In my last post I said the BBC are really just “The Establishment Broadcasting Company” – the broadcaster of and for the establishment. Their view was outdated in the era of empire radio in the 1920s when they were founded, but today it is totally at odds with modern society and our internet peer-to-peer communication which has more or less broken down the presumed barriers and authority of the “establishment”. But,
the EBC just cannot get it.
It just get worse and worse see this on Bishop Hill: New BBC policy: right is wrong, wrong is right.
For example they will allow all the following to speak on climate:
- Nurse – a geneticist
- Walport – medical science
- Jones (of the notorious Jones report into BBC impartiality) research into medical areas.
- Lord Lawson – not a scientist – just a member of the establishment
In contrast, someone like me, when chairman of the Scottish Climate and Energy Forum (the only group representing skeptics) who (like Andrew or many other skeptics) had a climate relevant degree (physics), who has worked in renewables and studied climate for years…
was totally ignored despite the BBC knowing full well who I am and my qualifications.
This proves the EBC take only one thing into account:
“are you part of the establishment”?
And that doesn’t mean just “government”. It means establishment as in “established”. So. e.g. green groups like Greenspin get trotted out as the supposed “anti-establishment” view,. What complete nonsense! They are now so big and so well established that they are just as much the “establishment” as the “Establishment Broadcasting Company”.
To give another example, the SNP in Scotland have got very annoyed at the BBC bias. Does that mean the BBC do not broadcast the SNP view on all kinds of issues from climate to cucumbers?
Does it mean that when the British “establishment” view (in Westminster), is at odds with the SNP, the establishment view is the one they broadcast?
Establishment, Establishment, Establishment, Establishment, Establishment, Establishment, Establishment, Establishment, Establishment, Establishment, Establishment, Establishment, Establishment, Establishment.
The EBC are not so much biased, as institutionally incapable of understanding how society has changed since the days of empire.
So, when the BBC allowed a church of Scotland minister onto their program to liken us skeptics “paedophiles”, this was “the establishment” encouraging another member of the “establishment” to attack the non-establishment for daring to “deny” the authority of the establishment on climate.
The irony of course, was that it was the EBC who had the paedophiles. As we all know, the establishment EBC, had the establishment Jimmy Saville, using the establishment authority (which then could not be denied) to force himself on children. And this was hidden by the establishment EBC, because as a member of the establishment EBC he was immune from prosecution.
This is what they mean by us being “deniers”. We are denying their “droit de seigneur”: the EBC’s right to bugger us & our children, either literally like Saville or metaphorically by climate catastrophism.
So, to the EBC, “science” inherently means “establishment science” – which means the Royal Society, chief scientific officer. What it does not mean, is real skeptic science as in evidence based views, and it certainly doesn’t mean the “hoi palloi” like skeptics.
Unfortunately, for the EBC, they are governed by a charter and under that charter they have a legal requirement to be impartial.
And it is a simple matter of fact that the EBC are now acting “ultra vires”. They are not acting within the legal terms of their charter, and just as under the sale of goods act we have a right to demand our money back for goods that are “not fit for purpose”.
So we have a right to refuse to pay for an organisation that completely fails to be impartial on issues such as the climate.