Wednesday, 20 July 2011

‘Nation Shall Speak Consensus And Majority View Unto Nation’

Climate change sceptics will get less of a hearing on the BBC because they are at odds with the majority view among scientists, a report reveals.
Can they possibly get less..?

The mind boggles.
The BBC Trust report, out today, is in part based on an independent review of the broadcaster’s coverage by Steve Jones, professor of genetics at University College London.

He is understood to find no evidence of bias in the corporation’s output, but suggests that on issues where there is a ‘scientific consensus’ – also including the MMR jab and genetically modified crops – there should be no need for the BBC to find opponents of the mainstream view.
What happened to that ‘impartiality’ the Beeb is supposed to display, then?

And since an overwhelming majority would like to halt immigration and bring back the death penalty, does that mean the Beeb should reflect that in their broadcasting? Or is the hallowed ‘should never be criticised’ tag only applicable to scientists?

It seems it’s the latter:
Corporation sources admit climate change is unlike most other areas of science in the passions it arouses and the political debate that surrounds it.

But a BBC insider close to the report said that when an issue had moved from ‘hypothesis’ to ‘consensus’, the broadcaster now needed to reflect that in the weight it gave to the different sides of the debate.
Well, a few hundred years ago, the consensus was that the earth was flat and ‘bad humours’ were responsible for many illnesses, so it’s not like that’s much to rely on, is it?

‘When they are minority views, the BBC is entitled to give them less weight rather than present it as “half the world thinks this and the half the world thinks that” ,’ the source said.
Yes, clearly, the Beeb should never bring us any news on what people think. It should never, ever be allowed to colour their reporting.

Can we take away their public funding now?

22 comments:

Hating Auntie said...

The BBC is the classic lefties wet dream. It is a vast, committee-driven organisation which is forced on people, content is 'approved' with output controlled by 'consensus' but above all, any dissenters to the 'service' face fines and jail.

The coyly named Auntie employs droves of people on excellent salaries all drawn from taxation, so it enthusiastically beats the drum of more taxation and greater control.

As a news supplier it hides the truth, distorts opinion does not reflect what ordinary people believe in. The BBC insists 'balance' is two people from the same (usually left) side discussing an issue –– often issues which are painted in some favourable light even when they are to the detriment of the people of the UK, such as increased immigration, islamic growth and more government power.

Other than that, it produces EastBenders where ludicrous 'real' people scream at each ovver.

Innit.

Trooper Thompson said...

Auntie Beeb, married to Uncle Joe.

AP, good find.

Gallovidian said...

Marxists call it 'post-modern science'.

What that means is that one scientific point of view is declared by Marxists to be the concensus and all others are suppressed.

AGW, racial equality, all that tosh that they use to excuse their misgovernment.

Anonymous said...

Ah yes, the MMR jab. It's settled science as fair as the pharmaceutical companies are concerned, 100% safe! Ignore all the new cases of autism that coincide very closely with this 'safe' jab and it's fine.

Big Brother will keep you safe and make sure that no concerned citizens are allowed to raise alarm that could impact their profits. And plus its against the liberals human rights to stop them from being allowed to inject/indoctrinate your children with whatanything they feel like.

Shinar's Basket Case said...

Frances Kathleen Oldham Kelsey

/end of debate about 'non mainstream' views.

Bucko said...

I've already withdrawn my funding.

Anonymous said...

If there's such a focus on consensus, how about marginalising islam?

Thought not...

RAB said...

Albert Einstein was once being interviewed by a reporter when he had just published one of his Relativity theories...

Professor, there is a large body of scientists who completely disagree with your new theory, how many would it take to convince you that you are wrong?

The great man replied...

Just one, as long as they are right.

Tattyfalarr said...

"When they are minority views"

Except when those views are aired by a religious, sexual or ethnic "minority". At that point it is deemed to be a "majority" view. Doublethink is Doublespeak is Doublethink. Ta daa.

Single acts of tyranny said...

I am sure you know of the 31,000 signatories who doubt the orthodoxy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition

So if the mainstream is 98% then they should be able to show us 15 million odd scientists who say yes? which they can't

Captain Haddock said...

"‘Nation Shall Speak Consensus And Majority View Unto Nation’"

And the BBC shall continue to spout its Marxist bollocks ..

Axe all public funding now & see how long it manages to remain on its own two feet, by merit alone ..

Money for ol' Rupe said...

This is just why reason why News International needs to survive the deserved shitfest they have brought upon themselves.

The thought of only having the BBC orthodoxy washing over a slumbering nation is just too dreadful to contemplate.

ivan said...

Now all we need is Murdoch to take over BskyB and give us the opposing view.

Oh, I forgot that's what all the fuss is about.

One point about the 'independent' review, Jones is an AGW supporter so we can judge what is said by that.

Antony said...

I'm with Bucko.

Have stopped paying for the twats.

Tory Aardvark said...

Hit the nail on the head, BBC and Science is mutually exclusive. They are all paid up members of the Church of Climatology.

Climate Religion infests every part of the BBC, how many times has the background story in yet another lacklustre drama been Global Warming?

Time to stop funding the BBC

Uncle Badger said...

Prof. Jones is also a socialist. That's no coincidence, either.

Tattyfalarr said...

Speaking of minorities...this is one of those articles that positively beg for Julia's talent for ambush in a way that's almost shameless...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2016750/Summers-Eve-racist-using-different-coloured-hands-ads.html

JuliaM said...

"The BBC is the classic lefties wet dream."

It's why they are coming down on NI so hard...

"/end of debate about 'non mainstream' views."

Good point!

"The great man replied...

Just one, as long as they are right."


What a pity we have no-one of his calibre around now...

"Prof. Jones is also a socialist. That's no coincidence, either."

Indeed!

"Speaking of minorities..."

Oooh, good spot! Ta.

Mike said...

people don;t know what they want, never have, never will. Their too used to bieng fed everything including thoughts. I say more of this:

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/leopard-mauls-six-people-attack-india-105809834.html

Anonymous said...

Anon 14:00;

FFS, take off your tin foil hat. There is plenty of evidence that the people who think MMR causes autism were paid to say that. There is also plenty of evidence that the people who think humans cause global warming are paid to say that. Scientists can be right sometimes and wrong sometimes, but they always follow the money.

If you want your child to get measles, go ahead. The MMR is safe, and man does not cause climate change.

Anonymous said...

Dear Predator

Colour me cynical, but the consensus seems to be amongst those scientists who are funded by the government with money stolen from the public.

Are there any government funded scientists who disagree with the CAGW* 'consensus'? Do scientists who change their minds based on the evidence of their research lose their funding?

DP

* Computer Aided Global Warming

Mike said...

humankind may or may not be a factor in the current measurable changes in climate but not the only factor. the kind of advice to reduce any significant negative effect on our planets climatic patterns commonly held as gospel is often poppycock, drivel, a drop in the ocean or just plain bollox. the changes seen in climatic patterns and their effect on our environment may or may not be localised in time ie a general trend in one direction set to continue or just a blip, the effects on the environment are more often seen in local terms rather than as global events or trends.

In conclusion if you want to live in the dark switch your lights off, put on a hair dress and eat Gu you may or may not feel all warm inside having save some cuddly polar bears and stopped the next tsunami or ROCK ON!!!!!