Sunday, July 24, 2011

Obviously oblivious...


LOL! "Why are the arguments adduced by the BBC are so shallow and implausible that they can so readily be demolished? You would have thought that, if the BBC wanted seriously to make its case, it would have done a far better job than it has done." [sic] 'No need to argue'...[EU Referendum]. The report [pdf] was covered earlier in the week here and here, blogged here and here, and finally, from another perspective, by Robin McKie in the Guardian today, here.

Late, late update: (apologies for lack of posts...hopefully on Friday and the weekend!) New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism [Link]

Bookmark and Share

2 comments:

Paul said...

"Too narrow a range of sources for stories and a tendency to be reactive rather than proactive, particularly in news coverage"

I think this is a difficult situation for any news organisation to get balanced - at what point should the news reporters set the agenda for anything?

The report made interesting reading as did Chris Booker's article.

Span Ows said...

"I think this is a difficult situation for any news organisation to get balanced..."

Indeed but it's not that it's hard to balance, it's that they have written off one 'side' and not only under-report it but actively and publicly denigrate it...

"...at what point should the news reporters set the agenda for anything"

Never! Unless they are there to do something other than report news.