Bias towards reality

Weapons-grade dickhead Tim Montgomerie has a handy guide for cunts on ‘ingrained BBC biases’. Although most of them seem to be more like ‘areas where the BBC reflects reality’:

Anti-Americanism and hostility towards Israel.

Hostility? To Israel? Why the fuck would anyone be hostile towards Israel? (use of Telegraph link deliberate: even they can’t spin the latest bout of murderous evil as the Palestinians’ fault…)

Support for popular views on climate change.

This one is kinda true – in that popular opinion on climate change is split, whereas scientific opinion (note: engineers and programmers with blogs are not scientists) isn’t, and the BBC doesn’t do enough to highlight the extent to which anti-AGW opinion is considered marginal among people who understand the science. However, I don’t think this is the angle Mr Montgomerie is coming from…

A constant tendency to see issues through urban rather than rural eyes.


The fucking country is fucking urban
. 81% of us live in cities or large towns, and 90% live in towns of some description. So of course issues are presented through urban eyes…

5 thoughts on “Bias towards reality

  1. “This one is kinda true – in that popular opinion on climate change is split, whereas scientific opinion (note: engineers and programmers with blogs are not scientists) isn’t, and the BBC doesn’t do enough to highlight the extent to which anti-AGW opinion is considered marginal among people who understand the science.”

    *sigh*

    There is quite a split, actually. In fact, in much the same way as there is quite a split over the prion theory of TSE transmission, but you never hear about it. But even this disingenuous…

    What, exactly, do scientists accept, PDF? That CO2 is a greenhouse gas? Yes, almost everyone accepts that. That the greenhouse gas theory is probably correct? Yes, again, almost everyone accepts that. That human activities are warming the earth? Mmmm, yes, most scientists accept that, in the same way that most scientists believe that men-made aerosols in the atmosphere cause cooling.

    But the extent is what is crucial. Do most scientists accept that man-made global warming is likely to be catastrophic? No. Not even the IPCC, for heaven’s sake.

    Do most scientists accept that we have to cut, massively, CO2 outputs in order to avoid destruction? No. Again, not even the IPCC (see the SRES scenarios).

    Do most scientists believe that man-made emissions are the only thing causing climate changes? No, quite evidently not. Unless, of course, they are insane.

    Do most scientists believe that we should severely restrict economic growth in order to avert disaster? No. And this is not, in any case, a distinction that scientists alone can make (no, economics is not a science).

    Does the BBC generally push the idea of imminent destruction through CO2? Yes. Do the science reporters at the BBC have less scientific training than “engineers and programmers with blogs”? Yes.

    I would expand yet further, but you get the picture. It isn’t a simple: “is AGW happening?” There is an awful lot more to it than that.

    DK

  2. Alex says:

    There’s a lot more to it than a bias towards reality. I’ve spent a lot of time on the Biased-BBC blog and, generally, what upsets them is that the BBC doesn’t spend nearly enough time giving their paranoid fantasies, fucknut prejudices and weird little opinions special treatment. Also, they fail to make the distinction between “BBC” the global media organisation and “BBC” the Islamic gay orgy that only exists in their head.

  3. Hahoo says:

    Boo hoo….Israel targets Hamas police. Fuck Hamas.

    It’s a damn site less offensive that the apologists who fail to even mention Hamas’ rocket attacks against Israeli civilian areas.

  4. It’s amazing how issues like Israel/Palestine can turn mild-mannered, ordinary people into desk-thumping twats, isn’t it?

    Mind you, I suspect your man Hahoo was probably a bit of a cunt to start with, but there you go.

  5. Falco says:

    “hostility towards Israel” yadda, yadda, etc. Does rather make one wonder why they wont release their own review of their coverage though.

    Disclaimer:

    Falco has always been a deeply suspicious bastard.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>