Friday, November 16th 2012, 11:17 AM EST
The BBC debate in three simultaneous major scandals, two of pedophilia (one wrong), you may have heard, and the "global warming", which it is kept very discreet.
How do we learn nowadays?
This question, which constantly simmering in these times of crisis subsidized press (press strangely unanimous on certain points, such as the need to raise the debt) suddenly explodes in the face of the world, and takes a large-scale because it has hit a reputable organization (is this always the case?) as one of the most serious and credible: the BBC.
It is struck, when you read these lines, three major scandals, two of which you may have heard, and you will not hear, for reasons that remain unexplained.
The first two relate to pedophilia, the third to global warming.
In the first two cases, it is the scandals Jimmy Savile and Lord McAlpine. Savile was a host of programs for children, and it now appears that he was a pedophile mass as to have abused hundreds of children. When a case has emerged as the BBC had first instinct to protect. Savile never be found because he died. If McAlpine is almost as sinister: the BBC broadcast a report accusing the gentleman he is he is a Conservative, pedophilia. Accusation, is he now wrongly. Again, she tried to diminish the case, but without success, because its CEO had to eventually resign. Mourn for him after 54 days in office, it affects 1.3 million pounds of taxpayers' money as golden parachute.
The third scandal, your logs will not talk, is worse.
While the first two are atrocious. At the same time, they are not systemic, not intrinsic to the organization itself. They are accidents, terrible of course, but accidents.
The third, he touches on the very way the BBC approach its central mission, which is more task considered public service.
What is it? It is whether a newspaper or media should treat each information as it happens and whenever it occurs, try to understand the truth, investigation and overlap, or else if it is rather predefine a fixed position on any new information that may come in, and whatever happened to see that come later, not give the version knowingly decided beforehand.
You, the reader and audience, what is your opinion on this choice?
The BBC was in this case the second: not predetermine an opinion and present the information in terms of the a priori. This also means not to speak to that deviates from this view and not engage in public information in accordance with this position prior or hide information that go against him.
The BBC has decided, without hiding, it can recognize the merit of not addressing the issue of global warming that following the decisions of a prior seminar, which took place in 2006, and attended 28 people. The BBC said that these people were scientists.
Which was kept secret, by cons, was the identity of these 28 people. And that is in contravention of the rules themselves British public service, which dictates what information generated with taxpayer's money to be made public.
Unfortunately, a judge decided otherwise, authorizing the BBC not to broadcast this list of people, not without showing a bias in judgment strongly supports the theory of anthropogenic global warming.
Fortunately, by cons, we live in a time when such information retention are increasingly difficult to keep, and a tough and talented blogger, Maurizio Morabito found the list. Moreover, he did not have to resort to clandestine methods as brave stranger who probably inside, carried the Climategate e-mails to the public's attention. Mr. Morabito just knew the right place to seek and find.
So now we know who these 28 scientific experts. Now, what do we discover?
Between each other, there is the Anglican Church, the campaign director of Greenpeace, and also that of Greenpeace China (!), MEDEF British (CBI), the German electricity giant RWE (renewable branch), a obscure Asian investment organization "sustainable" (Arsia), the Confederation of insurance companies (like yours, the "financiers" as the BBC like), the BP oil (yes, yet we know that the wicked oil behind the " skeptics "), the United States of America in the person of one representative from their embassy (!), just to name a few. The rest of the list, in addition to some scientists strangely lonely, is an explosive mixture activists human rights and poverty, and those organizations and disorders that are poorly defined between two stools, between charity and the club introduced many investors, as it appears in both the swarm swarming small world "sustainable".
Special mention to Mike Hulme, University of East Anglia, the core of shenanigans proved by the case of Climategate .
Funny words to a man named John Plowman, head of BBC programs comical. I invent nothing. To see the rest of the list is set in stone truth unsurpassable climate of an entire planet, it is reasonable to believe that Mr. Plowman is finally out of place in this story.
There is much more to write about many of these stakeholders.
If you want to learn more about this incredible joke, I would strongly recommend you to see what our partners say about Richard North and Anthony Watts (and feedback from their readers), and James Delingpole . This case is now known under the names of "BBC 28" and "28Gate."
It is interesting that Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia, one of the chief conspirators took her hand in the bag at the Climategate had slipped into one of his e-mails, and I quote: "The BBC objective and impartial (ho ho). " We understand better now "ho ho".
Thanks to Mr. Morabito has lifted the veil, we now understand a little better how the information is made which we served all prepared on this subject.
I do not know about you, but I'm wondering if not better dig and dig a little more for yourself, beyond what we prémâchent the press and media officials.
Original link La BBC entre pédophilie et réchauffement climatique
Click source for more [LINKS]