Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I normally don't start threads, but I thought this one to be an interesting issue that shows we do indeed have partiality in our media. The BBC was ignoring an FOIA request to obtain these names, but it appears this list was obtainable through other means.
In the case of this issue, it shows that the BBC was a front for the CAGW activist message. The list is of the 28 people who were responsible for influencing the message and tone of the BBC concerning climate science issues. There is even a contextual cross reference of discussion concerning this within the Climategate 2.0 emails:
Quote:
Alex Kirby in email #4894 writing about the BBC’s “neutrality”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
date: Wed Dec 8 08:25:30 2004
from: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.xx.xx>
subject: RE: something on new online.
to: “Alex Kirby” <alex.kirby@bbc.xxx.xx>
At 17:27 07/12/2004, you wrote:
Yes, glad you stopped this — I was sent it too, and decided to
spike it without more ado as pure stream-of-consciousness rubbish. I can well understand your unhappiness at our running the other piece. But we are constantly being savaged by the loonies for not giving them any coverage at all, especially as you say with the COP in the offing, and being the objective impartial (ho ho) BBC that we are, there is an expectation in some quarters that we will every now and then let them
say something. I hope though that the weight of our coverage makes it clear that we think they are talking through their hats.
—–Original Message—–
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit
I guess it isn't surprising, political bias is common in many media organizations these days, but it does bring into light the fact that such actually does happen, that there are activist organizations using the media, government, etc... to promote their message as well as to block dissenting views from appearing.
even the beeb's employees chuckle at the notion of their vaunted impartiality.
The sad thing is, you would think that this knowledge would completely destroy the reputation of the BBC, but it won't. It appears these days, lies are the norm and an accepted means of dispersing information to gain support.
It is like politicians in general. Everyone knows they lie and are corrupt, but people have become accustomed to it as if it is just an accepted thing. /sigh
I've been skeptical of media and news programs being truly objective for decades, or maybe since their existence. The problem is the producers of any media is coming from their own point of view, and its difficult to remain truly objective. (and beyond that, also there is the $ factor.. being paid to allow more of one side to be shown) I've often wondered of there is a truly neutral news source. The closest I have come is NPR.
I've been skeptical of media and news programs being truly objective for decades, or maybe since their existence. The problem is the producers of any media is coming from their own point of view, and its difficult to remain truly objective. (and beyond that, also there is the $ factor.. being paid to allow more of one side to be shown) I've often wondered of there is a truly neutral news source. The closest I have come is NPR.
Unintentional bias is to be expected. It is understandable that it happens, we are human after all and try as we might, emotional attachments to a view can produce a leaning to a given position. When I was in high school, we were taught critical reading courses that focused on how to differentiate bias from the facts of a given report. Unintentional bias is less "matter of fact" and appears in subtle word appearance that implies a given leaning to a conclusion without validation. An attentive reader or listener can quickly strip out these words to salvage the actual facts of a given report.
The problem with this issue is that it is intentional. Intentional bias is just a soft definition for a lie. This leads to omission of information (blocking a position that creates conflicts in your own), appeals to authority in lieu of validating facts, and in some cases, blatant "matter of fact" declarations.
From the list of people you will see common public figures of organizations who intentionally politicize and emotionalize the issue. For instance, Green Peace has publicly stated that it is ethical and acceptable to misinform, emotionalize and exaggerate information in order to promote an ultimate goal concerning the issue of climate science.
The above email confirms collusion to a given bias intentionally.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
