BBC: "left-wing, shallow and oh-so politically correct"

Speaking out. Sissons (L) and Buerk (R)

This should come as a surprise to no-one. Like the ABC, the BBC is stuffed full of trendy urban lefties, pushing their own agendas, pro-Labour, pro-Obama, pro-Palestine etc, and which naturally include extreme environmentalism and a love of global warming alarmism. Only when they are too old to care do employees speak out.

We previously covered newsreader Peter Sissons’ memoirs here where he described the corporation as a “propaganda machine for climate change zealots”. Now another newsreader, Michael Buerk, has similarly let the cat out of the bag:

Michael Buerk has launched a withering assault on the BBC’s ‘creed of political correctness’.

The veteran presenter accuses staff at the Corporation of an inbuilt ‘institutional bias’ and warns that they read the left-wing Guardian newspaper as if it is ‘their Bible’.

Reviewing a memoir by his former colleague Peter Sissons, Buerk endorses his view that the BBC is warped by the prejudices of its staff.

He says fellow reporters have ‘contempt’ for business and the countryside – and that a left-wing culture means the national broadcaster has been cast ‘adrift of the overriding national sentiment’ on issues such as climate change.

Buerk, who has previously voiced criticisms of fellow newsreaders for being overpaid, autocue-reading ‘lame brains’, praises Sissons for attacking ‘Autocuties, “Elf ’n’ Safety” and ‘its culture of conformity’.

Buerk also accuses BBC reporters of an ‘uncritical love affair with environmentalism’. (source)

And for the BBC you could of course substitute our own ABC, which employs climate alarmists in its top science reporter positions (think Robyn Williams and Bernie Hobbs), and Left-leaning presenters in key political roles (think Tony “Has anyone seen me and Kevin Rudd in the same room” Jones, and Kerry O’Brien, “Red Kerry” as he was called, and not because of the colour of his hair…).

Not only that, but the editorial policy of ABC news is blatantly pro-warmist, with climate scare stories reported uncritically, and sceptical papers ignored or rubbished. Its Unleashed section is nothing more than a platform for extreme environmentalists like Clive Hamilton, with the ratio of alarmists to sceptics probably in excess of 20 to 1. I could go on…

A sad record for our supposedly impartial national broadcaster, which has gone the same way as the BBC.


  1. Of course “our” ABC are going to follow their BBC Overlords on every front.

  2. Baldrick says:

    Well it’s no surprises to people who regularly watch and listen to the ABC, what side of the climate debate they are on. ABC online even have a whole section related to climate change:

    … and with rhetoric like this, “the term climate change is generally used to describe changes in our climate identified since the early part of the 20th century, and caused by human behaviour,” it’s no surprises what you’ll find there.

    As far as the ABC is concerned it’s not a balanced debate, as has always been the case with the ABC and it’s left wing leaning controllers and presenters. I just like to know when the decision was made by the ABC to embrace alarmist global warming rhetoric without letting the general public know. Since we pay their wages – they should be, at the very least, impartial and not take one side over the other considering there are no proven scientific facts that global warming is caused by humans or in fact, even exists.

  3. rukidding says:

    What gets me is the hypocrisy of the people that work for the ABC/BBC.They emit large amounts of co2,think transmitters,and produce nothing of value.
    If the hospitals,fire department,police,emergency services,miners,farmers and many more just closed the doors and went home tonight think what a pickle we would be in but if the ABC just closed the doors and went home I would suggest the world would not miss a beat.
    So come on Mr Combet practise what you preach and shut the real polluters down.Shut the ABC down that should give us a view million tonnes of co2 reductions.

  4. 20 to one? That’s a horrible skew in favour of the “skeptics”. You should be thankful they are so biased towards your anti-science opinion.

    If the proportions more accurately represented the views of real scientists, they should be something like 98:2. According to a paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, anyway (

    • Ah yes, the “Blacklist Paper” – a tawdry piece of work the sole aim of which was to smear the filthy deniers. As Thomas Fuller reports:

      “They used Google Scholar instead of an academic database. They searched only in English, despite the global nature of climate science. They got names wrong. They got job titles wrong. They got incorrect numbers of publications and citations.

      As I’ve mentioned, the highly respected Spencer Weart dismissed the paper as rubbish, saying it should not have been published.

      But the worst part of this is the violation of the rights of those they studied. Because Prall keeps lists of skeptical scientists on his weblog, obsessively trawling through online petitions and published lists of letters, and because those lists were used as part of the research, anyone now or in the future can have at their fingertips the names of those who now or in the past dared to disagree.

      This is an outright violation of every ethical code of conduct for research that has ever been published.” (source)

      And in any case, science isn’t about head counting…

      • Nope, it’s about data. Meanwhile, a skeptic who was funded by a pair of anti-science oil barons went thru the data themselves,0,772697.story
        “A team of UC Berkeley physicists and statisticians that set out to challenge the scientific consensus on global warming is finding that its data-crunching effort is producing results nearly identical to those underlying the prevailing view.”

        deal with it.

        • Do your homework. Muller and BEST are as compromised as the rest. They have published before even getting their methodologies peer-reviewed. Do your research, stop preaching and go away.

  5. froggy uk says:

    Here is the reason the BBC is biased when it comes to AGW,
    They are losing rather alot of money these days, thats what happens when you put a yoghurt knitter in charge of your pension funds. Peter Dunscombe whos responsible for the futile investments should be strapped to a wind turbine on one of the rare days they are actually spinning.

  6. The ABC, nursing home for warmists!

%d bloggers like this: