Why Black’s Whitewash?
Richard Black is the environment correspondent for the BBC website. I feel he is a major player in the biased viewpoint from the BBC in relation to climate change, specifically the continual undertone that current climate change is solely down to human activity and anyone challenging that view is not to be taken seriously. Hence, “Black’s Whitewash”.
This website was set-up after I became increasingly angry at the 100% bias displayed by Richard and the BBC in general regarding climate change.
I am not a scientist, just a concerned individual who is becoming worried by the whitewash shown by the media, especially here in the UK. My aim is to highlight the bias and challenge it where I can. I intend to cover this from the point of view that a normal member of the public, who does not have a scientific or analytical background can quickly understand.
Whatever your view on climate change, if you value a free society and a free press you should be concerned by a major broadcaster deliberately setting out to play down an opposing point of view.
Richard Black tried to address BBC bias in this article:
However, he deliberately misses the point. The point is that that anything questioning the accepted view is portrayed in a negative fashion or is simply ignored, and I intend to highlight this.
This is what an attendee had to say about the BBC after attending a seminar in 2006:
“The BBC decided its house opinion at a seminar that took place at the BBC Television Centre on 26th January 2006.
The list of attendees is secret.
The agenda is secret.
The minutes are secret.
One attendee was Richard North who writes:
“I found the seminar frankly shocking. The BBC crew (senior executives from every branch of the corporation) were matched by an equal number of specialists, almost all (and maybe all) of whom could be said to have come from the “we must support Kyoto” school of climate change activists.
So far as I can recall I was alone in being a climate change sceptic (nothing like a denier, by the way) on both the science and policy response.
I was frankly appalled by the level of ignorance of the issue which the BBC people showed. I mean that I heard nothing that made me think any of them read any broadsheet newspaper coverage of the topic (except maybe the Guardian and that lazily). Though they purported to be aware that this was an immensely important topic, it seemed to me that none of them had shown even a modicum of professional journalistic curiosity on the subject. I am not saying that I knew what they all knew or thought, but I can say that I spent the day discussing the issue and don’t recall anyone showing any sign of having read anything serious at all.””
After this process, the BBC concluded:
“these dissenters (or even sceptics) will still be heard, as they should, because it is not the BBC’s role to close down this debate. They cannot be simply dismissed as ‘flat-earthers’ or ‘deniers’, who ‘should not be given a platform’ by the BBC. Impartiality always requires a breadth of view: for as long as minority opinions are coherently and honestly expressed, the BBC must give them appropriate space.”
Note even in 2006 the use of negative terms such as “dissenters” and “sceptics”. Although to their credit they do stop short of Gordon Brown, who did indeed refer to anyone with their minds open enough to challenge the juggernaut as “flat earthers”. Well done Gordon, you just converted another wavering voter.
I would love to give you a link for this, but I cannot find it. Amongst the Copenhagen blog posts from Richard Black, someone posts a response from the BBC to their letter asking why the BBC is covering climate change from only one point of view. The response basically said that the mainstream view was such that they did not have to address the opposing point of view further.
The ClimateGate emails and data are a scandal. No matter what your opinion on climate change, even a cursory read will show you that something very unscientific has been happening at the UEA CRU.
One of my challenges to the BBC on impartiality is that those emails have also proven that Richard Black and possibly other BBC journalists have a relationship with some of the scientists involved, and a bias towards the views they hold, that objective journalism within the BBC on the climate debate is impossible without change.
This leaked email was part of a discussion about a BBC report that was not favourable to the mainstream view:
“Michael Mann wrote:
extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on BBC. its particularly odd,since climate is usually Richard Black’s beat at BBC (and he does a great job). from what I can tell, this guy was formerly a weather person at the Met Office.
We may do something about this on RealClimate, but meanwhile it might be appropriate for
the Met Office to have a say about this, I might ask Richard Black what’s up here?”
Now as Michael Mann is one of those whose data an integrity is under question, how does the tone of that email strike you? It shows to me that Richard Black is deemed by the main protagonists, as someone “on side”, and my challenge is should this man be allowed free reign to cover the major news item of our generation?
Sir John Beddington has called for climate scientists to be honest.
I call for the BBC environment team to heed that call.
Climategate 2.o has broken. Even more reasons to challenge the integrity of the science.