Why I Hate the BBC

Here’s a conundrum for you, Ricochet. What would you understand by the phrase “some of the best scientific experts”?

Do you think it means:

a) a group of pre-eminent scientists with strong expertise in the relevant field. (eg – on, say, climate change – Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT; Professor Fred Singer; Professor Pat Michaels…)

or

b) a bunch of activists, mostly, from bleeding heart charities, socialistic church groups, left-leaning NGOs

If your answer was a) then join the club. If your answer is b) then clearly a bright future awaits you working for the BBC. Just so long, of course, as you also believe the “truth” about “global warming,” which is: it’s serious, it’s all our fault, the polar bears are drowning, the Maldives are sinking, and we need to build more wind farms and bomb Western Industrial civilization back to the Dark Ages because if we don’t we’re ALL GOING TO FRY!!!!

Now to be fair, I acknowledge that in the US you get served up exactly the same kind of hysterical drivel by CNBC, MSNBC, CNN … pretty much any broadcast media outfit that isn’t Fox, in fact.

But here’s the big difference: the BBC is publicly funded. If you don’t pay your compulsory Licence Fee (currently an annual £145 – so, roughly, 200 bucks) you can actually get arrested and put in jail. Which is why the BBC takes its charter obligations to be fair and balanced very seriously.

Or at least why it ought to take them seriously.

To reiterate: it doesn’t matter so much whether or not CNN or MSNBC are biased because ultimately you’re not paying for them and if you don’t like them you can just watch Fox instead.

The BBC is different. Not only is it more dominant and all-encompassing (besides four TV stations, it has numerous radio stations catering to all regions and all age groups) but it is, to all intents and purposes, an unofficial branch of the state – the voice of the nation, which represents everyone and which everyone has to fund accordingly.

Which brings us to the conundrum at the beginning of this post. The phrase “some of the best scientific experts” comes from a 2007 report in which the BBC strove to justify its decision to give up all pretence of neutrality on the climate change issue and from henceforward to act like Al Gore’s amen corner. (Or, as the document put it, “[the BBC] has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus…”) Apparently the decision had been made after a high-level meeting in 2006, attended by all those science experts – 28 of them in all.

But who were these 28 “experts”? That was the subject of an FOI request by a Welsh pensioner called Tony Newbery. Amazingly – given that it’s a publicly funded organisation – the BBC refused to tell. Not only that but, pressed harder, the BBC fought a legal action to prevent the information being divulged – employing a crack team of lawyers costing upwards of $50,000 a day. (Nice use of the licence fee, guys!)

The BBC won the case but almost immediately afterwards lost the battle. Another enterprising blogger called Maurizio Morabito managed to find the information anyway, concealed on the internet. And when he did, it became immediately clear why the BBC was so determined to keep it a secret.

In that list of 28, there was barely a scientist among them. Almost all of them were greenie-left-leaning political activists. Frankly, they might just as well have gotten Greenpeace to write their script for them. Indeed, given that Greenpeace’s Head of Campaigns was there, it may be just what they did…..

I’ve reported the story in more detail here – where you can also find links to some of the other coverage. This article in the Scotsman covers it too. But that’s about as far as the MSM’s coverage goes.

You may be familiar with the story about the BBC’s house paedophile (for four decades) – a creepy children’s entertainer/DJ called Jimmy Savile.

But this, I would argue, is a scandal of far greater significance for reasons I explain – in my inimitably forthright style – here.

Here’s a taste. (You may gather: I’m not a big fan of the BBC…)

You think what Savile did to his victims was loathsome? I’d heartily agree. But what about the hundreds of thousands who’ve perished on a squalid NHS ward as a result of incompetence, negligence or maladministration? What about the pensioners condemned to spend their last years in penury? What about the school-leavers and graduates who can’t get jobs in our stagnant economy? What about the kids who’ve not only been denied a rigorous, disciplined education but have had their heads filled with lies? What about the bitterness, resentment and social tension stoked up by multiculturalism? What about the divisions and fear sowed by the rise of Islamism? What about the rural homeowners whose property values have been trashed and whose cherished landscapes ruined by the great wind farm blight? What about the church flower arrangers who now have to be vetted as potential paedophiles? What about the holidaymakers whose flight costs have been almost doubled by eco-taxes? What about the 2,700 elderly people who die each year from fuel poverty? What about the household budgets strained, the dream holidays foregone, the school fees rendered unaffordable, the choices limited as a result of all the money confiscated by the government through tax, borrowing and money printing?

The BBC was responsible for it all.

Not directly responsible: that would be a silly claim to make. Rather, what the BBC has done over several decades, is to create the socio-political climate which made all these things not merely possible but acceptable – and accepted – as the norm.

  1. Misthiocracy

    You make a fair point, but on the other hand, Doctor Who.

  2. Foxman

    I do not directly pay for PBS, but I do pay for it, albeit a much smaller sum.  I think if I were forced to pay as much as you, I would be furious.

  3. splatterguard
    Misthiocracy: You make a fair point, but on the other hand, Doctor Who. · 13 minutes ago

    I love Doctor who as much as the next man, but any TV organization who can hire Karen Gilan as the pseudo romantic lead and not dress her like Jessica Rabbit at any given opportunity is just not on the same wavelength as the average Dr who fan and thus deserves no license fee of mine, which is handy as I live in Canada and so no longer pay it.

    Now if you’ll excuse me I think my latest photoshop rendering  is just about done.

  4. Angmoh Gao

    Interesting to note that if you do publicly, loudly and repeadly refuse to pay your license fee hoping to be made a martyr to publicise your anti-bbc case, a la Charles Moore, they seem to leave you alone.

    I was also overjoyed to learn that they never had any technology that could detect if you were watching tv in your home – the detector vans were a fake and a fraud perpetrated on the public!  I know that must be true since I learned it from a BBC radio show!

  5. Layla
    Misthiocracy: You make a fair point, but on the other hand, Doctor Who. · 13 minutes ago

    To say nothing of Bleak House. Or The Forsyte Saga. Or Little Dorrit. Or Wallander. Or Sherlock. Or Foyle’s War. Or Poirot. Or….

  6. Richard Fulmer
    James,    Are BBC reporters aware of your list of horribles and they simiply supress the truth “for the greater good,” or do their ideological filters keep all such inconvenient truths from seeping through?
  7. splatterguard
    Layla

    Misthiocracy: You make a fair point, but on the other hand, Doctor Who. · 13 minutes ago

    To say nothing of Bleak House. Or The Forsyte Saga. Or Little Dorrit. Or Wallander. Or Sherlock. Or Foyle’s War. Or Poirot. Or…. · 0 minutes ago

    Yes give an organization huge wads of money every year and a surprise surprise occasionally it comes up trumps (The analogy of broken clocks being accurate twice a day springs to mind.).

    What none of us can see is how much more vibrant/efficient UK broadcasting would be if we had a truly competitive marketplace in broadcasting.

  8. Misthiocracy
    Layla

    Misthiocracy: You make a fair point, but on the other hand, Doctor Who. · 13 minutes ago

    To say nothing of Bleak House. Or The Forsyte Saga. Or Little Dorrit. Or Wallander. Or Sherlock. Or Foyle’s War. Or Poirot. Or…. 

    No, just Doctor Who.  Only Doctor Who. The only argument allowed is Doctor Who!

  9. Richard Fulmer
    Layla

    Misthiocracy: You make a fair point, but on the other hand, Doctor Who.

    To say nothing of Bleak House. Or The Forsyte Saga. Or Little Dorrit. Or Wallander. Or Sherlock. Or Foyle’s War. Or Poirot. Or….

    Well.  It appears that the hundreds of thousands who perished forgotten in NHS wards and the thousands who die from fuel poverty every year have not died in vain.  Such a comfort.

  10. James Delingpole
    C
    Richard Fulmer: James,    Are BBC reporters aware of your list of horribles and they simiply supress the truth “for the greater good,” or do their ideological filters keep all such inconvenient truths from seeping through? · 2 minutes ago

    They’re self-selecting, Richard. The BBC does its recruiting through the pages of the (left-wing) Guardian, so its staff have the same bien-pensant world view. They would consider themselves centrist, moderate, reasonable, not politically biased. But that’s because everyone in the circles in which they move thinks the same way. Very few of them, I think, set out deliberately to distort the truth. It comes to them quite naturally and unconsciously.

  11. PJS

    Yes, the BBC does produce some great shows.  But don’t you think independent companies could do the same?  It happens all the time in the US.

  12. Edward Smith

    Doctor Who is too much of a children’s show written by people who don’t really understand children that well to do anything like a love story.

    The current Doctor series are rushed, and too fraught with “Saving the Universe” importance to be as good as Doctors 1 through 5.

    splatterguard

    Misthiocracy: You make a fair point, but on the other hand, Doctor Who. · 13 minutes ago

    I love Doctor who as much as the next man, but any TV organization who can hire Karen Gilan as the pseudo romantic lead and not dress her like Jessica Rabbit at any given opportunity is just not on the same wavelength as the average Dr who fan and thus deserves no license fee of mine, which is handy as I live in Canada and so no longer pay it.

    Now if you’ll excuse me I think my latest photoshop rendering  is just about done. · 26 minutes ago

    Edited 24 minutes ago

  13. Edward Smith

    Supposing you don’t buy your License.  Can you use your computer to watch the shows you want from non-BBC stations?

  14. Misthiocracy
    Edward Smith: Doctor Who is too much of a children’s show written by people who don’t really understand children that well to do anything like a love story.

    I just added your name to Obama’s list. Hope it was worth it.

  15. JVC1207

    Starting to second-guess my move to London…

  16. FloppyDisk90

    Hearing details of GB is a lot like watching Jerry Springer:  it makes me feel better about myself and the US.

  17. genferei
    Layla

    Misthiocracy: You make a fair point, but on the other hand, Doctor Who. · 13 minutes ago

    To say nothing of Bleak House. Or The Forsyte Saga. Or Little Dorrit. Or Wallander. Or Sherlock. Or Foyle’s War. Or Poirot. Or…. · 2 hours ago

    Or Brideshead Revisited, or Coronation Street, or …

    Oh. These weren’t BBC, but ITV. As were Foyle’s War and Poirot and the Forsyte Saga, as it happens.

    The Beeb does do Strictly Come Dancing.

  18. David Williamson
    Edward Smith: Supposing you don’t buy your License.  Can you use your computer to watch the shows you want from non-BBC stations?

    Yes, if you don’t have a TV you can watch non-BBC and even BBC if your computer appears to the BBC to be in the UK ;-)

    Dr Who is not what it used to be, but I do like Sherlock and UK politics programmes.

  19. Schrodinger

    Blowhards

    Blaggards

    Communists

  20. Richard Fulmer
    James Delingpole

    Richard Fulmer: James,    Are BBC reporters aware of your list of horribles and they simiply supress the truth “for the greater good,” or do their ideological filters keep all such inconvenient truths from seeping through?

    They’re self-selecting, Richard. The BBC does its recruiting through the pages of the (left-wing) Guardian, so its staff have the same bien-pensant world view. They would consider themselves centrist, moderate, reasonable, not politically biased. But that’s because everyone in the circles in which they move thinks the same way. Very few of them, I think, set out deliberately to distort the truth. It comes to them quite naturally and unconsciously.

    Do they see things like the unnecessary NHS deaths?  If so, how do then explain them to and among themselves?  Can they do it in a way consistent with their world view?

Want to comment on stories like these? Become a member today!

You'll have access to:

  • All Ricochet articles, posts and podcasts.
  • The conversation amongst our members.
  • The opportunity share your Ricochet experiences.

Join Today!

Already a Member? Sign In