The bbc, again.

[silvertop]

Political bias towards the right only needs to be the truth these days. Left wing bias is distortion, omission and lies, as recent events have shown, in case there was any doubt.

It is very dangerous to be so closed. Right is not always right. For instance, climate change denial supported by "science" paid for by the fossil fuel industry and echoed by many on here is patently wrong. Have we learned nothing from big tobacco?

 

[silvertop]

Both very much left leaning journalists, who made no secret of that when working for the “ impartial ” BBC.
So presumably you are ok with GB news being allowed to broadcast? That’s the Channel that many have tried to have shut down because they are right wing.
Ask those arrested for social media posts about fear of speaking out, that fear has already arrived.
So it’s all about Farage! Why did he doctor that speech, I wonder 🤔? I thought it was done by a BBC employee.
You may want to blame Trump, Farage et al but at the end of the day, your beloved BBC brought this on themselves, a massive own goal.

Who? What? When? I completely missed that!

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

It is very dangerous to be so closed. Right is not always right. For instance, climate change denial supported by "science" paid for by the fossil fuel industry and echoed by many on here is patently wrong. Have we learned nothing from big tobacco?

Do behave.

I have already told you that no one denies the existence of climate change. The climate has always changed.
What is questionable is the value of making British people pay through the nose for 'green' energy when we contribute 1% of the world's pollution, while the big hitters have no intention of changing direction.
It is all intended to make us a market leader in renewable technology. It is not about the reality of climate change at all.

 

[silvertop]

If Trump does sue and is able to bring a case in the USA my guess is that his lawyers will trawl through all the BBC reports about Trump looking for factual errors. If they can establish a pattern then that goes a long way to proving malicious intent and the defence that it was an "error" starts to look weak.

I also expect they will be trawling through social media and I would be amazed if they don't find anti Trump stuff posted by people involved. Again if they can find that stuff it proves bias.

The only way it could be an error is if the edit folk innocently pulled the 2 segments together given pressure on time i.e. their job. OK, and plausible so far.

The people who made the documentary then watched the post-edit show, were not told about that edit, and genuinely didn't notice. Gross incompetence at best but (more likely) turning of the blind eye. Not plausible.

 

[silvertop]

Do behave.

I have already told you that no one denies the existence of climate change. The climate has always changed.
What is questionable is the value of making British people pay through the nose for 'green' energy when we contribute 1% of the world's pollution, while the big hitters have no intention of changing direction.
It is all intended to make us a market leader in renewable technology. It is not about the reality of climate change at all.

And that is a bad thing because..?

We are also paying through the nose for green energy as this country is blessed with every kind of weather and is actually surrounded by waves. We have a chance of being energy secure without paying a penny to import ever-dwindling and ever-expensive supplies of fossil fuels which leaves us beholden to countries I would rather we were not.

And it doesn't matter if we are only 1% and others are not following suit. All we can change is what we do and seek to influence others as best we can (yes, including selling our tech to them). And actually China and India are appalling polluters but are taking steps to address that.

On "no one denies"? Look up the thread! Are those posters fictitious characters created by me?

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

They fell on their swords just like Greg Dyke did following the Hutton Report and George Entwistle after
Newsnight wrongly implicated Lord McAlpine in a child sex scandal.
I don't want to see the demise of the BBC but I don't want to pay them in order to watch other channels.

You don’t have to pay them to watch other channels. You pay the licence fee to fund our national broadcaster in a way that avoids the money going through government hands with the potential for direct interference that provides. It’s a tax in all but name. One that you have legal ways of avoiding.

You can watch many channels if you decide to abrogate that responsibility. Just not live tv.

YouTube is now the second most watched TV outlet. You don’t need a licence to watch most of its output, nor for other streaming services.

I hope the upcoming licence review closes this debate and replaces the licence with an internet levy. So everyone pays an extra charge per month alongside the cost of their WiFi. It would force even greater competition for WiFi whilst stopping the moaning about the BBC.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

How does that give the BBC the right to falsify what he said?

It’s unconnected. We have had that debate, so I won’t open it again here.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Just confirms their arrogance and why the whole lot of them and probably every channel needs taking down.

Watch the discussion. No arrogance on show. Just very genuine care for the ability of the BBC to tell the truth without political interference.

Something that ought to concern everyone.

 

[McAhuna]

You don’t have to pay them to watch other channels. You pay the licence fee to fund our national broadcaster in a way that avoids the money going through government hands with the potential for direct interference that provides. It’s a tax in all but name. One that you have legal ways of avoiding.

You can watch many channels if you decide to abrogate that responsibility. Just not live tv.

YouTube is now the second most watched TV outlet. You don’t need a licence to watch most of its output, nor for other streaming services.

I hope the upcoming licence review closes this debate and replaces the licence with an internet levy. So everyone pays an extra charge per month alongside the cost of their WiFi. It would force even greater competition for WiFi whilst stopping the moaning about the BBC.

Translation: You have to pay the BBC, even if you don't watch it and want to watch other live channels instead.
And if you don't pay the BBC, we will find a way of making you pay by changing the rules.

Underneath the word-salad lies a nasty, tyrannical undercurrent.

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

And that is a bad thing because..?

We are also paying through the nose for green energy as this country is blessed with every kind of weather and is actually surrounded by waves. We have a chance of being energy secure without paying a penny to import ever-dwindling and ever-expensive supplies of fossil fuels which leaves us beholden to countries I would rather we were not.

And it doesn't matter if we are only 1% and others are not following suit. All we can change is what we do and seek to influence others as best we can (yes, including selling our tech to them). And actually China and India are appalling polluters but are taking steps to address that.

On "no one denies"? Look up the thread! Are those posters fictitious characters created by me?

The debate is around the extent of human impact on global warming.
Do you, or I really know the answer to that? Scientists have a rather chequered history of accuracy on such matters.
Even accepting that they are correct, it does not justify our current policy. The idea that we can influence India, China or the US is optimism beyond reason. The idea that fossil fuel will run out soon is also a fantasy. They have been saying that for decades. It is nowhere near exhausted.

Britain is a bit short of natural resources. We have shut mines, the North Sea is dwindling, and fracking is risky. Wind farms are a joke. That is our misfortune, but it cannot be undone by an expensive and unrealistic policy.
The world will never free itself from fossil fuel all the time the big oil producers run the show. Any new technology that reduces or removes the need for fossil fuels and is genuinely efficient will be suppressed.

We are at the mercy of the super rich, and they don't appear to care about global warming.

 

[silvertop]

The debate is around the extent of human impact on global warming.
Do you, or I really know the answer to that? Scientists have a rather chequered history of accuracy on such matters.
Even accepting that they are correct, it does not justify our current policy. The idea that we can influence India, China or the US is optimism beyond reason. The idea that fossil fuel will run out soon is also a fantasy. They have been saying that for decades. It is nowhere near exhausted.

Britain is a bit short of natural resources. We have shut mines, the North Sea is dwindling, and fracking is risky. Wind farms are a joke. That is our misfortune, but it cannot be undone by an expensive and unrealistic policy.
The world will never free itself from fossil fuel all the time the big oil producers run the show. Any new technology that reduces or removes the need for fossil fuels and is genuinely efficient will be suppressed.

We are at the mercy of the super rich, and they don't appear to care about global warming.

Or built by them.

 

[Common Sense Club]

The debate is around the extent of human impact on global warming.
Do you, or I really know the answer to that? Scientists have a rather chequered history of accuracy on such matters.
Even accepting that they are correct, it does not justify our current policy. The idea that we can influence India, China or the US is optimism beyond reason. The idea that fossil fuel will run out soon is also a fantasy. They have been saying that for decades. It is nowhere near exhausted.

Britain is a bit short of natural resources. We have shut mines, the North Sea is dwindling, and fracking is risky. Wind farms are a joke. That is our misfortune, but it cannot be undone by an expensive and unrealistic policy.
The world will never free itself from fossil fuel all the time the big oil producers run the show. Any new technology that reduces or removes the need for fossil fuels and is genuinely efficient will be suppressed.

We are at the mercy of the super rich, and they don't appear to care about global warming.

We are an island. Variations in tides exist around our entire shoreline. Tides are predictable and regular and yet we concentrate our green policy on erratic wind and solar generation. The fossil fuel industry naturally tries to protect its interests; the wind and solar industry is the same, hence why tidal power has been relegated. There was a planned project for a tidal barrier in Swansea Bay but shelved, although I believe some smaller Scottish tidal generators exist but not large scale. Tidal should have been the future…

 

[McAhuna]

It is very dangerous to be so closed. Right is not always right. For instance, climate change denial supported by "science" paid for by the fossil fuel industry and echoed by many on here is patently wrong. Have we learned nothing from big tobacco?

Has the first half of your paragraph met the second half?

"It is very dangerous to be so closed" ......followed by the other side are "patently wrong" (no further evidence or analysis considered necessary)

 

[Rudi Hedman]

Watch the discussion. No arrogance on show. Just very genuine care for the ability of the BBC to tell the truth without political interference.

Something that ought to concern everyone.

Utterly ridiculous claim.

 

[McAhuna]

Utterly ridiculous claim.

Yep, total gaslighting.

Calling out fraud is not political interference.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Both very much left leaning journalists, who made no secret of that when working for the “ impartial ” BBC.
So presumably you are ok with GB news being allowed to broadcast? That’s the Channel that many have tried to have shut down because they are right wing.
Ask those arrested for social media posts about fear of speaking out, that fear has already arrived.
So it’s all about Farage! Why did he doctor that speech, I wonder 🤔? I thought it was done by a BBC employee.
You may want to blame Trump, Farage et al but at the end of the day, your beloved BBC brought this on themselves, a massive own goal.

I have no idea what the personal political views of Jon Sopel or Emily Maitlis are. They are professional journalists who leave such things at home. I only see their professional activities. I have only known one journalist as a friend in my life. He was a committed socialist in his personal life but he worked for the Express and the Mail. You would never have guessed his own politics from his writing in both. He is a professional.

So are you. You would never have allowed personal views to interfere with professional decisions.

Of course GBNews should be allowed to broadcast. Just so long as they comply with the legal requirements of impartiality. The reason they have faced problems is because they haven’t complied and Ofcom have had to get involved.

Farage has been leading the campaign against the BBC for years, mirroring in many ways the attacks seen in the USA by Trump on the public broadcasters there.

The BBC is a huge organisation with an enormous output. It works to extremely high standards so is a sitting duck for anyone capricious enough to always be searching for mistakes rather than the great work it does every day.

This whole event highlights this issue. The Panorama edit has been judged in hindsight to have been done poorly. It should been accompanied by a more obvious fade to indicate that the two comments were not contemporaneous. However, everyone seems to forget this programme was made nearly 4 years after the event. A event that was only one piece of the actual story. That story being Trump’s attempt to overturn an election result.

That mob would not have been there but for Trump’s encouragement to believe a lie. If they weren’t there they could not have stormed the Capitol building.

Now we have those found guilty of crimes during that event being pardoned with Trump’s co-conspirators also being pardoned in the middle of the night two days ago!

The Parorama programme told a basic truth. Trump was responsible for the storming of the Capitol. Without him it would not have happened. That in telling that truth there was a mistake made in the narrative has resulted in the high standards of the BBC being compromised. Not though the basic truth.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

We are an island. Variations in tides exist around our entire shoreline. Tides are predictable and regular and yet we concentrate our green policy on erratic wind and solar generation. The fossil fuel industry naturally tries to protect its interests; the wind and solar industry is the same, hence why tidal power has been relegated. There was a planned project for a tidal barrier in Swansea Bay but shelved, although I believe some smaller Scottish tidal generators exist but not large scale. Tidal should have been the future…

We are off subject but the problem with capturing power from high energy tidal flows is the difficulty in drilling the sea bed to secure the equipment.

There is a local company here trying to solve that problem. I know the MD, so have a little insight.

 

[McAhuna]

We have no problems drilling in off-shore wind turbines though.

The BS is strong with this one.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

It’s unconnected. We have had that debate, so I won’t open it again here.

That's a no then.

 

[Badger11]

The only way it could be an error is if the edit folk innocently pulled the 2 segments together given pressure on time i.e. their job. OK, and plausible so far.

The people who made the documentary then watched the post-edit show, were not told about that edit, and genuinely didn't notice. Gross incompetence at best but (more likely) turning of the blind eye. Not plausible.

Yes I can see the logic of that argument which is why previous offences will be so important. If Trump can show that this is one of a long line of "errors" that all misrepresent him, then at best it shows that the BBC doesn't care about standards of journalism, and at worse they wilfully libelled him.

If Trump can show that and throw in a few toxic WhatsApp messages from people involved e.g. "I hate Trump and everything he stands for" then simple error looks very weak indeed.

I would not want to bet my house on there not be any of this stuff. Far safer for the BBC to apologise and make a donation to charity. Even if Trump rejected it at least it puts him on the back foot and puts the BBC in a better light as being reasonable and remorseful.