Less than a couple of weeks ago some of us spoke about the BBC's attitude to climate change.
Today the Guardian reports:
The BBC has accepted it gets coverage of climate change “wrong too often” and told staff: “You do not need a ‘denier' to balance the debate.”
In a briefing note sent to all staff warning them to be aware of false balance, the corporation has offered a training course on how to report on global warming. The move follows a series of apologies and censures for failing to challenge climate sceptics during interviews, including Lord Lawson.
Of course I am pleased.
And massive credit to Rupert Read for achieving this.
Next the BBC should stop platforming tax deniers.
And those who will not disclose their funding.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Hear, hear.
Excellent news which prompts a general comment. It’s easy to think one is powerless against seemingly overriding forces such as the MSM, corporate power, big money, morally corrupt governments (no names; no pack-drill, lol!), et al. But it’s increasingly evident that grassroots actions can and do have an effect. Like millions of others, each day I sign a plethora of on-line petitions on a range of international issues and am over the moon when I hear one of them has been successful. Just yesterday Avaaz had a big win in the courts against Monsanto (https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/governance/us-court-quashes-monsanto-s-undemocratic-plea-to-avaaz-to-hand-over-internal-documents-61551). It’s really encouraging and empowering.
I find it rather exciting to be even a mini-micro-part of potential progress. And I don’t do much. However I’m sure you must sometimes wonder if it’s really worth all the time, effort and occasional insults when measured against tangible results. The thing is we never know where the seeds will take root and how or when they will flourish. You can be sure that your blog re the BBC and climate deniers was among the seeds that took surprisingly rapid root and has already born fruit. It’s results like this that make it all worth while, isn’t it? 🙂
Yes, in a word
— And those who will not disclose their funding.
You’re expecting too much of the modern day journalist, I’m afraid. Much too easy for them to get a talking head from a ‘thinktank’ (generally right-wing, of course) to spout some dogma-filled guff instead of actually researching the story and explaining the nuances themselves.
Still, at least we won’t have to listen to any more nonsense about the climate from the likes of Lawson.
But Richard, you received a substantial donation from a trust, and you did not disclose the identity of the trustees or beneficiaries. The Tax Justice Network also accepted a large donation without disclosing the name of the donor.
Are you sure this is a road you want to go down?
Yes
Our records are absolutely fine
It is none of your or my business who donated to Mr. Richard Murphy. He is not a politician or public person. He is a private person who publishes his opinions about matters of tax and other subjects. He is doing a very fine job. May more people donate to support his efforts.
Thanks
But the reality is I have disclosed all my funding bar one over many years -and I have given detailed reasons why that small part of the overall total could not be detailed to protect a trustee
“that small part”
You are lucky indeed if a sum in excess of £20k is considered small.
To many working people it is a whole year’s income.
I agree
I was talking out of a total over many years
Why? Is the BBC suddenly concerned it is losing its social base, as informed viewers and listeners switch off at this nonsense of balanced views. Its not evidence based opinion the good Lord spouts and does not satisfy the Baconian test. Scientists refer to such views as ‘Crackpot’.
What’s happening to debate and evidence based opinion? A tongue in cheek view.
1. First, the [Establishment] politicians stopped answering questions. Only bumbling nonsense back.
2. Next the main stream newspapers turned away from honest journalism. And stopped answering questions.
3. And then TV and Radio employees realised they should follow suit, if they wanted a living. And stopped answering questions.
4. Then, fake news and journalism became indistinguishable. There were no more questions to be answered. Only “THE NEWS” was allowed to be broadcast.
What next? Will we be required to click ACCEPT to a “No-challenge Agreement” as a condition to access or use [digital] News information?
I say this as I recently noted in the fine print *Terms and Conditions* for the purchase of a TV; just to switch it on and watch requires the following consent:-
**Use of this TV requires consent to Google Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. Simulated UI. Applications availability varies by country and device.** It is the all encompassing wording “Use of this TV” that alarmed me. Of course a Trump could attempt to change those terms and conditions, worldwide, at a [digital] stroke.
Donors always have a good reason for wanting to be anonymous, Richard. The principled stance is to only accept donations if disclosure is made. Otherwise you cannot fairly hold a position that all funding should be disclosed.
First, that was my intended position and always will be again. I learn lessons.
Second, your position is typically arrogant. You will, I am quite sure, argue the IEA et al need not disclose but I must, even when a single trustee felt she might be at risk from doing so. The fact your so-called freedoms might result in abuse from others doesn’t matter too you, does it?
So, Richard, is it now your stance that you should not have accepted that anonymous donation?
If so will you now return the money so that the deep, dark stain on your reputation for transparency is removed?
My stance, by the way, is that if you insist on standards for others, you must adopt them yourself.
Respectfully, what a lot of nonsense
No, I will not be returning
Nor will I do it again
That is how change happens
Not in the crass way you suggest
I suggest you try living in the real world
So that is now clear.
You did nothing wrong.
But you will not be doing it again.
If you want to make fatuous comments this is not the place for you
No, my view is that everyone should disclose. Otherwise we cannot know if there is a conflict of interest.
No doubt the IEA would claim that some of their donors would feel at risk if their identity was disclosed. That might be true – but then they should decline the donation. The same goes for you and TJN.
I have made it clear that this will not happen again
“If you want to make fatuous comments this is not the place for you”
Sanctimonious bigotted nit-picking has no place here. I don’t know why you give it space….have you forgotten where the delete key is ?
Massive credit indeed.
I would be even happier if the BBC were to acknowledge a more widespread problem with their journalists’ collective ability to weigh up scientific (and indeed other types) of evidence before deciding what constitutes balance.
There seems to be a perverse interest in the wacky or downright stupid – I can understand the appeal of this for an online business funded by advertising clicks but the way the BBC is funded should free it of those concerns.