This forum is about wrong numbers in science, politics and the media. It respects good science and good English.
Going on the BBC website (I had to have a bucket handy at the side of my desk) I don't see anything out of the ordinary. There is this one:
which has already been discussed on this forum, but that's all.
Possibly, now bird flu is starting to look a bit tamer than the journos had hoped, they have to concentrate their energies elsewhere....
There was an item on the news at the end of last week or over the weekend that I caught for some reasons - must have been passing the TV at the time it was on.
No balance, no caveats. Just straight 'it's fact' propaganda.
Tady, again on the news just about 13:00 someone called Laurence reporting from a beach somewhere warm spouting the usual stuff. Having caught a few words I listened to the end. He was reporting that people on a particular island have attempted to help nature by creating an artificial coral reef (or something to encourage such a thing) and then some message about how so much must be done if we are to avoid .... whatever.
The link girls newscaster then thanked him, turned to the camera and said "The message is clear."
True of the program if not the science. I doubt they referred to the science. Much to complicated gfor mere mortals to think about.
Having 2 daughters an University I cuurrently pay the BBC, through Crapita, for 3 licences every year even if none of us were ever to watch any of the BBC channels. I really do no believe I am getting value for money from this overblown mouthpiece of Bliar and the lentil munchers, many of whom probably work for the BBC.
But all this "message is clear" stuff is normal. Listen to radio 4 if you don't believe me, and if you can stomach it.
I should seriously consider getting rid of my TV and not paying a license fee. The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak......
Hmm. You have reminded me why I don't listen the the radio either.
By and large I avoid TV. Only heard the news today because my daughter had left the TV on when she went to do something else. I end up with TV's on all around the house if I am not watchful.
I suppose I can take comfort in that - it proves the kids are not ardent greens if nothing else. If they were I would be very disappointed.
Maybe the BBC's overkill should be encouraged - Peter and the Wolf syndrome and all that, absent any Wolf of course.
....and your mention of your daughter reminds me why the BBC is so dangerous. My girlfriend's (8-year-old and very intelligent) daughter waxes lyrical on the destruction of the environment after watching the last episode of Blue Planet (otherwise very good), which is dedicated to emotive and irrational hand-wringing about the destruction of fish species and corals. As far as I can remember there are few logical arguments presented, but plenty of amateur dramatics (female presenters with worried creases between their brows etc. etc.)
Real shades of 1984 here. Pay your TV license and watch your children being programmed. (Pun on "programme" anyone?) One of the results is that she now hates the Chinese (the episode focused on the latter country's fishing policies)
"One of the results is that she now hates the Chinese (the episode focused on the latter country's fishing policies)"
Should you, as a good citizen, be reporting her to the authorities for a suspected race hate crime?
I'm afraid I'm worse than that anyway. My response after listening to about an hour of her telling us what we should and shouldn't be eating was "Pack up that tree-hugging greenie crap or we'll send you to bed"
She should be reporting me.
If you look at blogs like this one http://www.biased-bbc.blogspot.com/ you'll see bias is a BBC mainstay. That said its coverage is no worse than the frell coming out of ITN who blame everything on global warming even dams lessening the water level in Lake Chad.
The BBC has now had a programme on Radio 4 that did ask some sensible questions about the reporting of global warming, and to some extent questioned the underlying facts. In addition, the Independent has had a full page spread on the lack of science underpinning the reported dangers of passive smoking. The ratio of sensible articles to propaganda has now changed dramatically. If the rate of sensible articles continues to increase at this rate, the BBC will need to devote all its licence fee to the topic.
If that does indeed come to pass I would feel much more comfortable paying the licence fee(s).
Now, if they could pass the admin of the licence to an organisation other than Crapita I might even have to undergio some sort of religious conversion ... ;-)
I accidentally tuned into a news item about the 50th anniversary of the Gower Peninsula becoming designated an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. It rapidly degenerated into a tirade about global warming. The final message was “What is the point of saving it from development if it is going to be destroyed by GW?”