Did I Miss Something On The Bbc. Dg Resigns But What Did They Do Wrong?

[Blatman]

Both. But they must check their sources more thoroughly, then run it up the chain of command with a little more vigour.

We must have journalists, and indeed members of the public who are prepared to publish and be damned. But if you are going to be damned, at least be damned with a reasonable set of evidence behind you, rather than on the back of shoddy investigative journalism.

I can see Newsnight being "reformatted" in the not too distant.

FA's story is bl**dy interesting. I'm going to follow that...

[jeff oakley]

The story that FA writes about is another example of it going wrong. The "facts about global warming" have been one of the biggest errors in my mind which makes the case for clarity even more important. decisions have been made on the back of flawed research by goverments. Too many of these subjects are run by people who then employ people who think like them and the problems grow. David Bellamy was basically black listed by the BBC for daring to contradict this agreed way of reproting the "facts".

The BBC does not need to have the biggest shows to appeal to the masses, they need programes that educate as well as entertain, no other broadcaster can afford to do what the BBC could if it wasn't driven by the rush to dumb down.

[iain m]

Big decision??? stay and sort out the problems, or take almost £2m in pay and pension pot for 55 days work??? Must rank quite high in the present day "pays to fail" tables, almost up to Banking standards :A***: :A***:

[Blatman]

Pay offs... difficult one really. If it's in the contract, and the contract was struck without a gun to the head of either party, then it should be honoured.

HOWEVER the recipient has the choice to make a decision that may be considered more morally acceptable, but why should he? And morally acceptable to whom? Journalists who smell blood and are clamouring for a seat on the bandwagon? Members of the public? Rot. In these cases, none of the protagonists have been properly cross examined to get to the truth. That would surely get in the way of the bandwagon as it rumbles through town to the nodding approval of people who choose to hold up sensationalism as truth without pause or question. So much for balance, reasoned argument and natural justice.

And before I get jumped on, I'm not defending the pay off. But I'm also not rushing to condemn either as I am not in possession of all the facts. No-one is, save for a few in the BBC and government...

[Fat Albert]

Having spent nearly a year and God knows how much money trying to prevent public release of what, as a tax payer, I see as information crucial to our ability to judge the BBC's impartiality, it turns out that this information was in the public domain, although the shady organisation which published it tried to hide it.

Of the 28 so called 'experts' invited to the 2006 seminar with BBC hierarchy only 3 are climate scientists, another couple are scientists other disciplines, 3 more are 'sociologists' with 'interesting' political views while the vast majority were environmental activists, some already implicated in the recent scandal about BBC programmes being editorially influenced by eco-fundie organisation sponsors.

It is particularly interesting that names associated with the shoddy journalism surrounding the Saville and McCalpine sagas, Peter Rippon, editor of Newsnight, Steve Mitchell, his boss, Helen Boaden, his boss's boss, head of News and George Enwistle, her boss, 54 day in post director general were part of the BBC contingent at the seminar!

It is apparent from this information that Helen Boaden misled the Information Commissioners Tribunal under oath when stating that this was a journalistic exercise covered by the Chatham House rules.

Of course, Rippon, Mitchell, Boaden and Entwistle did not have the 'senior' positions in 2006 that they held for the recent debacle, it's pretty clear, mind, that attendance at that 2006 meeting didn't 'hurt' their subsequent careers!

So the BBC's decision to break it's charter commitment on impartiality and only present one side of the anthropogenic global warming argument resulted from a seminar whose 28 invited 'experts' were predominately eco-activists! Senior management, including those now discredited by Newsnightgate, subsequently lied about the make up of that seminar, tried to suppress already-in-the-public domain information which contradicted their public statements and were even economical with the truth on oath at public hearings.

Old Bill had it right all those years ago, Something Is Rotten in the State of Denmark

[Fat Albert]

More news

The 2006 seminar was organised Roger Harrabin, BBC environmental journalist & Joe Smith, Sociologist, Open University (both are avowed AGW alarmists) on behalf of the International Broadcast Trust, one of the lobby groups at the heart of the BBC's 'editorial influence in return for funding' scandal. IBT is an organisation wholly dependent on grant funding, guess who was a major 'sponsor' of IBT both before, during and after 2006? The University of East Anglia, UEA's Climate Research Unit was the organisation at the centre of the Climategate scandal.

Oh what a tangled web we weave...

[iain m]

The BBC are vastly overstaffed and overpaid, It was reported recently there was more floorspace allocated to overpaid managers managers than to programme making and studios. They moved from London to Manchester recently at great cost only to then spend a forture on staff hotels to cover the mainly southern based Olympics??. Perhaps taking away the licence fee may encourage performance related salaries and pensions. Even BA had to drop the strap line " The Worlds Favorite Airline" after it was very apparent they were not. The new one is "To Fly To Serve" . Onother company openly supported by a diminishing pension fund. Every Little Helps.

[Blatman]

FA, have you presented these findings to a non BBC journalist? I know (by association) a few. I can't see them turning down the info and this really needs a much brighter light shining upon it.

[Fat Albert]

The Telegraph The Spectator The Register Melanie Phillips

Why isn't it on the front pages of the broadsheets or leading broadcast media? Is anybody really that naive?

By the way, Helen Boaden, who misled the Tribunal whilst still in post, has been relieved of her duties as Head of News at the BBC as a result of the Saville/McApline fall out, she has been replaced as Head of News by Fran Unsworth who, completely coincidentally, just happened to be present at that seminar!

Same **** Different Day

[Fat Albert]