Monday, February 07, 2011
I understand that you feel we are biased towards the Government’s perspective on several issues. In particular, you feel we are biased in favour of climate change, and do not allow debate on our programmes on this issue.
The BBC is committed to impartiality, and BBC journalists, presenters and programme makers are well aware of this. They are expected to put their own political views to one side when carrying out their work for the BBC. They seek to provide the information which will enable viewers and listeners to make up their own minds; to show the political reality and provide the forum for debate, giving full opportunity for all viewpoints to be heard. Senior editorial staff, the Executive Board and the BBC Trust keep a close watch on programmes to ensure that standards of impartiality are maintained.
There is broad scientific agreement on the issue of climate change and we reflect this accordingly; however, we do aim to ensure that we also offer time to the dissenting voices.
Flagship BBC programmes such as ‘Newsnight’, ‘Today ‘and our network news bulletins on BBC One have all included contributions from those who challenge the general scientific consensus recently and we will continue to offer time to such views on occasion . You might be interested in the views of former Newsnight editor, Peter Barron, who explored this issue in an online posting at our Editors' Blog and explained some of the editorial issues it throws up:
We’re guided by the feedback that we receive and to that end I'd like to assure you that I've registered your complaint on our audience log. This is a daily report of audience feedback that's circulated to many BBC staff, including members of the BBC Executive Board, programme makers, channel controllers and other senior managers.
The audience logs are seen as important documents that can help shape decisions about future programming and content.
Thanks for taking the time to contact us.
BBC Complaints (emphasis added )
The BBC replying - how uncharacterisric, even though they don't actually make any attempt to answer any of the criticisms made. That deserves a reply
Thank you for your email confirming that the BBC's decision to produce 10s of thousands of hours devoted to catastrophic warming alarmism, including deliberate lies, and not a single one to putting the opposite case to support an alleged "scientific consensus" for catastrophic warming represents the very highest standard of honesty to which the BBC and I therefore assume, any member thereof, ever aspires.
I note that if that does not constitute "due balance" then the BBC never can and thus will never claim to be compliant with its Charter.
I have asked a 10s of thousands of alarmists this question without a factual response - Can you name 2 scientists, worldwide, not paid by government or alarmist lobbyists, who support the claim that we are experiencing catastrophic warming.
As you will know, though the BBC censor reporting of it, more than 31,000 scientists have stated the opposite. Thus if the "consensus" claim is truthful you should be able to name at least 310,000 scientists who claim it and if it is genuine it is a statistical certainty that at least 150,000 will be independent.
2 will be easy if the BBC is even attempting to get within hailing distance of remotely honest..
PS Perhaps you could remind your colleague Damien Whyte who assured me that the BBC would not censor massacres and racial genocide and promised he would respond to any evidence to the contrary I produced that he has still to make the promised response to the evidence of masacres and genocide, specifically the Dragodan massacre where British police murdered at leasr 210 unarmed civilians , a massacre comparable to My Lai or Lidice, which the BBC have censored, daily, for 10 1/2 years. I think I am due an apology for his suggestion that in saying that the BBC censor genocide in the Nazi cause I had been less than totally honest.
Nonetheless, I salute your ongoing attacks on the colossus. Just as Vaclav Havel and others hastened the destruction of the Soviet Union, so must dissent eventually do for state broadcasting.