Discussion > Are BHers out to kill the BBC ?
Alan, knock it off for chrissake.
He said
AK,
It will be a pleasure to discuss things in a more calm manner. I appreciate your gesture of good will.
Martin A
Martin A. My unconditional apology was offered to those, like you, I may have been arrogant to when expressing my views. I am most grateful to those who responded and whom I acknowledge I probably so abused. However two people jumped in all sweetness and light, who when I look back, were people who I never abused yet who joined in with alacrity to give me a good kicking.
I did hope that by making a fulsome apology, others here might examine their own behaviour. It hasn't happened. I'm left with accepting 100% of the blame. Then to have people like Hunter express such "nice" comments when the record shows I was the abused party. This is hypocrisy. Hunter's post is hypocrisy.
I asked Hunter a number of questions, I did not impose my opinion at all. I was very, very careful about this.
I will only respond to people like Hunter who have posted and are under the false impression that my apology applied to them. If anyone posts expressing even the smallest degree of regret, then my response will be extremely positive.
Martin, I'll ask you two questions
1. Do you believe I was 100% to blame? and if you answer no then
2. Are you surprised that no one has expressed any regret whatsoever?
I know people like you, who I respect, want this whole matter buried, but I still feel very aggrieved and when those like Hunter claim the high ground I feel put upon all over again. If people like you cannot see why I might continue to feel the way I do, then I must face the fact that I never will fit here.
Alan Kendall
Alan
I think I understand very well why you feel aggrieved and I have no doubt at all of the depth of your feeling about the matter.
However, my observation, in various aspects of life but particularly in industrial teamwork, is that discussing who is to 'blame' after something did not go as some of the participants wished it had gone, or asking whose 'fault' it was, is generally quite counterproductive.
It can be useful to analyse *why* things went as they, did but from a non-judgemental point of view that does not involve discussion of blame and fault.
Here is my view on apologies:
- An unconditional apology is something to be admired and respected and often has the effect of inducing a degree of admiration in your opponents, where previously there was none.
- An unconditional apology but offered only to those whose previous behaviour has met certain standards set by the apologiser, or with a requirement or expectation that others will reciprocate, is not in fact an unconditional apology.
- As I have said before, a conditional or a qualified apology has very little value.
Martin A
I thought we were all moving on
The basic principle is that you cannot change the past, you can only change the future.
So personally I just try to post my views without trying to intimidate others, and I expect that others will challenge my views as I challenge theirs.
---------------------------------------------------------------
It's an important point that no one should be intimidated away from posting an honestly held opinion
"You shouldn't have said that .you punk" is what I see on 'progressive' web discussions.
There are lurkers on this forum who are too busy to post, and are also maybe intimidated away from posting cos someone will namecall them.
Also people should not be intimidated away by someone else setting a frame of "the discussion is over" or "everyone knows"
We value everyone's opinion, but that doesn't mean we have to agree with them.
stewgreen
I'm not apologising for anything and nor am I expecting anyone else to apologise.
This was not the finest thread ever to grace His Grace's pages.
Move on.
M Courtney
It seems we've all agreed that the BBC is not 99% OK, and that it does have have a problem with bias.
- I don't buy this excuse that it's only giving the audience what it wants.
I'd like to see some contrary evidence...anyone ?
I think only a few mad dramagreens want climate/green issues shoehorned into so many progs like the BBC does.
Neither do I think this bias is trivial and that we should just walk away.
IT BREAKS THE RULES
...It seems everyday that the BBC breaks it's own charter in half a dozen items
..and I think the word fraudulent can sometimes be used.
So there is quite a big problem that needs fixing.
..and it's been going on for 10 years.
So I don't think discussing closing down the BBC in present form should be ruled off the table.
The playing field was different 20 years ago, when the only way to broadcast was to have a huge transmitter network.
There is a POV maybe @TinyCO2, that the BBC is so rotten to the core that is unreformable.
Then you have to think would you be throwing the baby with the bathwater.
But is that like someone looking at a family which has a child-abusing Uncle Jimmy in, and saying "we really don't want to risk breaking up this happy family, so we won't do anything about Uncle Jimmy"
stewgreen
Stewgreen.
If you ever do set up a new discussion thread you might consider giving it a more positive spin. Something like:
How can the BBC"s output be improved? Or
What should the BBC do to improve its climate change coverage?
Otherwise you will create yet another vehicle for those who only wish to bitch.
Please do not involve me in it.
Alan Kendall
I refer my learned colleague to the answer I gave earlier
"It's an important point that no one should be intimidated away from posting an honestly held opinion"
................ Apr 27, 2016 at 8:31 AM | stewgreen
stewgreen
OK no one has yet commented on the idea that BBC bias is driven by "giving the audience what it wants"
- Few public wanted 28 Gate
- Few Public want Harra to be deceptive in his reporting ..like going back and stealth editing his news-stories
Now In the election
Ukip won 3.8m vote (12%)s, the Greens 1.1m (3%)
So yes indeed we can see that some of the public are very interested in the GreenDream
and I don't begrudge them some special programming .. In the same way the BBC has programmes for gamers, law people, minor-league football, darts etc.
..But what i object to is perfectly good science progs being replaced by a Green science prog..and this shoehorning.
- Although general programming should in part be driven by what the public are interested in ..say motorsport ..(which the BBC no longer covers)
...surely News and Current Affairs should be driven by real world events (not PR events like the solar glider) ?
...........
And on this false balance BS excuse
..I am happy on any issue for there two countering experts to be put up, rather than some naive reporter vs a heavily media trained NGO PR guy.
stewgreen
Stewgreen.
Just how difficult it is to convey one's opinion here without being misunderstood. It's really ironic.
There are already discussion threads available within which to bitch (translation; "post honestly held opinions"). My suggestion, for that is all it was, was for a more positively focussed thread.
I would be interested in the opinions of others about how the BBC might be improved and the mechanisms by which this might be achieved. If I want to experience more negative views I can always return here.
Alan Kendall
Alan Kendall
Since you do not know how to set up a discussion thread, I set up one for you.
For future reference, go to the bottom of the Discussion menu page.
Entropic man
@EM Alan said "If you ever do set up a new discussion thread you might consider giving it a more positive spin.
...Please do not involve me in it."
I suggest he laughs at your new thread, rather than let his blood pressure get high.
stewgreen
Entropic Man
Thank you for your kindness.
Unfortunately, I already made it clear in my post to Stewgreen that I wanted no involvement.
If others wish to contribute fine, but I wish you had kept my name off it.
Alan Kendall
Well @Alan your suggestion of a bitch-free thread * was noted..each to his own
... but I like to analyse what the faults are first, before setting out ways to fix them.
I notice that @Alan at different times suggested reasons for BBC Bias
#1 "I believe the BBC usually reflects the majority of its audience, composed as that is of neutrals or supporters of the warmist cause."
#2 "The lack of any balance is due to the BBC lacking direction from a scientifically informed and literate administration. They also have convinced themselves that the dissenting side doesn't matter, this belief being informed by expert opinion such as from the Royal Society."
There you go @Alan listed a problem, which I agree with. They are getting scientific advice from a body which doesn't know its climate stuff. and accepting that as gospel.
..So how do we remedy that ?
stewgreen
So how do we remedy that ?
I think it's essentially impossible. It's an ingrained culture.
Very hard to change the culture of an organisation. Much quicker and more effective to start a new organisation and let the old one fade away.
Systems-People.The preceding considerations have provided convincing evidence that the System has its effects on the people within it. It isolates them, feeds them a distorted and partial version of the outside world, and gives them the illusion of power and effectiveness. But systems and people are related in another, subtler way. A selective process goes on whereby systems attract and keep those people whose attributes are such as to make them adapted to life in the system. (...)
(From Systemantics by John Gall)
Martin A
Stewgreen.
Blood pressure fine; laughter more difficult.
Might well be the only BH discussion thread with a person's name attached where that person nver contributes to it.
Alan Kendall
The problem of reforming the Royal Society, which personally I would prioritize over BBC reform*, is a tough one. It receives, administers, and distributes state research monies, provides scientic advice to governments and government agencies and, most importantly is a self appointing body. Ever since AGW types gained access, they have controlled both the narrative and the players. The likelihood of a sceptical climate scientist being elected must now be vanishingly small. It's now a self perpetuating system. Other scientists have been remarkably reticent to speak up against what many of them must recognize to be a perversion of recognized scientific procedures. A succession of presidents not only have accepted AGW but have actively promoted it (or even CAGW).
It is so powerful, that the only way it will change is for either 1) a strong independent president to be elected, or 2) if non climate scientists can be persuaded to overturn past RS policies**.
* I believe this because the BBC does not really have its own scientific expertise and relies on ouside advice. Change the advice it gets from the RS and the BBC may change rapidly and decisively.
** Both are unlikely to occur because of the influence of the green blob. ***
*** The green blob to my mind is more a green Borg - transforming everything in its path, into itself.
Alan Kendall
AK,
What a pointless and odd performance you are giving.
Best wishes and good luck,
So long and thanks for the fish,
hunter
*** The green blob to my mind is more a green Borg - transforming everything in its path, into itself.
That is a common view. That Greens enter an organisation, create new norms (environmental objectives) and gradually transform the organisation like a parasitoid.
It may be true but it seems improbable to me for two reasons:
1) Entryism has been going on for decades in politics and centuries in ecclesiastical politics. All organisations and public life has developed immunity to it. That immunity comes in the form of strong leaders in front of and behind the scenes (nice little old ladies can be quite opinionated). And it also comes in the form of core tents that gather people who would otherwise have little in common. Adding in a new norm to those core tenets just splits off most of the people with disinterest.
2) Most local organisations everywhere have their green apparatchik being all eager. And the apparatchiks are ignored. If they can save money by turning off lights then great. But generally they are tolerated with humour, sometimes kind. It's only at the top where they have sway. That sway comes mainly from access to Government funding because the Green norms are adopted there. There is now a duty for all Government projects to have an eco-audit as well as a financial audit. Why there is no ethical audit is anyone’s guess (ahem). The appearance of taking overeverything is just because the media is also at the top.
It’s a London thing.
There is a while swathe of public life that finds the whole Green thing all very well but incredibly overdone.
Perhaps the reason this has looked more powerful than it really is comes down to the change in technology. The media is now the internet. Where once a few isolated loonies could rage against their local societies and write disgruntled letters to the Times…
Now they can organise.
It looks like there is a great grassroots movement out there. That will get vote-hungry politicians on side. But actually less than 2% will vote Green.
It’s not the Labour Party. It’s not the Tories.
It’s not even in the same league as UKIP.
M Courtney
What interesting arguments MC, will have to think more about them.
My first reaction to your first argument is that the Greenies have legions of active followers willing to assume roles and tasks that others shun. Thus the infection rate is high and constantly gains new and commited supporters. The effectiveness of greenies in university union politics is legendary and sometimes spreads out into local communities, as it has in Norwich.
Following on from your discussion, I wonder if you believe in the green blob at all. If resistance to it is strong, how could it survive or even form in the first placee?
Alan Kendall
M Courtney
Alan Kendall has a point. The meat of the Green message, that our fossil fuel burning is damaging our climate, is now recognised worldwide by the Paris Treaty. Most of the 195 countries in the world are signing up to do something about it.
Investment in renewables passed a href="http://www.renewableenergyfocus.com/view/43975/un-reports-2015-saw-266-billion-invested-globally-in-renewable-energy/">$266 billion in 2015 .
Peabody Coal filed for bankruptcy.
Where are the massed ranks of the climate sceptics? Posting on fringe websites like BH, WUWT and GWPF.
Like the Flat Earthers, the hollow Earthers or the UFO crowd; you go to echo chambers where you reassure each other that your delusions are correct. Out among the realists the climate debate has moved on from "Is it happening?" to What shall we do about it? and left you behind.
Entropic man
M Courtney
Alan Kendall has a point. The meat of the Green message, that our fossil fuel burning is damaging our climate, is now recognised worldwide by the Paris Treaty. Most of the 195 countries in the world are signing up to do something about it.
Investment in renewables passed $266 billion in 2015
Peabody Coal filed for bankruptcy.
Where are the massed ranks of the climate sceptics? Posting on fringe websites like BH, WUWT and GWPF.
Like the Flat Earthers, the hollow Earthers or the UFO crowd; you go to echo chambers where you reassure each other that your delusions are correct. Out among the realists the climate debate has moved on from "Is it happening?" to What shall we do about it? and left you behind.
Entropic man
Anyone hear an echo?
Alan Kendall
EM's final paragraph could have been written by Ayla.
A parody?
Alan Kendall
Hunter re Apr 25 10.43pm.
Looked over our past interactions on this thread. This began when I challanged your Apr 20, 5.15pm thesis that news agencies that distort the news (you were referring here to the BBC) are doomed to fail due to evolutionary pressures. I immediately thought of Fox News which is notorious in the USA for its right wing, anti climate-change bias, yet unlike the prediction of your thesis it grows more powerful each successive year. So Apr 20. 5.34pm I challanged your predictions with two questions. In their entirety they were -
"How long do you give Fox News"? and
"Guess which way it's evolving"?
Essentially they destroy your thesis.
Now guess the "calm manner" in which you responded to this single post of mine? A post that by any stretch of the imagination cannot be labelled as arrogantly imposing my views on others. You called it a "demonstration of frothing".
Now guess who feels the aggrieved party here.
Now guess who believes they deserve an apology.