petition to BBC: Give scientists proper representation on Question Time

[Proudhuff]

Thought this might strike a cord with some here.

http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/bbc-give-scientists-proper-representation-on-question-time?utm_source=action_alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=41445&alert_id=YMNIoHVWEE_UcKooHFypp

[The Legendary Shark]

You're expecting the BBC to be balanced and honest? They don't report cases like Hollie Grieg's, don't mention the explosion of horrendous birth defects in Afghanistan and Iraq caused by depleted uranium munitions, don't examine in any depth the substance of the information received by Snowden or Wikileaks (preferring instead to focus on the validity of the act rather than the repercussions of the data), they never go anywhere near investigating the breathtaking ongoing criminal activities of the City of London and treat any question about the anomalies in the official 9/11 story as obviously crackpot and beneath consideration. 

.

You want scientists on Question Time badly enough and you'll get some - but you won't get to choose which ones.

.

I'd settle for more honest reporting - which is why my "news" channel of choice these days is Russia Today (Sky 512).

[Ancient Otter]

You're expecting the BBC to be balanced and honest?

I'm guessing you are not referring to the Tory camp claims that the Beeb is too leftist then....

I'd settle for more honest reporting - which is why my "news" channel of choice these days is Russia Today (Sky 512).

Interesting choice of channel, can you give me an example of a story they covered that you found the reporting was more honest compared to other news channels? I have not really watched that news channel.

[NapalmKev]

I've watched Russia Today and the Al Jazeera news channel. Neither of them are wholly unbiased!


Cheers

[Mister Pops]

It won't work. Impassioned emotional pleas and preying on people's fears will always be more effective on TV than cold hard data.

[Dandontdare]

You're expecting the BBC to be balanced and honest? They don't report cases like Hollie Grieg's,

How do you think they should report it? By making a judgement one way or the other or by simply saying that one party alleges one thing and another party alleges something else? It is by no means an open and shut case as these two websites make clear:
http://holliegreig.info/
http://www.theholliegreigcoverup.net/the-hoax.....html

And I have certainly seen BBC reports about depleted uranium and birth defects

The City of London point is valid, but applies to society as a whole - hardly any news organisation, political party (or to be honest) individual is talking bout the fundamental corruption of modern capitalism - but that's a debating point, not a news item.

And personally speaking, I am glad that they don't waste any time on 9/11 conspiracy theories.

The BBC really can't win can it? When they try to appease the bias-accusers by quoting a climate change sceptic, they get slated for giving a platform to unscientific nonsense! Lately I've been reading the comments on the BBC news site and it's frightening - there seems to be thousands of rabid BBC-haters who spend all day on the website - any point, no matter how remote, can be brought back to BBC bias (or immigration). I'd certainly trust the BBC as a news source far more than anything on the internet.

[Proudhuff]

It won't work. Impassioned emotional pleas and preying on people's fears will always be more effective on TV than cold hard data.

you could make that the basis for a space soap opera, hold on...

[Eric Plumrose]

I'd settle for more honest reporting - which is why my "news" channel of choice these days is Russia Today (Sky 512).

Ah, yes. RUSSIA TODAY, the most disingenuous news channel on Freeview (channel 85).

It took RT two fucking weeks to even acknowledge there was any kind of shit storm over Russia's anti-gay legislation. Yet, when it did, the coverage amounted to little more than "Hey! Other countries hate fags too, so Stephen Fry should just shut up! By the way, it took us two weeks to find one but here's some ex-pat poof to say everything's just dandy".

[Proudhuff]

Shark, you win this week's 'Threadjacking of the week' prize, report to the back door of the board for your special transport to the winners gala.

[IndigoPrime]

The left accuses the BBC of right-wing bias. The right accuses the BBC of left-wing bias. That sort of suggests the BBC's doing something right.

[Mikey]

You're expecting the BBC to be balanced and honest?

I don't know if any news media can truly achieve this if I'm honest. Surely all news reporting must be viewed with a certain level of level of criticism?

M.

[Proudhuff]

You're expecting the BBC to be balanced and honest?

I don't know if any news media can truly achieve this if I'm honest. Surely all news reporting must be viewed with a certain level of level of criticism?

M.

indeed and doing nothing isn't an option either:

“Washing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral. ”
― Paulo Freire

[The Legendary Shark]

No news channel is completely without bias. As with all of them one must be sceptical.

.

There are plenty of things the BBC don't make much fuss about either and so I think it's important to gather one's 'news' from a range of sources.

.

On the whole, however, I find RT's programming to be far more insightful and challenging. The BBC, so far as I can tell, has nothing like RT's 'Breaking the Set', 'Sputnik' (hosted by George Galloway, of all people) and 'The Kieser Report' (which is, imho, one of the most important TV programmes of the moment).

.

I wouldn't say that the Beeb is completely useless, though - it's excellent at helping the Powers That Be control the narrative, reporting sports results, the weather and royal events (royal events are particularly intriguing - it beats me how an old man having a bladder infection or a young woman giving birth could possibly be more important than Everything Else in the World).

.

The BBC, just like the government and the rest of the nation's services, needs rescuing from the Vampire Squid, that's all.

[shaolin_monkey]

Does anyone remember when the US launched it's offensive against Afghanistan after 9/11, and the BBC ran with the headline 'the US Strikes Back'?

That put me very much in mind of 'the Empire Strikes Back'. 

It was pulled later that day, presumably when a BBC official realised linking the US to an evil Galactic Empire was flying too close to the sun.

[NapalmKev]

Thought this might strike a cord with some here.

http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/bbc-give-scientists-proper-representation-on-question-time?utm_source=action_alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=41445&alert_id=YMNIoHVWEE_UcKooHFypp

I think It's a good idea. Quite a few Politicians know absolutely Fuck all about science, and if they are confronted on tv by educated people that do know about science (and variations thereof) they might be less inclined to talk bollocks!

I also would like to see members of the general public on the panel, commenting on events relevant to the average person.
(I would also suggest members of the public by allowed to address the house of commons during PM questions, but that's another story).


Cheers