Discussion > Are BHers out to kill the BBC ?
oh oh. EM's had a few already. Best to switch the computer off now, EM - a few gins and a computer connected to the internet are not a good combination.
Martin A
Do I believe on the Green Blob at all?
Well, in as much as they influence at the top - Yes. I agree, in this case, with Entropic Man. It's all aboard for the elites.
Not surprising really. So long as everyone is looking at the most-wealth generating policies the opportunities for dipping your hand in the till are few.
But with Green priorities there are lots of opportunities for the elites to divert cash. Where the money is going is not the only thing measured.
For example, Tata made money from CO2 emissions rights for Port Talbot., So did all the other EU steel mills (so there was no competitive advantage - very fair). But the money has to come from somewhere.
Alan Kendall, you make a good point about the success of Greens in the University student unions.
My answer is that that is a special case.
Look at my description of the defence mechanisms that organisation have. They can't apply to a load of (almost) kids who are unified by their occupation.
Has it spilled outside from Gown to Town? Brighton is, again, a special case. They've always been 'alternative'.
Norwich was expected to be another... but the Greens still only have 1 MP.
M Courtney
Martin A. You are a brave or foolish man calling students almost kids. They have the vote, and now MPs exist who are the same age.
Certainly there is a link between town and gown, not perhaps in Westminster, but at the local government level. That's why I mentioned Norwich.
Alan Kendall
Alan K - I'm pretty sure I said nothing like that whatever. You been having a few gins with EM?
Martin A
Martin A. In discussing student unions you wrote (Apr. 27; 8.25) ";...apply to a load of (almost) kids who are unified by their occupation"
Think I will have that drink now.
Cheers, or using my Canadian nationality. Cheemo!
Alan Kendall
umm...
michael hart
OK, Alan Kendall.
It seems my writing has so little style or charisma that you think anyone starting with "M" is the same.
Well, fine. We can't all be Golf Charlie.
Still, ponder my thoughts. They aren't to be dismissed so easily.
Even if - I admit - it is fair to question whether those who have never left parental support (in full time education) are really "almost kids".
M Courtney
Martin A. In discussing student unions you wrote (Apr. 27; 8.25) ";...apply to a load of (almost) kids who are unified by their occupation"
I deny it.
Now EM will be calling me a denier (again).
Martin A
Martin A and M Courtney. Blame it on my slight dyslexia. (Always a good excuse in an emergency). But confusing you is so easy: you both write such interesting and stimulating posts, full of such good sense. (Enough buttering up to be forgiven?)
MC. So it is you that is brave/foolish, and I have considered the points you were making.
MA Some might consider it an honour to be so branded by EM.
[I do hope I've got you the right way around this time].
Alan Kendall
michael hart. Such a loud mmm, now understood.
Alan Kendall
EM. Apr 27; 7.20pm
Still outside after all this time, just tapping on the window?
You can come in you know, you just have to read our policies with open eyes and not be persuaded by those big banks down the road.
Their overdrafts are going to be called in soon.
Alan Kendall
"The problem of reforming the Royal Society, which personally I would prioritize over BBC reform" ..That's tosh
The Sun Newspaper 1989 : "The South Yorkshire Police have given us the authoritative Hillsborough narrative to publish, we can't go listening to those Liverpool oiks"
The BBC 2004-2016 : "The Royal Society have given us the authoritative Climate narrative to publish, we can't go listening to those skeptic oiks"
... You don't just look for an authoritative voice and hope its not corrupt. No rather you look at the story from all angles.
And whatever narrative you dig up you test and challenge it.
#1 If you have an Andrew Neil and team ..who know their stuff and do research ..then you can have him grill the sources.
Or #2 You can follow the Fox news example ; It most brings on two opposing voices to contest each other so the viewers the viewers can figure the truth themselves.
..This technique should probably be used by most BBC progs like R4 Today made up of 'know nothing presenters'. Wit(n/l)ess Michelle Hussein the other day who just took 2100 temperature projections as gospel ..and replied "but that would only limit it to 2%" (temperature rise) .... instead of 2C.
Someone asserted the other day that the BBC through its monitoring service has a crack team of experts/analysts..That doesn't seem to help the news output which seems to have loads of churnalism, as reporters just read off fashionable NGO and corporate press releases..whilst ignoring the unfashionable ones.
( Energy Industry corps, UKIP are unfashionable, whilst Google, Tesla, Facebook, Greentech are fashionable)
stewgreen
@Alan about Positive suggestions for the BBC ..I gather that is why the super complaint is 163 pages long, cos it actually lays out the problems and remedies ...have you read it ?
stewgreen
Oh I should add that Royal Society has a new head (from India) so possibly they could roll-back-the-green
stewgreen
@Alan points out the modern McCarthyism that skeptical voices cannot risk opening their mouths
NGO's like WWF, Oxfam, RSPB and Royal Society are not pure authorities rather their output of who has hijacked their committees
Anyway they don't call it the fallacy of authority for nothing.
..Authority and truth are not the same things, though many journos want it to be a shortcut like that.
- Back to the Royal Society, when they ring up the BBC and say we've got the latest views on climate/energy science and policy for you to publish.. someone should ask 'who says the Royal Society is an authority on such things ?'
And the more you are being pressured to only push one point of view the more suspicious you should be.
wherever possible the bBC should go direct to the relevant dept , rather than relying on going to the top of a pyramid filter.
- I should have said above this "ban the skeptics from the airwaves idea" should have been spotted as political BS.
Mono-thinking is so dangerous that I think the BBC should have gone to great lengths to find opposing views. If they idiots they will show up as idiots on the airwaves.
. I very much think it's committees have been unsurped by GreenDreamBelievers.
but @M_Courtney seems to say Charities and NGO's are not hijacked by greendream activism
...em what about The National Trust or RSPB ? as first examples.
Greeny things are the path of least resistance, Green is good and holy these days, it is not challenged. Bodies will go for green virtue signalling recycling boxes etc. even when proven ungreen
@M_Courtney says
"There is a while swathe of public life that finds the whole Green thing all very well but incredibly overdone." Yep tho it seems @Alan doesn't believe that.
- I think this swathe are a large proportion of people working in the 'real world' and getting things done. whereas I imagine green supporters are more often in the public sector
@M_Courtney suggests that Green activists seem more numerous than they are cos they use internet tech effectively ...Yep they are passionately coordinated.
@Alan mentions Green bases spreading out from universities ..I agree seems to me Green is the naive/kid student fashion of the era like, atheism or "ban the bomb" used to be. After Mandela was released students lost one big campaign focus, so new ones have come in.
I see @EM Ireveals himself as a true propaganda pusher now.
10 years ago I could see that Tata/industries carbon permit trading thing was a bribe given to them to keep them sweet despite new green policies...and we are back to the BBC, who didn't make the challenge 10 years ago, cos they were too busy trying to be go with the green flow .
stewgreen
I see @EM Ireveals himself as a true propaganda pusher now.
In vino veritas.
Martin A
Stewgreen, Wow!!!!!!!!! Feeling better now?
I'll just ask two questions in support of my "tosh" thesis (so so respectful of another's opinion, verging on the A word? (Humour!)).
Q 1. If the BBC don't rely on the RS and academia in general for climate change opinion, where do they get their information? Rhetorical question really.
Q 2. If that information were more balanced, do you think the BBC would change.
Please be less judgmental about my not mentioning the complaint. I have already commented upon it, but will repeat two of my points : 1) it is overkill, containing demands that the BBC could never accept, and 2) it was designed to fail. I also expressed considerable interest in what the strategic objective of the document really was. Expected tactical loss for some more important strategic gain?
Alan Kendall
Lord Turner’s Misleading Views On The Paris Agreement
"......... Everything Lord Turner said about the Paris Agreement and China’s Intended Nationally Determined Contributions was wrong. That a person of his influence says things that will mislead the listening public is regrettable. That the BBC airs such statements without any challenges is a disgrace."
Green Sand
@Alan what I wrote before your posts , was just straight comment
There was no anger, dramaqueening nor great passion in it
which I think your "Wow!!!!!!!!! Feeling better now?" suggests you think exists.
So your comment "Please be less judgmental " is pretty ironic.
(BTW I thinking being judgemental is entirely fine)
It's entirely OK to quote another persons point and then say why it is tosh ..That is very much attacking the argument and NOT the man.
The answers to your questions are actually obvious in the text that I wrote, so seek them there..and get back to me if you don't find them.
(I'm beginning to think your style is to quickly start typing, before reading properly what the previous person wrote)
Re the super complaint :
I said >>About Positive suggestions for the BBC ..I gather that is why the super complaint is 163 pages long, cos it actually lays out the problems and remedies ...have you read it ? <<
...I fail to see that actually is judgemental ..and you didn't answer my question.
My Take : The Corbyn style graphics look unprofessional, however I think it is probably they have had a lot of legal nous and that is the reason for the plan, that quite possibly they are pushing the BBC into a legal corner.
stewgreen
stewgreen
I very much think it's committees have been unsurped by GreenDreamBelievers. but @M_Courtney seems to say Charities and NGO's are not hijacked by greendream activism
...em what about The National Trust or RSPB ? as first examples.
The tops of the organisations seek the money.
That's from the Government. So the sing along to the piper's tune.
Do you think most RSPB supporters or NT volunteers are ardent Greens?
It's a fad at the top because it pays well.
And when it stops paying well those two organisation will move on. (Greenpeace has more of a problem).
M Courtney
That's an argument I hadn't thought of of ..and may well be true fro a proportion of top committee bods.
With the normal members it maybe chicken and egg
Cos once the house magazine contains lots of brainwashing articles, then those with the nous might give up and leave the charity.
stewgreen
Stewgreen. Not at all. I was most impressed with your effort in producing so much in multiple posts. If I had done that I would have felt exhausted, hence my "joke" about "feeling better". The following sentence was deliberately identified as humour to avoid understanding.
We have history but we nee to trust each other more.
I already had read the complaint before I gave my original opinion. Did you really think I would write something without reading the source material? Believing that of me is rather insulting.
Personally I don't think you answered my second queztion at all, but there yeh go.
I think the method you (and others) use to pick at the BBC by giving examples where newspeople make stupid errors (like confusing 2% & 2oC) is mendacious. Those people are not expert in everything, yet are expected to be. If I point out that people on ITV make the same sort of mistakes, you retort that the BBC is publically funded (and our tax monies are being wasted) and so we go on, round and round getting precisely nowhere.
I don't think the complaint against the BBC will result in anything positive, nor do I think it was designed to. It's a position paper that the authors can repeatedly return to in subsequent battles. I think this is in agreement with what you are now saying.
Alan Kendall
the multiple repetitions of small stupid errors like the 2% thing show that they are not on the ball.
- that particular item was today taken apart by a scientist in a 2000 word essay when actually the presenter Michelle Husain should have just done her job properly.
http://www.thegwpf.com/lord-turners-misleading-views-on-the-paris-agreement/#sthash.zc1cclrO.dpuf
stewgreen
M Courtney, with a change in leadership inevitable at some time, some of the Green Blob allegedly good causes, feel the Birthday Honours List may provide some of the rewards they seek, now that, allegedly, they can't be bought.
golf charlie
Alan Kendall
Not a parody, just the view from outside your little mutual reassurance society.