OFCOM Find GB News Broke Impartiality Rules–But What About The BBC?
By Paul Homewood
It is abundantly clear that the establishment will do all it can to shut down anybody who challenges its control of the media narrative, as OFCOM’s continual vendetta against GB News shows:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-67194055
If OFCOM are finding GBN guilt of breaching impartiality rules, why have they failed to take any action against the BBC over the years, who often breach the same rules.
Take, for instance, Roger Harrabin’s campaign against the Cumbria coalmine a couple of years ago.
When the controversy over the mine was at its height in early 2021, Harrabin wrote four articles over the space of a month, all grossly biased against the proposed mine. Below is an excerpt of my complaint to the BBC at the time:
6th Jan – Whitehaven coal mine: Govt refuses to call in plans
Harrabin provides his analysis, which is wholly anti mine.
14th Jan – Govt defends Cumbria coal mine green light
This quotes at length Greenpeace and CPRE, both heavily critical of the mine. The only pro mine comment is one solitary unattributed sentence at the end.
23rd Jan – Six questions about the Cumbria coal controversy
Virtually all of this article is devoted to anti mine comments by Islands at Risk, the Fiji ambassador, Oxfam, Greenpeace, the Labour, Lib Dems and Green parties and the Committee on Climate Change.
The only pro mine comment comes from the local MP
30th Jan – Minister rapped for allowing Cumbria coal mine
This article is wholly anti mine, quoting at length Lord Deben and Greenpeace . There is not one pro mine comment.
Throughout this series, I can find no mention by Harrabin at all of the economic benefits of the mine, eg number of jobs created, boost to the local /national economy, increased government revenue, balance of payments, or by how much emissions will be reduced by avoiding imported coke.
Nor have there been any comments at all by the local council (who approved the mine unanimously), the mining company, the local community, steel companies or economists.
This is a gross dereliction of the BBC’s Charter, which requires impartial news coverage and the need to provide audiences with the full facts.
This series of propaganda pieces culminated with this article devoted to a letter to the government from the US climate activist James Hansen – note the prejudicial headline:
The leading climate scientist James Hansen has warned Boris Johnson that he risks “humiliation“ over plans for a new coal mine in Cumbria.
The UK government, which hosts a climate summit this year, has allowed the mine at Whitehaven to go ahead.
Dr Hansen, formerly Nasa’s leading global warming researcher, urged the PM to halt production – or be "vilified".
In his letter, Dr Hansen – whose testimony before the US Senate helped raise wider awareness of global warming back in 1988 – writes: "In leading the [climate conference], you have a chance to change the course of our climate trajectory, earning the UK and yourself historic accolades.
"Or you can stick with business-almost-as-usual and be vilified around the world.
“It would be easy to achieve this latter ignominy and humiliation – just continue with the plan to open a new coal mine in Cumbria in contemptuous disregard of the future of young people and nature.
“The contrary path is not so easy, but, with your leadership, it is realistic.”
The letter continues: “Prime Minister Johnson, young people are fed up – and for good reason. They demand that political leaders follow the science and take the actions needed to preserve and restore a healthy climate.
If this [conference] is like the prior ones – with soothing words and worthless ambitions – they will be justifiably outraged.”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-55923731
There was no attempt by Harrabin to challenge Hansen’s views. Nor were any alternative views offered. In other words, everything GBN was guilty of applied equally to Harrabin.
Naturally the BBC’s in house Executive Complaints Unit rejected my complaint. And OFCOM did not even respond when I referred it to them.
This was just one complaint. You could write a book about all the other instances of BBC bias.
So much for even handed justice!
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
I have said this before, but it needs reiterating.
Back in 2006 at a seminar in Leicester(?), the BBC decided it will NEVER deliver balanced reporting about Climate Change (nee Global Warming). Despite the fact that this bias goes against the very core of their mandate.
The seminar was supposed to comprise 28 scientists, but they turned out to be mostly reporters and climate activists.
The BBC-28, a meeting of 28 ‘climate scientists’.
https://www.theregister.com/2012/11/13/climate28_named_wtf/
Ralph
This is what the ECU says about banning Climate Sceptics
“Contrasting or dissenting views are not automatically excluded but the BBC seeks to
give due weight to the range of relevant perspectives. Minority views on the causes of
climate change will not, therefore, be given the same prominence or weight as the
opinion of the majority of relevant climate scientists”
I think that not given same prominence or weight is BBC speak for none at all.
That’s sort of fine in terms of science (I think climate science is fundamentally flawed but that’s a different argument). But the BBC has also banned every other view in the politics and economics of climate change. Take the quote above from Hansen – that’s about politics, not climate science. The same with the Cumbrian mine – it’s an economic/political decision, not a scientific one. If the BBC was consistent, it would accept that free markets Economics is “settled science” and never have a Left-wing politician on.
Phoenix when was the last time a sceptic of man made climate change appeared on the BBC? The last one I remember was Nigel Lawson.
Nobody in the press was talking about why this mine was needed.
It is going to mine a very specific type of coal that is used in iron smelting. Thus it is rare, expensive, and a strategic resource. If we want to be an independent steel manufacturer, we will need resources like this mine.
R
Actually there were 30 people present at the seminar which destroyed the BBC’s reputation. The attendees were:
Robert May, Oxford University and Imperial College London
Mike Hulme, Director, Tyndall Centre, UEA
Blake Lee-Harwood, Head of Campaigns, Greenpeace
Dorthe Dahl-Jensen, Niels Bohr Institute, Copenhagen
Michael Bravo, Scott Polar Research Institute, University of Cambridge
Andrew Dlugolecki, Insurance industry consultant
Trevor Evans, US Embassy
Colin Challen MP, Chair, All Party Group on Climate Change
Anuradha Vittachi, Director, Oneworld.net
Andrew Simms, Policy Director, New Economics Foundation
Claire Foster, Church of England
Saleemul Huq, IIED
Poshendra Satyal Pravat, Open University
Li Moxuan, Climate campaigner, Greenpeace China
Tadesse Dadi, Tearfund Ethiopia
Iain Wright, CO2 Project Manager, BP International
Ashok Sinha, Stop Climate Chaos
Andy Atkins, Advocacy Director, Tearfund
Matthew Farrow, CBI
Rafael Hidalgo, TV/multimedia producer
Cheryl Campbell, Executive Director, Television for the Environment
Kevin McCullough, Director, Npower Renewables
Richard D North, Institute of Economic Affairs
Steve Widdicombe, Plymouth Marine Labs
Joe Smith, The Open University
Mark Galloway, Director, IBT
Anita Neville, E3G
Eleni Andreadis, Harvard University
Jos Wheatley, Global Environment Assets Team, DFID
Tessa Tennant, Chair, AsRia
BBC attendees:
Jana Bennett, Director of Television
Sacha Baveystock, Executive Producer, Science
Helen Boaden, Director of News
Andrew Lane, Manager, Weather, TV News
Anne Gilchrist, Executive Editor Indies & Events, CBBC
Dominic Vallely, Executive Editor, Entertainment
Eleanor Moran, Development Executive, Drama Commissioning
Elizabeth McKay, Project Executive, Education
Emma Swain, Commissioning Editor, Specialist Factual
Fergal Keane, (Chair), Foreign Affairs Correspondent
Fran Unsworth, Head of Newsgathering
George Entwistle, Head of TV Current Affairs
Glenwyn Benson, Controller, Factual TV
John Lynch, Creative Director, Specialist Factual
Jon Plowman, Head of Comedy
Jon Williams, TV Editor Newsgathering
Karen O’Connor, Editor, This World, Current Affairs
Catriona McKenzie, Tightrope Pictures
Liz Molyneux, Editorial Executive, Factual Commissioning
Matt Morris, Head of News, Radio Five Live
Neil Nightingale, Head of Natural History Unit
Paul Brannan, Deputy Head of News Interactive
Peter Horrocks, Head of Television News
Peter Rippon, Duty Editor, World at One/PM/The World this Weekend
Phil Harding, Director, English Networks & Nations
Steve Mitchell, Head Of Radio News
Sue Inglish, Head Of Political Programmes
Frances Weil, Editor of News Special Events
And not climate scientists.
R
The BBC’s Head of Comedy was at the conference? Eh! To what purpose? Seriously, what was the cost to the licence payer of 29 BBC employees attending specially as so many were Directors, Head of’s and Editors?
The left wing infiltrated Ofcom won’t censor other left wing outlets – its only function is to censure anything opposing the lefty blobs narratives
It was founded by the vile Blair creature. If we had a conservative government they would have closed it down.
🙂
Yes, I fail to understand its purpose. If anybody broadcasts anything that’s illegal, we have (had) the police. If they don’t, what business is it of the state’s?
Why doesn’t Ofcom challenge the BBCs refusal to call Hamas a terrorist organisation? That’s the answer right there
Hanson is not listed as “NASA’s leading global warming researcher”
His current full designation is:
Dr. James E. Hansen
Climate Science, Awareness and Solutions Program
Earth Institute
Columbia University
475 Riverside Drive (Room 401-O)
New York, NY 10115 USA
E-mail: jeh1@columbia.edu
His former position at NASA was as “Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies”.
Sod all to do with global warming.
I take it you are unaware of his testimony before a Senate Committee in 1988 and his pronouncements then and subsequently on climate.
Informed Consumers should be better informed.
I should have added that had his prognostications been correct Riverside Drive would have been under water 18 years ago.
Oh, the irony!
Is that the one where he managed – somehow – to switch off the Air Con?
That’s the one, Harry.
Senator Timothy E. Wirth convened a hearing of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources to discuss global warming and the greenhouse effect with Hansen as his star witness.
He chose what was statistically likely to be the warmest day of the year and struck lucky. He also managed to have the air conditioning off AND the meeting room windows open!
It maybe that you are unaware of Jolly Jim Hansen’s activities and opinions. His role in the 1988 Senate Hearing with Senator Wirth is set out by others, below.
But it it is instructive that Hansen was probably the first public figure to describe coal trains as “Death Trains”. He certainly was first to describe coal power stations as “Death Factories”. It is notable that then, as perhaps still today, the pre-eminent Climate Scientist was the (Jewish) Prof. Richard Lindzen.
He also graced the trial of the Kingsnorth Six with his “expert” testimony for the well organised and well funded defence of the witless scrotes who had invaded the Power Station, caused a huge amount of damage (and press publicity, naturally) in climbing the plant’s chimney and starting to paint “Gordon Brown” ( from memory) on it.
Predictably, the “prosecution” had been, hmmmm, so “organised” as to basically agree with the defence, no doubt as instructed, and the “protestors” were found ‘not guilty’ to the rejoicing of greenie nitwits everywhere.
This escapade was followed, by numerous other “protests” elsewhere including blatant attempts to close down Ratcliffe and Drax. By that time HMG had their anti-coal agenda well worked out and remains to this day, ostensibly without Jim Hansen having to get involved.
But it was not long after this that he resigned from NASA so he could be a “full time activist”.
Not my favourite “scientist”, but he at least had the sense to point out that “Renewable” energy was nonsense and that the way forward was to develop nuclear. Perhaps half right.
I wonder if that eggregious charlatan Dale Vince would like to jail Hansen, too?
“Leading” is a BBC lie used to convey authority where none exists. He is undoubtedly the loudest and the most politically actividt but its unclear what brilliance climate scientists have demonstrated beyond their unsubstantiated claims.
@Mike Jackson
What was Hanson’s title when giving his opinion at that hearing then?
“Leading global warming researcher”
or
“Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies”.
Maybe you should inform yourself before getting back to me.
The GISS moniker is misleading (how appropriate!) as it doesn’t relate to space so much as climate. How or why NASA chose to misname this division, I do not know.
Here’s their home page, which is all about climate.
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/
My original point was that the BBC referred to Hanson thus:
“Dr Hansen, formerly Nasa’s leading global warming researcher, urged the PM to halt production – or be “vilified”.
Which is not his official title, nor is it within his remit as a “space studies” expert. Although he, like many other ‘scientists’, consider anything they care to turn their attention to as their personal domain.
At least Willie Soon sticks to his area of expertise, reminding people there’s a large ball of burning gases we need to consider.
‘Hanson is not listed as “NASA’s leading global warming researcher”’
Nor is Hansen.
It’s ‘Hansen,’ dingdong.
Just what everyone needs in their life. A spelling Nazee.
No relevant comment to make, just curtain twitching and pedantry.
“leading climate scientist James Hansen”
How many oxymorons can be embodied in so few words?
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
The corruption by the government and its regulatory agents is a disgrace. What power does OFCOM have to fine or close down GBNews?
It seems as if OFCOM are an enabler of BBC rather than their regulator.
OFCOM simply enable views thry agree with and try and censor views they disagree with.
What is needed is someone with deep pockets to take Ofcom to court for a judicial review of their decision not to act against the BBC. Just like the case where the government decided to show Al Gore’s propaganda film in schools.
The courts have been taken over as well. What we need is a revolution with totally new parties taking power from the Uniparty. Then they need to disband Offcom, sack the judges and have a clear out of the “diversity” public sector and then we get back to sane sensible government that isn’t intent on destroying our lives for the sake of one or other cult-like political viewpoint.
Paul,
I discussed Harrabin’s campaign at the BBC against the Cumbrian coal mine at some length here:
Thanks for the reminder regarding the BBC’s disgraceful behaviour regarding this.
mmmmmmm
Sorry, tried to find a way to cancel the stream of posts fron Not a Lot that is filling up my inbox.
Block the Email sender, then unfollow the blog, I had the same problem.
” But What About The BBC? ”
Historically, the BBC has been demonstrably institutionally corrupt e.g. the failure of the BBC to control Savile. My view is that the BBC’s demonstrable support of Savile should have led to the dismantling of the BBC on the basis of institutional corruption.
My view is that the BBC remains institutionallly corrupt i.e. as an organisation it places ” the protection of reputation above fidelity to the truth “
The best thing is to defund the BBC. I haven’t seen anything on how many they are losing each month at the moment.
Sadly the joy of no longer buying a TV license can only be had once.
The BBC continues to flout its public service remit, the public being those who buy the license, not the public in Middle Eastern countries other than Israel.
Ah but the public is a victim of false consciousness and propoganda from class enemies. We must be told what is true for our own good.
Ofcom are not fit for purpose being the mouthpiece of the BBC, sack the lot of them?
+1
Hansen was put in charge of GISS as a green zealot, his career has been built on one narrative to the extent on misleading with disinformation. He was caught out in the Climategate scandal for altering data to make his claims appear real. I wouldn’t listen to anything he said.
But with Hansen’s record how has he got any appointment at all? It says something for his current employer that a massive liar is seen as a good hire.
The Left has a different view of “truth” to you and I. They “know” the climate is changing and that man-made CO2 is the cause. That any specific claim is not accurate doesn’t therefore matter. We see the same thing in Gaza. It doesn’t matter that it wasn’t an Israeli air strike that hit the hospital because Israel is bad so it’s fine to say it did a bad thing.
The Humpty Dumpty approach to communication!
Funded by Big Beanz…
https://canadafreepress.com/article/more-inconvenient-truths-about-hansen-heinz-foundation-money-and-political
Beanz meanz bribez
Nobody in the press was talking about why this mine was needed.
It is going to mine a very specific type of coal that is used in iron smelting. Thus it is rare, expensive, and a strategic resource. If we want to be an independent steel manufacturer, we will need resources like this mine.
R
This puts into very sharp focus the extremely disingenuous comment made recently by Davie that editorial impartiality is his personal crusade. “We” who bother to gatekeep the actuality know it is a corporate lie; Robin Aitken wrote a book about it. I feel the fight has to be taken to the BBC – I am conducting a one man campaign against BBC bias and have succeeded in getting them to acknowledge their endemic editorial bias – I urge people to do likewise : BBC Executive Complaints are just as biased and wilfully ignore BBCs transgressions.
Small steps for sure but it keeps me sane – ish.
Hi Paul. Have a look at an article in the Daily Telegraph 24 Oct. Regarding Attenborough and the lies spoken.Regards John Bowers.
Sent from Mailhttps://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986 for Windows
The rules are for thee GB, not for me BBC.
The BBC always claim that bias in a particular programme should not be viewed as bias, because you are supposed to take BBC output as a whole before making a finding of bias. Of course, they never supply supporting evidence that they offer countervailing views to the bias they regularly spew – and they don’t, because they have no evidence to supply.
However, you can be sure that GB News will have had plenty of countervailing views on immigration spouted by their resident lefties as well as other guests on many of their programmes, even if it was not part of Daubney’s interview of Tice. Moreover, I bet that the BBC NEVER cover the views expressed by Tice and Daubney, except by oblique reference and slur.
By “impartial “offcom means the opposite. Anything that isn’t absolutely biased toward its preferred dogma will be held as “not being impartial”. It’s 1984 news speak. The left = groupthinkers = woke cult, always mean the opposite of what they say.
In 1981 Hansen put out a paper showing a lack of correlation between CO2 and temperature:
Click to access hansen81a.pdf
“The most sophisticated models suggest a mean warming of 2° to 3 .5°C for doubling of the C02 concentration from 300 to 600 ppm. The major difficulty in accepting the theory has been the absence of observed warming coincident with the historic C02 increase. In fact, the temperature in the Northern Hemisphere decreased by about 0.5°C between1940 and1970, a time of rapid C02 build up. In addition, recent claims that climate models over-estimate the impact of radiative perturbations by an order of magnitude, have raised the issue of whether the greenhouse effect is well understood.”
They still didn’t understand it 24 years later:
“Stabilising climate to avoid dangerous climate change — a summary of relevant research at the Hadley Centre” January 2005 (Richard Betts was a co-author)
“What constitutes ‘dangerous’ climate change, in the context of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, remains open to debate.
Once we decide what degree of (for example) temperature rise the world can tolerate, we then have to estimate what greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere should be limited to, and how quickly they should be allowed to change.
These are very uncertain because we do not know exactly how the climate system responds to greenhouse gases.
The next stage is to calculate what emissions of greenhouse gases would be allowable, in order to keep below the limit of greenhouse gas concentrations. This is even more uncertain, thanks to our imperfect understanding of the carbon cycle (and chemical cycles) and how this feeds back into the climate system.”
In 2022, Hausfather et al admitted that models run too hot:
https://www.scienceunderattack.com/blog/2022/5/30/climate-science-establishment-finally-admits-some-models-run-too-hot-104
“The admission that some models predict a future that gets too hot too soon has far-reaching implications, not only for climate science, but also for worldwide political action being considered to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Widespread panic about an unbearably hot future is largely a result of overblown climate model predictions.
Current projections of future warming represent an average of an ensemble of typically 55 different models. Researchers have found the reason some of the 55 models run hot is because of their inaccurate representation of clouds, which distorts the ensemble average upwards.”
They have never been able to model clouds, but “The Science” has always been “settled”.