If You Ever Had Any Doubt the Media is Biased on Climate, This Should End Your Doubt
By Amy Ridenour | January 12, 2014
The indefatigable David Rose of Britain's Daily Mail, working with British climate blogger Tony Newberry, has today exposed bias in news reporting of climate change of a scale heretofore unknown, even for that never-accurately-covered subject.
He reveals that, in a move orchestrated by the BBC itself and a left-wing lobby group, the British government under the Labor Party paid for BBC personnel to be taught the left-wing, pro-alarmist spin on climate issues for the specific purpose of using the "news" as propaganda.
The seminar project was run by a BBC "journalist." A single seminar, paid for by British taxpayers, cost 67,000 pounds (about $110,00).
What's more, after blogger Newberry noticed, in Rose's words, "a passing reference" to the project "in an official report," the BBC spent at least 20,000 pounds (about $33,000) to keep the public from finding out.
This was done even as internal BBC documents bragged about the massive influence the program had on the BBC's coverage of climate issues.
Go here to read David Rose's story, which includes generous quotations of BBC personnel bragging about how influential its corruption is.
Go here to read Tony Newberry's Harmless Sky blog, where he has links to PDFs of damning primary documents proving the case against the BBC and the British government.
Some here in the U.S. may say, that's Britain, not the USA; in the United States the government does not spend money to influence people's opinions. They'd be wrong about that, but this corruption influenced us here regardless. The media use each other as sources, and the BBC, very obviously, is a big player and is one of those getting used.
Next time you hear or read a journalist talking about climate change, be sure to double and triple check his information, preferably with primary sources. Otherwise, you risk being told what to think by the British government.
Been there; done that.