Slashdot Mirror
Wayback Machine Trumps FOI Tribunal
New submitter calder123 writes "Last week, the BBC won an FOIA tribunal ruling that they didn't have to reveal the names of attendees at a seminar in 2006, designed to shape the BBC's coverage of climate change issues. The document, uncovered by Maurizio Morabito, puts comments by the BBC that the meeting was held under Chatham House rules, and that the seminar drew on top scientific advice in an interesting light. In a bizarre coincidence, four of the BBC's attendees at the seminar have resigned in the last few days."
So the BBC is happy to take public money, but doesn't think there should be ANY strings or responsibilities attached? Must be nice. I wonder if they would accept other public agencies refusing THEIR Freedom of Information requests. I suspect not. And yet that is the precedent they could set.
Personally, I think it's a bad precedent to be set by a institution that has a journalistic wing itself. But, then again, I'm a little creeped out by the whole idea of a state-run media in the first place, even one that stringently attempts to remain objective. It's bound to produce conflicts of interest, no matter how much you try to avoid them.
And, even putting the precedent aside, it just looks bad. If you're going to ask others to be open, it's really embarrassing when it looks like you're trying to hide something yourself, especially when openness is one of your stated goals, oft-repeated.
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
For a revolutionary workers party! For a soviet republic! Full citizenship rights for all immigrants!
UNITE with the Campaign for a Free Internet because today, our future begins with tomorrow!
I don't want to die for any of the regular, boring reasons.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
This FOI request, like so many others, is another polluters attempt to disrupt those who are telling them they must stop polluting.
yawn.
I have a message for these denialist children: Please grow up and stop helping the greedy pollute our planet.
"Oops, I always forget the purpose of competition is to divide people into winners and losers." - Hobbes
That's why BBC had to do this:
- This is incredible. In Jan 2006 the BBC held a meeting of “the best scientific experts” to decide BBC policy on climate change reporting (t)
- The BBC has been in court blocking FOI attempts to get the list of the 28 attendees, but it’s just been discovered on the wayback machine (t)
- It turns out that only 3 were current scientists (all alarmists). The rest were activists or journalists (t)
- The BBC sent four low level representatives: Peter Rippon, Steve Mitchell, Helen Boaden, George Enwistle. All have since risen to power. (t)
- Amazingly, those are also the exact four who have thus far resigned this week over the false paedophilia accusations against Lord McAlpine. (t)
From childhood to today, I've heard it asked many times in so many different ways "What would you live if there were no tomorrow?". People say stuff like "I'd party and have fun" or "I'd quit my job and spend time with my family" and all kinds of great stuff. Rubbish! Most people are just gonna find ways to loot whatever is there for the taking, quit acting responsibly, and/or sit around blaming and complaining about the problem.
or is it a FOIA ?
And what are Chatham House rules? (I know where the Chatham Islands are, but I don't think that has anything to do with this)
And does a "Wayback Machine" look like a blue phone booth with the word "Police" on and a flashing light on top?
Lets see, if you live in the UK and have a TV you have to pay it, and if you don't its a criminal offense.
Sounds like a tax to me
Test your net with Netalyzr
... but there's some hoops to jump through to get them to stop bugging you about it.
Not according to my British friends, there's not. They just keep bugging you. One of my friends (generally known in the Crome OS and Raspberry Pi communities as "Hexxeh") finally just gave in and paid the fee, even though he only ever uses the thing as a monitor. I told him he was nuts, but the lack of a BBC weenie calling him on his cell phone weekly apparently causes the license to pay for itself in reduced cell minutes.
I suspect if the UK ever got a working "do not call list", then the BBC would do the same thing the US companies and "free cruise!" scammers in the US have done, and just offshore the robo-calls.
if y0u move a table prospects are very aal know we want.
Seems like a lot of hot air to me.
Probably.
And it's interesting. Apparently, the Beeb decided that the overwheling evidence of climate change and global warming rendered dissenting views not only null, but dangerous, in that these dissents would only impede what is necessary action, and are either specious, disingenuous, false, or all of the preceding. So the BBC essentially wanted to suspend even the pretense of impartial reporting and just go all in for acknowledging man-caused climate change as fact.
Now, it may well be, but this decision had the effect of marginalizing opposing points of vew, on the BBC, to the point that there would be NO dissent.
I wonder if there are any other issues that the Beeb (affectionately referred to as 'Auntie' in the Register article referenced, and also by some of those Brits old enough to suspect the Beeb is less than honorable in some areas) would similarly suspend impartiaility (sometimes considered a foundation of journalism, so therefore suspending the practice of 'journalism' in reference to these issues) and thereby become essentially the mouthpiece of one side or the other in a dispute? Other than the Israel/Palestine conflict, Islamic terrorism, and perhaps global crony capitalism, I can't thing of a thing.
Ssadly, the BBC is become just another media outlet, adding to the spew of whatever meme is advantageous to the powers that be. Those powers, for those of you at home scoring in pen, do not include us.
And of course, the BBC would prefer to not even be asked these questions, much less have to answer them honestly or at least be compelled to admit they even discuss such things. Here in the U.S. we don't have such a problem. Our media outlets are essentially divided into three camps; Leftist, Rightist, and irrelevant. And these outlets are hardly called to account for anything, except by an opposing camp, though the Irrelevants tend to question everything, even themselves, perpetuating their irrelevancy. You know which outlets belong to which camps, right? Ok, score this one in pencil until you get time to review the action and come to a better decision...
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
A clown who makes up words to try to hide the fact he has no idea what he is talking about.
The case was about if the BBC has the right to protect it's journalistic sources or must it disclose them to a freedom of information request.
Way to go all histrionic, idiot-boy.
You seem to think that just because your money goes to pay for something that you should be able to snoop on everything and anything done with that money.
Tax money isn't any different from the money you spend on any private company. Try walking out of a Ford dealership with a car but not paying.
Sometimes I wonder how hard of thinking some people are
Ok the 4 people who resigned are
Peter Rippon, was head of newsnight which has had a bad run for sure, so he should go , was at the time of the meeting Duty Editor of the world at one/PM/The World this weekend
Steve Mitchell was deputy head of news when he resigned at the BBC, at time of the meeting was Head of Radio news
Helen Boaden, Director of news, when she resigned, at the time of the meeting was Director of News.
George Enwistle, BBC Director general. At time of the meeting was head of BBC current affairs.
So 4 people who were directly involved in either not broadcasting a documentary about a suspected pedophile or falsely accusing a senior politician of being a one have resigned and it is news because they all attended a meeting almost 7 years ago as part of a 26 strong BBC delegation as part of a meeting where the BBC decided hey climate change is real...
Yes it is REALLY bizzare that senior people from the BBC news organisation went to this meeting, and guess what senior people form the BBC news organisation resigned over a huge clusterfuck in BBC news.
In further BS iN TFA we have apparently they were junior people who then "rose in power" just for a nice conspiracy. I mean the BBC is a huge organisation, I would not call Head of Radio news for 5 radio stations (including one full time dedicated news and sport station) low level.
From the actual wayback machine thing itself we have these were meetings with teh International Broadcasting Trust which is a lobbying organisation on behalf of MAJOR AID AND DEVELOPMENT AGENCIES which rather explains why most of the specialists there were from those rather than the 4 or so people from universities.
Guess what another set of complete FUD.
What, exactly, does the Internet Archive have to do with all of this?
This story is so appalingly written it is almost impossible to work out what it is about and how the title relates to the story.
For example: If you write "The document", you have to have already told the reader what "the document" is.
FFS.
I love how the list of attendees includes Jon Plowman, Head of Comedy.
Paid Q&A/Research
I love how the summary of the article doesn't tell me how the Wayback Machine is related to this at all, but it's mentioned in the title!
So sounds like a license agreement, not tax to me...
pfft! The Pentagon! That bunch of tree-hugging pinko commie hippies.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
While it annoys me how everyone is quickly wearing out the expression, "the new normal", I'm going to do my part and point out that stupidity seems to be the new normal.
First of all, weather professionals and even climate change advocates are careful to point out that Sandy is an individual even that cannot be proven to be related to climate change. Only dim witted sensationalists and politicians are claiming it to be further proof of climate change.
Here is a list of storms and hurricanes that have impacted New York over the years. Please be sure to note the lack of meaningful differences in storm count between now and our pre-carbon fearing days.
Proclaiming Sandy to be proof of climate change/global warming is stupidity. Unfortunately, stupidity seems to be the new normal.
AGW has managed to survive ALL attempts to falsify. Now the deniers have only "They said something nasty in a private letter! MUST BE FAKE!!!" to try to falsify the science.
But those in denial of the evidence ARE deniers of that evidence. Not skpetics.
And it's only the deniers who call themselves heretics. Usually by placing those words in "the climate alarmists" to "prove" that the climate science is all just a religion.
And hoping like hell nobody notices that the only ones saying "heretic" are the deniers...
How the BBC described this meeting:
Look at the list of participants. Try to find "the best scientific experts".
From the BBC's own report on impartiality:
Climate change is another subject where dissenters can be unpopular. There may be now a broad scientific consensus that climate change is definitely happening, and that it is at least predominantly man-made. But the second part of that consensus still has some intelligent and articulate opponents, even if a small minority.
The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts, and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus. But 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.
Who is this "Everyone"?
The GP says: Sandy is being treated (appropriately) [reuters.com] as proof of climate change's impact: changing weather patterns.
It is definitely affected and is certainly created by the change in climate in that it would not have been the same storm in the same place at the same time and the same extent/strength without it.
If you want to say that AGW didn't cause it, you have to show that Sandy would still have happened the same place time and size without the effect of AGW for the past 50+ years.
It is proof of AGW in the same way as someone who smokes 100 a day and dies of throat cancer is proof that smoking kills.
And you are proving that you are stupid and providing support to the previous posters assertion that stupidity is the new normal. Well done!
Ask a friend to explain it to you.
Why is someone from the US embassy present at a meeting about BBC editorial policy?
If not having to pay because you don't buy is enough to make it a tax, then Nike are taxing you.
And if you think TV license payments being enforced by government make it a tax, then government enforce the import laws and restrictions that Nike request to ensure everyone pays the amount that Nike thinks they should. That would make it a Nike tax again.
This is the greatest BBC scandal of them so far. But its not news really. Anyone who does not understand the BBC as fundamentally flawed is living with their lights off. The BBC isn't independant. It utterly detests the Tory party with religious zeal, and its now found to be deciding on its news in closed room deals with communist esque control of what goes out. It loves the EU and hates British institutions. Its now at its core riddled to death by political correctness and multi-cultralism. Its as far left and unrepresentative as the Guardian is. Some would regard that as a badge of honour. The problem is the BBC isn't supposed to be the online Guardian, nor meant to be where it sits, and it does so by legal and forcable payment extracted from the population. The Guardian has to pay its own way.
The spending of license fee on trying to hide the details of people who made this political decision is and should be regarded as a scandal. And doing so under a cover of 'Journalism' is yet another lie. It was biult around a political and policy decision.
And yes, it should make the public wonder what other 'decisions' are being made in closed secret meetings that will affect the population.
The BBC should never have done this. What it should have done, and should still do is persue the evidence, and continue to do so, and work for everyone's interest in understanding the global warming science and what it means. This is done on a far wider and deeper scale than closed meeings and 28 people and a 'decision'.
These AGW denial stories from elReg and their ilk are the main reason why my visits are becoming less frequent and I have ads blocked here.
Feeding the witch-hunt mentality against climate scientists and environmentalists is incredibly irresponsible.
Go on, show that the same storm in the same place at the same time would still have occurred even if the climate hadn't changed.
But since hurricanes depend on SST and a warmer air means a warmer sea and we have AGW to thank for that, AGW has DEFINITELY affected all hurricantes and made their power source more powerful.
Therefore Sandy AS IT HAPPENED is definitely caused by AGW (in that eating a shitload of hamburgers can cause coronary heart failure is definitely a cause of death, even though they may have eaten a few chips as well).
But you can prove that wrong: just show the same storm in the same place at the same time would have happened without AGW.
The evidence is needed on YOUR claim.
The causation for AGW causing a hurricane to turn up is there.
YOU have to disprove it.
Although it wuold create a 2 tier system I really think that allowing anyone to cache & store a page for future reference and possible later use as expert witness,
should be an excellent non-intrusive revenue stream for the Internet Archive.
It's such a useful project.
I wish I was able to pay to make sure that I can make a record of a page when I notice something interesting.
A blog I run for the wealth
I don't understand how namedropping Hexxeh is adding to this conversation.
He was an intern at Google in the US at the time I talked to him about getting the calls. In the US, inbound calls cost him minutes.
I cited him not as a name-drop, but as a concrete example, since everyone on /. tends to pull made-up anecdotes out of their rears. This anecdote is capable of being independently fact-checked, but in order for it to be so, it had to be someone you could contact, and who had a reputation for honesty.
In 2007 the governance of the BBC was changed from a Board of Governors to a Trust. There trust consists of 12 people, who are appointed by Her Majesty the Queen and ***based on advice from the Department of Culture, Media and Sport***.
In other words, the BBC is led entirely by ***political appointees***.
C'mon people, it's not hard to find this stuff out with a little searching...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/
Again, where's the money? I see a claim that this group scoops in $7 million a year, That's less than the US branch of Greenpeace ($10 million a year). There are some huge climate change advocacy groups out there. There's no similarly huge anti-AGW advocacy group out there. Contrary to these assertions, I see plenty of money for scientists and activists who shill for climate change and peanuts for their opponents.
Look under the table.
C'mon, khallow, you're smarter than this. Think it through:
1. Assuming that what you see in money terms is what's actually going on, where's this money coming from? What's to be gained monetarily by shilling for climate change? Who would want to fund this, and for what gain?
2. Assuming that what you see in money terms is not the whole picture, who's to gain by not being public about funding? What vested interests are there that might be harmed by any policy changes designed to halt or slow AGW? How much money do these vested interests have?
3. Think too about regulatory capture -- there's less need for advocacy if you've already bought yourself congressional representation. Who's more likely to hold sway in the legislature: Greenpeace, or the hydrocarbon industry?
Seriously, khallow, I think better of you than this particular line of argument -- what you see is not what you get, in many cases.
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
From Nature :
“All of the articles have been submitted to journals, and we have received substantial journal peer reviews. None of the reviews have indicated any mistakes in the papers; they have instead been primarily suggestions for additions, further citations of the literature. One review had no complaints about the content of the paper, but suggested delaying the publication until the long background paper, describing our methods in detail, was actually published.”
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/12/breaking-the-secret-list-of-the-bbc-28-is-now-public/#more-74210
The BBC is not objective in the climate debate as it has had all of its advice from the pro-CAGW side.
So much for objectivity. It's like asking 28 Catholic priests and nuns what their view of religion should be.
The BBC has become a TOTAL JOKE.