OK I will look at Alan's points soon
..but some coincidental news has just come in of a UK Skeptics team putting in a 163 page super complaint about systematic BBC Global Warming reporting bias. ..

Signatories comprise : Piers Corbyn, Richard Courtney, Philip Foster, Alex Henney, Paul Homewood, Lord Christopher Monckton, John Whitfield, Rupert Wyndham
Plus the politicians : David T C Davies MP and Roger Helmer MEP
see PH's blog discuss it there ..or start brand new thread on BH

We enclose a complaint from all of us about persistent partiality in the BBC’s coverage of climate change. From the outset, on the climate question the BBC has tended to reflect only one view – that of the climate science establishment who are promoting a view that man is causing significant global warming (which, with the plateau in temperature, has morphed into “climate change”, a term that is used to cover a wide range of weather events). It has excluded those whose opinions, though based on factual science and sound economics and logic, differ from the “official” position. The BBC has often promoted tendentious and scientifically illiterate but “politically-correct” opinions and has kept from the airwaves those who do not agree.

We and many others alongside us have come to the opinion that the BBC’s continuing bias on the climate question – its performance is too often like a scientifically illiterate, naïve, oft times emotive green activist organisation – is unacceptable and must now be brought to an end. In future, both sides in the climate debate must be fairly heard, whether BBC staff like it or not.

...Oh hang on a new statement from a top BBC source :
"In April 2012 we had a complaint saying that the BBC showed bias towards Climate skeptics in a 1 minute item ...so since we've had complaints from both sides
...I think we can say that : the BBC has got it about right on Climate reporting"

OK Alan I should have left the PC an hour ago and haven't read fully pages 8 and 9 of this thread I will do tmw
but haven PERHAPS found on March 20th the original quote which led me to the impression I summarised as BBC 99% OK

Normally when reading posts on sites such as this that lambast the BBC for its impartiality I mentally switch off. I do this because I believe the BBC usually reflects the majority of its audience, composed as that is of neutrals or supporters of the warmist cause.

Mar 21, 2016 at 7:16 PM | Alan Kendall (now 71 pages back)

You then went on to say how biased this Big Question show was..and to express total surprise
Whereas I think most of us others thought .. It's the BBC or Climate ..so of course it's amazingly biased, it's their institutionalised "right-on"/climate bias.

I wrote this before I found the quote

from the top

I think most BHers think that the BBC has a systematic institutionalised bias about a number of things especially climate /green, but a number of employees do have integrity and aa real world view. (eg AF Neil)

Then 3 weeks ago a skeptic @Alan said 'UK public opinion is with alarmism, and skeptics are just a tiny minority'
OK fine that's an opinion, lets park that.

But then I saw @Alan say something like 'Why are you guys always bashing the BBC ? it's just giving the people what they want and the vast majority are perfectly happy with it.' (see exact quote I found in the comment above)
Then when he repeated similar comments a tone lower, I thought that's extraordinary
... are we BHers wrong ? I should challenge Alan on this so I started this thread.

- I couldn't find the initial quote I just summarized it pithily as
"Alan seems to have 2 strange viewpoints
#1 That the BBC is 99% OK
#2 That BH regulars are frothing at the mouth trying to kill the BBC."

I expected Alan to say something like '"the BBC does 1,000 things at day and is only biased in 30 so lets call that 97% OK"
To my horror he took the 99% literally and went off it a huff
Apr 17, 2016 at 4:13 PM
------------------
Other points
Alan said "you did not repost those communications that are vehemently anti BBC"
... My view is ..he could have just quoted them himself.

- Alan sometimes pokes fun at others, but then is sensitive the other way
So when some people did mock the UEA his blood temperature went up

At Apr 19, 2016 at 8:59 AM I explained the 99% line

At Apr 20, 2016 at 12:16 PM I again tried to reset the debate
and bring up a new point about public opinion
that "two different people can meet the same people and come away with a different impression of their Climate views"

I tried to imagine a hypothetical situation of a Guardian reader might talk to the same people as me and get an impression that they were more pro green due to them hiding skepticism to fit in.
Unfortunately at the last moment I changed the words "Guardian reader" to "Alan"
... So again Alan saw red didn't understand that I don't it was my mind exercise and took it as a literal representation of him .. and got angry
When I explained some things ...he thought I was twisting his words ..I wasn't

"I value the contributions of Alan Kendall on this discussion and elsewhere" SandyS
Yes echo

@Martin A thankyou for drawing my attention to Alan's conciliatory words, I was 2 pages behind.
Very much appreciated @Alan

We deal with complex issues and so things can get misinterpreted.

@TinyCO2 thankyou for the reminder that the main reason I opened this thread was to move the discussion away off Unthreaded, where it was crowding everything else.

I am glad that @Alan clarified that he is on the spectrum in the view that the BBC has large bias on climate, whilst some other people are further down the spectrum thinking that the BBC has "right on" bias in so many areas that it's irredeemable.

* Is BBC institutionalised bias ?
or reflecting audience bias ?

Some people (like me) think the BBC's bias is internal with it having a systematic institutionalised bias with employees lips closed for fear of saying something not "right on"

Alan's initial comment I quoted above shows that there is another POV
In that "the BBC usually reflects the majority of its audience, composed as that is of neutrals or supporters of the warmist cause"

I think there can be a bit of chicken and egg
Like the BBC the BBC hypes up scare on about "controversial fracking"
..might then turn around and do some audience survey fudge that says the public think fracking is scary.

I think the BBC is chicken laying the eggs of Climate/green propaganda.

My unproven conspiracy theory is that when Radio 4 Feedback does 5 minutes on climate/green issues, they've scrambled up 10 messages from the producers Green mates whilst losing 30 skeptical messages in the bin.
....And I think some other progs play that game.

I'm going to open a new thread on : Is BBC Bias driven by the audience or a mostly a driver of it ?
..unless someone persuades me not to !