BBC needs to be more biased

Biased Broadcasting Corporation

Yes, you read that right. Apparently, there isn’t enough scrutiny of filthy deniers, er, I mean, climate sceptics at Auntie Beeb. It’s just like the ABC, which as we all know looks far too favourably on the nonsense peddled by “deniers” [/sarc off]. Honestly, you can’t make this stuff up.

The scientist appointed to review the BBC’s science output is a regular programme contributor to, er, the BBC. So no conflict of interest there, clearly. It really is beyond a joke:

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.

The corporation’s governing body is set to change the way the BBC covers the issue by urging it to focus less on those who disagree with the majority ‘consensus’.

In other words, it’s science by head count. Last time I checked that wasn’t how science worked. But hey, this is only a professor of science, so what can you expect?

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.

Critics of the BBC fear it may use the report as cover to ‘promote a green agenda’. In the past, the BBC has been accused of acting like a cheerleader for the theory that climate change is a man-made phenomenon.

The BBC promote a Green agenda? Surely not. And with PM Bob Brown and his lap dog Gillard planning to regulate the media in Australia (where “regulate” means censor anything which der Staat regards in its infinite wisdom as subversive), we can expect to see much the same at the ABC in the near future.

Read it all here (and bury your head in your hands as you see your hard-won Western democratic rights disappear up in smoke).


  1. andyscrase says:
  2. Steve Jones? Must be related to Phil if he thinks consensus counts for anything.

  3. Anthony says:

    Biased Broadcasting Corporation, LOL, you forgot it’s Australian Cousin, Alarmist Broadcasting Corporation 🙂


    Dear BBC when talking climate change I agree, with the first three letters of consensus…

  5. Baldrick says:

    Skepticism is at the heart of all science, for without it there would be no challenge to the accepted and the time we fail to challenge the accepted is the time we revert back to amoeba – or in this case BBC management (brainless twats)!

  6. Bob Brown and his lap dog Gillard
    I’m at a loss to understand why everyone pushes this line – at the same time that everyone is pointing out that the Greens and the Three Wise “Independent” Monkeys can not and will not desert Gillard.

    Gillard must be smart enough to realise this as well. Which indicates that this whole centrally-planned socialist income redistribution program is actually Mad Julia’s plan and the other idiots are the lap dogs that are going along with it.

    After all – if this Carbon Tax were truly a Green initiative, why don’t we see Bob Brown helping with the heavy lifting? A don’t tell me he’s taking the school holidays off!

    I think we are finally seeing the “Real Julia” at work here. In my view she is far … far … more dangerous than Bob Brown and his gaggle of nutters.

  7. Mervyn Sullivan says:

    Let us see how the BBC will report on the soon to be announced results of the “Cloud Experiment” – CERN, Geneva.

    Without giving away the results of his experiment, you can hear what the lead scientist, Dr Jasper Kirkby, has had to say about the experiment… you’ll get to appreciate what he has discovered by watching the video:

    It will come as no surprise, of course, that the politically correct Rolf-Dieter Heuer, Director General of CERN, has already tried to warn off Kirkby et al to not interpret their results. (Will Dr Jasper Kirkby err on the side of free speech or abide by Heuer’s attempt at censorship when he releases his results?)

    It is predicted that the results will be a “climate change bombshell”.

    But what will the BBC do? Sit on the results like it did with with Climategate emails? Or will it embrace the first major conclusive empirical evidence that destroys the IPCC’s mantra? Will the BBC then dare asking serious questions about the great global warming con?

    Enjoy the video… particularly the part where Kirkby explains how he discovered the climate models have got the level of sensitivity/feedback the wrong way round… hence, the climate models are all wrong.

    Yes… I can’t wait to see how the BBC reacts to all this once they have purged everyone but true AGW believers from their ranks!

  8. sean2829 says:

    I have a little different take on this. You would hope that the BBC’s primary responsibility would be to its audience (taxpayers) who pays the bills even though their funding comes through the government. You would think that you’d want to keep that audience engaged as opposed to bored to tears. Think of the way climate change could be presented to the audience, as a competition between competing theories (sort of like the match you want to watch on Sunday afternoon) or preached to you like dogma (like the sermon you spouse drags you to church to see that you struggle to stay awake through). Clearly the BBC has decided to preach and the public has lost interest. It seems they might actually serve their cause better if they stopped preaching and instead highlighted the differing points of view as this would be a much more compelling story to see how it develops.

%d bloggers like this: