"Strange bedfellows" was the catchphrase for the recent amicus brief to oppose Michael Mann's effort to keep his UVa CLIMATEGATE-related e-mails secret. "Climate change deniers, newspapers partner in a FOIA fight". (WUWT)

Here in the UK, we might soon be in bed with George Monbiot. He's petitioning the BBC over it's "lack of candour about contributors". In this instance, the Institute of Economic Affairs, interviewed several times by the Today programme on Radio 4, without them mentioning it received funding from British American Tobacco, Philip Morris and Japan Tobacco International. "Big Tobacco" is clear a Bad Thing in George Monbiot's universe. Some of us might happily agree on health grounds.

His petition says
"In response to complaints, the BBC has refused to accept that it should reveal the relevant interests of its contributors, even though its failure to do so breaches its own editorial guidelines."
(and)
"While we believe that anyone who is honest about their interests should be allowed to speak, we call on the BBC not to give airtime on controversial issues to organisations which refuse to say who funds them. "

Well, one issue *might* lead to a new policy at the BBC about declaring financial and vested interests. How many alarmist climate forecasts have we heard from "Think Tanks" and "Independent Institutes" without them saying who's paying them to sound the alarm? Or being asked by the BBC?

*If* this became a new BBC editorial policy, would it be an equal playing field? Or would there be more "appeals to authority"? (Government=good, business=bad). If the public's money is given to us by a government agency, it must be alright, whatever we do with it?

Petition ref:
http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/the-bbc-always-disclose-the-financial-interests-of-the-people-you-interview-in-the-issues-they-are-discussing