On Accountability
Thanks to Bishop Hill for putting the word out about this little blog.
One thing a few people have said in the comments over there is that they feel I am targeting Richard Black personally.
So, let me state my position on this.
I have no ill feeling towards Richard Black as a person. Unlike some of the nutty elements of the people who think the planet it going to burn next week, I am not on a personal vendetta, nor am I harassing him etc.
Richard Black represents the BBC’s position on AGW. He is responsible for most of their output on the subject and he covers all major events for them. Therefore, he is in a unique and powerful position within a public broadcaster. Ultimately accountable to me – one of the millions who pay his wage through our license fee. I therefore demand of the BBC that their journalism and people follow the charter laid out in 2006, especially around balance and impartiality.
Even someone who is completely sold on the runaway global warming hypothesis, if they have any sort of open mind, knows that the BBC’s coverage does lack balance. No coverage of “Gleickgate” for example. If this had happened in any other field of science the BBC would have been, quite rightly, all over it. The fact they were not shows that they are willing to basically condone and cover up wrongdoing. This obviously contradicts their obligation under the Royal Charter.
So that is the purpose of Blackswhitewash.com. To watch and investigate the BBC environmental coverage and to hold it and it’s journalists to account.
The fact a BBC journalist has, as I will show in my next post, influenced the UN directly both into holding RIO+20 and shaping the agenda for that conference, is in complete contradiction to the stated aims of the Royal Charter. Black’s activities make Jeremy Bowen’s championing of the Palestinians seem irrelevant by comparison.
Today on BBC’s “Newswatch” show, Richard Ayre of the BBC Trust stated that the trust took issues relating to impartiality and bias in the BBC very seriously and that they would investigate and punish where these were found. Richard Black, evidently condoned by David Shukman, blatantly shows bias in an issue where there is still debate and uncertainty, should you have an open mind enough to read about that uncertainty. As the BBC and the Trust are failing to act on my behalf, I am totally within my rights to find the truth myself and highlight it.
Lastly I would like to state that nothing I have written or am about to write is stolen, been sent to me, or otherwise been illegally obtained. It is all out there on the internet. Searchable, visible and public to anyone who has the willpower to use Google to its full potential to find it. All I am doing is putting the pieces together to get the truth on how a BBC journalist is ALLOWED to behave.
Black's Whitewash 
Some typos or missed text in Para 7 BW.
Corrected thanks. It’s a work in progress 😉
Wishing you every success as you keep an eye on this extremely dubious character.
OL
Hi, just to say thanks for setting this up – the more those mindlessly promoting CAGW in the media are put under the spotlight the better.
BTW I have put you under my blogs page – hope you don’t mind.
Very well said!
Black’s job will be safe as long as his masters remain on the green gravy train.
Black’s blog that allow comments are getting less and less. The reason is that this intellectual lightweight and his regurgitated arguments are constantly blown away.
Best of luck with your site.
I was one who expressed uneasiness on the Bishop Hill blog about the perception of targeting Black as an individual. But I completely sympathise with Blackswhitewash’s longstanding grief and frustration at Black’s wretched alarmist reporting. I am assured by this post and the tenor of others that this blog author’s intentions are above reproach and his investigations are a continuing valuable archive.
Good luck.
Over the last few years, I have been amazed, frankly, at the antics of Richard Black at the BBC.
The word that keeps coming to mind is – contempt.
It is obvious that Richard Black is contemptuous of the BBC charter – and the BBC is contemptuous towards its license payers – and no one seems to care.
It is clear that RB is not a journalist – he is simply a lobbyist.
And yet those in authority at the Beeb do nothing about him and continue to give him a platform to spout his personal beliefs and political stance as if he was reporting undeniable and indisputable facts.
RB’s dismissal of the issues in Climategate 1 and more recently, Climategate 2 – together with his excitement and enthusiasm regarding Fakegate can leave no one in any doubt as to his “agenda” rather than his abilities as a journalist.
We just have to accept that Richard Black has acted, and will continue to act as a greenie aparatchik that will spout the party line despite evidence or argument to the contrary – like some communist PR agent for Chariman Moa.
Unless, or until, the BBC take their charter more seriously – or someone makes them take the charter more seriously – then it will continue.
However, do you remember the Iraqi Army spokesman, Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf , who was interviewed about the allied invasion of Iraq? He was spouting the propaganda, to camera, about how Iraq was winning and beating back the Allied forces – then the camera slowly re-focused into the distance, over his shoulder – to Allied tanks making their way in to Bagdad!
Well, hopefully, one day, Richard Black will have his “Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf” moment. He will be left with the reckage of his biased outpourings and, hopefully, held to account
it’s=it is
Erm, thanks. SO what did you think of the content, you know what it was actually talking about….