil fuel industry.
Breitbart is the last place I'd look for reliable information about climate change. Forgive me for being skeptical of this story, considering that breitbart has sensationalised rubbish numerous times before and promotes climate change denying conspiracy theories.
Like the time a paper was rejected from a scientific journal and they claimed it was because of pro-environmentalist bias, even though there was no evidence for that, and an article being rejected from a journal is not in any way unusual. Or when environmentalists complain about the BBC including people like Nigel Lawson in their coverage, and Breitbart et al claim censorship (Nigel Lawson heads the GWPF and has refused to answer questions about its funding, so the complaints made abou his inclusion were actually perfectly reasonable).
So I'm going to need reliable sources before I start believing stories about those evil greenies censoring climate change deniers. Most of the time they turn out to be perfectly reasonable actions or policies which have been exaggerated and sensationalised.
Oh, it's worth noting that Peter Lilley has interests in the fossil fuel industry.
There's even a BBC report linked to from the article. Jeez, people will find anything which allows them to engage in full blown confirmation bias.
0
reply
X
Page 1 of 1
Go to first unread
Skip to page:
Quick Reply
