BBC most read stories day after Chilcot.
Saturday, 30 January 2010
RATS' NESTS... - Biased BBC
RATS' NESTS...: "Whenever you turn over a stone involving reports about 'climate change' at the BBC, it reveals a whole new rats' nest of other problems. Take this report designed to show that, even if the IPCC has got it wrong about Himalayan glaciers, changes to rainfall patterns caused by 'climate change' will wreak havoc. It's part, of course, of the BBC's damage limitation efforts to shore up climate alarmism in the face of the growing revelations of lies and fraud. The reporter is Navin Singh Khadka, a Nepali journalist who files for the BBC World Service as well as online; over the years, he has written numerous 'climate change' panic stories. Mr Khadka, it transpires, is also a member of the Climate Change Media Partnership (CCMD), which exists - as far as I can see - entirely to spread warmist alarmism:
CCMD is supported, among others, by the International Institute for Environment and Development (the IIED), which receives funding from the UK government (DfID)and also Comic Relief. The BBC is therefore indirectly a supporter of both these organisations because the vast majority of Comic Relief funds come from its BBC exposure, and also senior BBC staff are trustees.
Thus Mr Khadka, I would contend, is yet another 'climate change' fanatic employed by the BBC. He recently gave an interview to the Nepal Monitor in which he stated:
It's striking also that in his report about the Himalayn glaciers, the first authority he turns to is Mats Eriksson, a senior hydrologist with the Nepal-based International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD). I checked out this body and guess what? Like Mr Khadka, it also supports warming alarmism, with this among its primary goals:
I know I write about thes issues often, but it's simply staggering to behold the extent to which the BBC is in bed with 'climate change' in all its lying, fanatical manifestations.
"
Just 11% of the 1500 journalists accredited to the 2007 Bali climate change summit were from developing countries, highlighting the urgent need to provide training and opportunities for journalists from these countries to report on climate change.
CCMD is supported, among others, by the International Institute for Environment and Development (the IIED), which receives funding from the UK government (DfID)and also Comic Relief. The BBC is therefore indirectly a supporter of both these organisations because the vast majority of Comic Relief funds come from its BBC exposure, and also senior BBC staff are trustees.
Thus Mr Khadka, I would contend, is yet another 'climate change' fanatic employed by the BBC. He recently gave an interview to the Nepal Monitor in which he stated:
But treating climate as a ceremonial issue (that is paying attention to it only when conferences take place or, say, when the world is observing environment day) has been our greatest weakness. The media need to wake up to the fact that it is an issue about our lives and the issue has to be conveyed effectively to the people.
It's striking also that in his report about the Himalayn glaciers, the first authority he turns to is Mats Eriksson, a senior hydrologist with the Nepal-based International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD). I checked out this body and guess what? Like Mr Khadka, it also supports warming alarmism, with this among its primary goals:
Globalisation and climate change have an increasing influence on the stability of fragile mountain ecosystems and the livelihoods of mountain people. ICIMOD aims to assist mountain people to understand these changes, adapt to them, and make the most of new opportunities, while addressing upstream-downstream issues.
I know I write about thes issues often, but it's simply staggering to behold the extent to which the BBC is in bed with 'climate change' in all its lying, fanatical manifestations.
Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.
Friday, 29 January 2010
The News Agenda v The Documentary Agenda - Harry's Place
The News Agenda v The Documentary Agenda: "
The News agenda and the Documentary agenda are completely at odds, at the moment.
The News agenda = “bush dog tony dog yobbos jihadis pandemics war crimes”
The Documentary agenda = “Ah, Britain. Glorious, glorious Britain. Great Britain. Its graceful rivers, its noble coast, its rich and proud history, its traditions, and Admiral Lord Nelson! We’re all in it together. It will all work out fine.”
The Documentary agenda is playing the same role that The West Wing did during Bush’s presidency. It is the plausible counterfactual.
"HEADS IN SAND....Biased BBC
HEADS IN SAND....: "It's endlessly fascinating to watch how the BBC wriggles and turns to ensure that it keeps churning out 'climate change' lies. One technique used with obdurate single-mindedness is to report only the views of those who agree that there is 'consensus'. Thus when the government's chief scientist, Sir John Beddington, says that's the case, that's what the BBC reports. Never mind the latest revelations about the IPCC lies about the Himalayan glaciers melting by 2035; never mind that Bin Laden is now using 'climate change' as a basis for the need to wreck the Western economy (I wait with bated breath to see how the politicians who support climate lies spin that one); and let's also ignore that it was propaganda from Greenpeace (and WWF), rather than scientific research, that underpinned the IPCC latest report.
Let's get on instead with wasting vast amounts of BBC licence fee payers' money - £1.74m of it - on sending 177 BBC boys and girls to Glastonbury. That's what our public service remit is all about!
"
Let's get on instead with wasting vast amounts of BBC licence fee payers' money - £1.74m of it - on sending 177 BBC boys and girls to Glastonbury. That's what our public service remit is all about!
Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.
BBC Worldwide should pay £60m a year for brand name, producers argue - Guardian
BBC Worldwide should pay £60m a year for brand name, producers argue: "
BBC's commercial arm gains huge benefits from use of corporation branding, argues research commissioned by Pact
BBC Worldwide, the corporation's commercial arm, should be forced to pay as much as £60m a year for the right to use the BBC brand, according to Pact, the independent producers' trade body.
Pact is also calling for BBC Worldwide to lose its preferential status in bidding for rights to the corporation's programming, in a report commissioned from research consultancy Oliver & Ohlbaum Associates.
The organisation said these reforms should be introduced whether or not part or all of BBC Worldwide is sold off.
BBC Worldwide gains huge commercial benefits by avoiding the usual business practice of paying an annual licence fee for use of the valuable BBC brand, according to the report.
The report examines the structure of the deals to licence the use of the Virgin Media and Virgin Radio brands. Each deal is structured on the basis of paying an annual fee relating to revenues earned.
According to the report BBC Worldwide, which made more than £1bn in revenues for the year to the end of March 2009, should be paying as much as £60m a year.
'Applying this levy to revenues (excluding the UKTV channel business, which do not use the BBC name), produces an annual licence fee growing to £60m per annum by 2014/15,' stated the report.
'Note that were BBC Worldwide pay a licence fee to the BBC for the use of the name this would not result in a loss of value to the BBC, it would merely transfer the value of the asset (and thus potential sale price) into an ongoing annual charge.'
The report points out that the effect of an annual licence payment would be to reduce BBC Worldwide's value to any buyer by around 39%.
Pact is also seeking to scrap BBC Worldwide's 'first look' and 'last look' arrangement with the public service arm of the corporation when bidding for programming rights. The commercial arm gets the chance to put in the first and last bids in this process.
'The current relationship between BBC Worldwide and the BBC is not appropriate for a stand-alone business, and has contributed to Worldwide being the biggest exporter of British TV in the market,' said John McVay, chief executive of Pact. 'By choosing not to open up the market for its programmes to competitive bidding also raises the question of whether the BBC is getting a true market value for its programmes, and ultimately, the full return on their investment funded by the licence fee payer. These are areas that need to be addressed before it can be privatized, but also if it is not.'
A review of BBC Worldwide's activities by the BBC Trust published in November concluded that the deal should stay in place but there should be a more 'transparent process' going forward.
However, a report last year by the House of Commons culture, media and sport slect committee that examined BBC Worldwide's activities concluded there was 'little evidence' to show that the BBC is 'currently obtaining the maximum value from its programming' through the 'first look' arrangement with BBC Worldwide.
'To foster effective competition in the UK market and allow UK distributors a fair chance to build their presence in the international market, some of the privileges that BBC Worldwide enjoys need to be curtailed,' said McVay.
Last month the government included BBC Worldwide in a portfolio of assets that could be sold off and urged the corporation to consider a full or partial sale. Selling off a stake was also backed by the Lords communications committee in a report published on Monday.
However, Mark Thompson, BBC director general, has ruled out full privatisation, saying in a MediaGuardian.co.uk comment piece in December that the BBC 'cannot envisage a Worldwide in which the BBC does not continue to play a central role'.
Thompson also said Worldwide would 'only be worth a fraction of its present value' if it was sold off and stripped of the BBC brand and that 'the right question to ask is neither how to chop it back ... but how to develop and exploit it'.
Worldwide is wholly owned by the BBC and, if a stake were to be sold, it is understood the money would return to the corporation, although it could be urged to use the windfall to subsidise other activities or to make up any reduction in the licence fee.
• To contact the MediaGuardian news desk email editor@mediaguardian.co.uk or phone 020 3353 3857. For all other inquiries please call the main Guardian switchboard on 020 3353 2000.
• If you are writing a comment for publication, please mark clearly 'for publication'.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
"
Luvvies - Biased BBC
Luvvies: "
"
'I could talk to you forever'Richard Bacon to Marcus Brigstocke, R5L 28 Jan.
Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.
BBC spending criticised by Audit Office - The Independent
BBC spending criticised by Audit Office: "
"
The head of the National Audit Office (NAO) was yesterday highly critical of BBC spending after the corporation paid £250,000 for a purpose-built studio with a view of the Vienna skyline as part of its coverage of the 2008 European Championship, for which no home nation's football team had qualified. The BBC spent £8.68m on covering the event, to which it sent 142 of its own staff.
 |  |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
