BBC from Trust to Ofcom…not one minute too soon!

(comment published at BBC Watch)

As the guy who beat the BBC at 28Gate i am convinced all that put any trust in the BBC should have their head checked. For example, that list is still not officially confirmed, despite the perps having been caught red-handed with it. More, somebody took the time to make it disappear from the Wayback Machine, further confirming how institutionally corrupt the BBC is.

It’s not anybody’s fault, of course, rather the natural evolution for an organisation that lives on public money without being answerable to anybody but itself. An internal mafia quickly develops, with all the managerial positions filled by those deemed more trustworthy by whomever is in charge of distributing/dissipating the monies. The structure feeds on itself, and will do anything and everything to prevent people from looking in.

So I am not as pessimistic now as JunkkMale…true, with OFCOM it would still be a fairly promiscuous affair. But at the very least, not incestuous any longer. The OFCOM guy, whatever his past, will have to answer to something else than the BBC, therefore breaking the mafia loop.

Richard D North on 28Gate

Richard D North, the one person who had volunteered to Tony Newbery details about the BBC/CMEP seminar of 26 Jan 2006 as early as Dec 2008, has published some remarks about 28Gate in a comment at his site:

I have just caught up with [28Gate]. [...]

I haven’t quite worked out why the BBC were so keen to keep private the list of participants to the seminar. It may not be sinister or stupid. I am fairly sure that I feel some scruple toward any publication of details of “Chatham House” seminars. I know that one mustn’t ascribe particular remarks to particular participants. And, actually, I don’t think I have ever named the participants at such a gig. I would be inclined to check that they were OK with being named before I did so.

I am pleased that nothing I have heard about the seminar contradicts what I did recall and say about it. I did find the event quite depressing and I was peeved that the possibility of my helping to introducing the BBC and its audiences to all sorts of interesting ways of thinking rationally about climate change were not advanced by my attendance. I did think and did say that reporting on climate change would improve as broadcasters realised that their audiences did not want to do very much about it. I think that has come to pass.

Something happened on the way to Climate Change heaven…

What if (C)AGW is a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing? So they were asking at COP15 in Copenhagen, Denmark in 2009.

What indeed. But it’s not 2009 any longer. What have we learned?

  1. Enthusiasm for green projects has already damaged the environment eg by producing biofuels from forests and especially rainforest
  2. The Mohammed al-Ajami story has shown that human rights are too easily trumped by green considerations
  3. Green thinking has let dubious claims pollute the scientific discourse, or even kill it
  4. The BBC has lost its face and a lot of money for nothing at all in 28Gate
  5. There is lots of aimless activity on the CO2 emission side
  6. Plenty of bankruptcies and broken green promises in the fields of energy generation and cars

The list could continue for ever and ever. What if there is a Brave New Climate World in front of us instead?

BBC won’t deny if Jimmy Savile was at the 28Gate seminar

Yes, they won’t. From “Solve BBC bias”, a new low in the BBC’s incompetent lawyering:

Today the BBC replied to my FOI request with the predictable “Please note that the information you have requested is excluded from the Act because it is held for the purposes of ‘journalism, art or literature.’” So despite the names of the seminar delegates now being freely discussed in the public domain, the BBC won’t confirm or deny that Jimmy Savile was present, let alone comment on who was present at the seminar which resulted in the BBC changing their editorial policy towards climate.

Whose presence shall we ask about then? Dr Mengele? Frankenstein? Elvis?

The CIA is even worse than the BBC

Funny June 2012 FOI story showing a distracted CIA even less internet-capable than the BBC /sarc

From techdirt.com:

=====

For editor’s choice, we have a combination of two comments on our story about a freedom of information request to the CIA about its own rules for declassifying a document. The CIA came back with a letter saying that it searched for the regulations — which were clearly named in the request (32 C.F.R. 1908) and came back empty, saying “We processed your request in accordance with the FOIA…. Our processing included a search for records as described…. We did not locate any records responsive to your request. Although our searches were thorough and diligent, and it is highly unlikely that repeating those searches would change the result….” ReaderAnymouse_cowherd discovered that perhaps the CIA needs better search tools:

FWIW… I diligently typed “32 C.F.R. 1908″ into Google and found a copy in .035 seconds.

I’m now officially better than the CIA and especially Michele Meeks.

And Oblate took it one step further:

Not sure if this is what he was looking for:
http://www.foia.cia.gov/32CFR.asp
That’s right, the CIA has a link on their own website to download an electric copy of the document they said they don’t have an electronic copy of. In their FOIA section. Maybe it’s on a domestic server, and the FBI should have looked for it?

Of course you can always download CFR from the GPO. It seem ridiculous to submit an FOI for a whole section of the CFR when it’s freely available, but it’s even worse for the CIA to give this response. Is there a ‘secret’ subsection of 1908 that was specifically requested? The article doesn’t indicate anything other than the entire section being requested.

=====

Halpern joins the 28Gate dance

(comment posted at Rabett Run)

Am always surprised by these calls for a “conspiracy narrative”. AFAIK there is no “conspiracy” involved in this case as the seminars were put together in the open by known organizations.

What has happened is that a Big Bully in the form of a Big Corporation has lost its $200+k fight against a pensioner (Newbery), and a felllow internet user (me).

It would be quite strange to find out you guys prefer to be on the Big Bully’s side after all the mentions of Big Oil and the likes. But strangeness is the name of the game.

28Gate: The Guardian was for FOI before it was against it

Not a peep on The Guardian about 28Gate. How is it possible, a clear-cut human-rights-cum-FOI case involving a lone pensioner and a big bullying Corporation, the Little Guy against the Establishment, Six Lawyers against Man-and-wife…and still, only silence from the esteemend beacon of progressive albeit evidently at least a tad hypocritical thought?

Nevermind. We can warm up your hearts by reading…The Guardian. Step forward Polly Toynbee (whom I shared guesthood with a few years ago at a lunch offered by the outgoing Italian Ambassador in London). It was 13 Apr 2007, and Ms Toynbee posted this comment to her own piece “Our press, the worst in the west, demoralises us all“: (my emphasis)

on Freedom of Information: there should have been a privacy law to go with it. As it is, the press often uses it as a lazy way to fish out bits of information by firing off a hundred questions, mostly on relatively frivolous stuff. It’s not exactly fearless investigation. Meanwhile, they rarely bother with what is really difficult – penetrating the opaque world of business. Imagine if business had to be as transparent, if shareholders had the same FOI rights to ask anything. That really would shake things up. Why so many petty questions about government costs, and never a word about the ‘executive’ culture of business travel charged up to our pensions?

Way to go Polly. Imagine if the BBC had to be as transparent, if licence fee payers had the same FOI rights to ask anything. That really would shake things up.

In fact, things are being shaken up by FOI at the BBC as we speak

Fast forward last May and FOI campaigner and journalist” Heather Brooke: (my emphasis throughout)

the FOI Act doesn’t work in a timely way…The reason people have to make FOI requests is because the data isn’t there…The culture is that the people in power know best for everyone else. FOI levels the playing field…We need legislation – it is the only way to get the right to know taken seriously by government and public service, with sanctions if it’s not obeyed….the public need to know about the lobbying that went on behind the scenes. FOI gives the people who control the information the power to decide whether they’re going to release it or not. Outside people need to be able to get into the heart of power.

Heather is spot-on. It all applies perfectly to the BBC. And there is more by her:

where you have an exemption, it quickly becomes abused. National security is the ultimate exemption, and sins and incompetencies can be hidden. The reason there is a lot of distrust about the motivation of politicians to want this safe space comes from the Iraq war minutes [the cabinet meeting where the legal status of the war was discussed].That was onGe of the first FOI requests I made, and a lot of journalists made it, and we didn’t get it. Eventually the commissioner ruled it had to be released, but it was a ministerial veto that overturned it.

…By making it clear the public can’t find out how a decision is made, you risk a politician making a poor decision….

Yes Heather! By making it clear the public can’t find how a decision is made, you risk the BBC making a poor decision. Plus you know what? The revolution is being digitised! (my emphasis again)

Book Description “The Revolution will be Digitised: Dispatches from the Information War”
Publication Date: 18 Aug 2011
There is more information in the world than ever before – but who is in control?

At the centre is the Establishment: governments, corporations andpowerful individuals who have more knowledge about us, and more power, than at any other time in history. Circling them is a new generation of hackers, pro-democracy campaigners and internet activists who no longer accept that the Establishment should run the show.

In her gripping, revelatory new book, award-winning journalist and campaigner Heather Brooke takes us inside the Information War, from the hackerspaces of Boston and Berlin to the UK’s journalism hub and Iceland’s free speech revolution; from the headquarters of Google and Facebook to Collateral Murder, Cablegate and the murky world of Julian Assange and Wikileaks.

Along the way Brooke explores the most urgent questions of the digital age: where is the balance between freedom and security? In an online world, does privacy still exist? And will the internet empower individuals, or usher in a new age of censorship, surveillance and oppression?

For one day last week, I have been the pro-democracy campaigner and internet activist (a hacker, not really).

I, the revolutionary! Thank you Heather, thank you Polly, thank you Guardian!

(Shame on you, Guardian!)

TwentyEightGate – the story so far

(translated from Italian following requests)

Brief summary on TwentyEightGate, my last…ahem…second journalistic “scoop” that has now traveled around the world as a nice, clean, legal cybertripping of the FOI bully called BBC.

It is a “scoop” important enough to bring almost 21 thousand visitors on this blog in a single day (November 13).

In a nutshell: the BBC has fought for five years against a pensioner (blogger Tony Newbery at Harmless Sky) to prevent him from getting a list of names of participants in a seminar on climate change, held on January 26, 2006. I found the list (in a perfectly legal way, as it was already on the internet) and facilitated its reading.

Maurizio 1 – BBC 0. In other words, Ordinary People 1 – FOI Bullies 0.

The fact that the list is important is not just an opinion. It has been made important by the BBC itself, and specifically by its decision to spend around £140,000 pounds (€175,000 or $225,000) in FOUR DAYS for SIX yes SIX lawyers to defend a “secret” that wasn’t, while on the other side Newbery was without a lawyer, accompanied by his wife on a trip of a few hundred miles to London.

In the face of such crass bullying, once the Court ruled in favor of the BBC (as if the verdict could have gone the other way!), I literally saw red enough to warrant spending some time looking for the list on the internet. My thought was, given the number of participants (sixty) someone could as well have “outed” the list for whatever reason.

In fact, I found a page of one of the seminar organizers (the IBT) where with a mixture of pride and publicity seeking somebody had decided to put online a list of all the participants in the workshops with the BBC from 2004 to 2007.

The PDF file was no longer on that site, but in plain view on the “Wayback Machine”, a site which keeps copies of many pages on the internet.

Here the original link to my blog where I showed the list to the world.

In English this has been mentioned in many places on the internet, in Canada, USA, Australia, United Kingdom (for example, Bishop Hill has a few links). There are also articles in France and in the Netherlands. Sooner or later I’ll make a list. I also participated as a guest to talk about “28Gate” in the recent online WUWT-TV marathon, organized by Anthony Watts of WUWT (the video will be placed here as soon as available).

The name “28Gate” was given by one of the commentators on WUWT, in consonance with the legendary Watergate and the number of “outsiders” at the seminar BBC, who were just twenty-eight (or so did the BBC say … now one can see thirty of them. Who knows.)

In the print media there is a James Delingpole article on the Spectator, entitled as usual very explicitly as “Here’s a BBC scandal that should really make you disgusted” (it should be kept in mind that, of late, the BBC moves from one scandal to another – notably, the four top executives who have recently resigned or stepped aside were all at the seminar of 2006). Also the Sunday Telegraph spoke about 28Gate in the Christopher Booker column for Nov 18.

This scandal has been mentioned also in Italian by Piero Vietti of Il Foglio (online and in print) and Guido Guidi of Climatemonitor (online). Plus in another blog where the obsession with me has no limits … but when I’m the topic of discussion, there is evidently no need to waste even a link.

Some clarifications:

  • I haven’t been interested in that list, first requested five years ago. I had not even bought the e-book from Bishop Hill.
  • The idea that the BBC really changed its editorial policy January 26, 2006, seems a hoax through-and-through, however a hoax told the BBC itself.
  • It is the BBC and not me which gave importance to that list. It is not my fault if the BBC has decided to throw away £40,000 per day for four days two weeks ago and against a pensioner.
  • The “scoop” is in the fact that I found posted online (by another of the organizers) what the BBC kept claiming it was a secret. Maybe they could have paid one fewer lawyer and get another person to search for the document.

We now know that:

  • The BBC may as well have lied when it said the list was a secret (we’re talking about a list of names, not what they actually said at the meeting)
  • The BBC may as well have lied when it said he was a high-level meeting
  • The BBC may as well have lied when it said that the meeting had changed everything about its climate reporting
  • Neither the BBC nor any of its overpaid lawyers are able to use the internet (as I said I found the list on Monday evening in half an hour).

There could be more serious things to talk about (the presence of a representative from the U.S. Embassy in the seminar would be a violation of the founding principles of the BBC) – but I do not have time for that, at least for the moment.

I also want to say the following:

  • I do not care if the BBC gets its editorial policies from magicians and fairies. I care that the BBC should be explicit, clear, clear and transparent on its editorial policies, and say so when they are inspired by magicians and fairies. It’s a matter of Trust, in every sense of the word.
  • I do not know how many have noticed, but there was no one at that meeting from the Met Office….
  • The BBC has all the rights in the world to use lawyers in court. But to me what matters is that the BBC, after having taken £145/year from me and millions like me, then should not spend that going around bullying FOI requestors – I am still waiting to find one-person-one who will justify the need to hire six lawyers against a pensioner. Not one lawyer (as would have been reasonable), two (if one can afford them), not three (already too many) – but six!

Child Abuse or FOI bullying – it’s one and the same problem at the BBC

On the back of today’s Christopher Booker column in the Sunday Telegrapha comment left by “michel” at Bishop Hill deserves as much attention as possible: because it’s not by chance that the BBC is mired into scandals.

What people are saying is that there is institutional dysfunctionality at the BBC. You will recall the remarks from the Lawrence inquiry, that there was ‘institutional racism’ at the Met. The implication was not that it was racist at a policy level. But the implication was that it was more than a few individual aberrations. They’re definitely not saying that the BBC ‘consciously allowed this to happen’ as a policy level.

They are saying that there’s a culture in which standards of behaviour are not enforced and may not exist at all. The claim is that Saville and his collaborators were widely known about by individuals at a personal level but that they turned a blind eye, and that the institution at a policy level avoided confronting the issue. They are saying that people behaved like this because they believed that this was just the norm at the BBC.

They did not believe child abuse was the norm. They believed that turning a blind eye was the norm.

People here are then going on to say something else. They are saying that there are key elements to the culture of turning a blind eye which can be seen in other unrelated episodes. They take the issue of the seminar and the 28 and the FOI request, and see some of the key elements to the toleration of Saville in this episode too. The elements are secretiveness, lack of any real management, indulgence of groups who are within the fold, closing ranks against any critics. The lack of any standards and any culture of enforcement of those standards. They are saying a group, as long at it has certain key buttons pressed, is going to be able to avoid scrutiny and behave by most standards very bady in a variety of ways, some worse than others, because of the mixture of the turn a blind eye culture, and what they see as kneejerk reactions of approval to groups within the BBC who are ideololgically correct.

So, for instance, Saville touched the charity and the viewing figures buttons. The journalistic bias that the seminar introduced, they are saying, was a total breach of integrity and impartiality, but the turn a blind eye culture allowed it (and defended it in the FOI case) because the hot button of environmentalism and endorsement of CAGW meant that it was generally approved of as a direction. This allowed the implications of the policy for journalistic integrity to avoid notice or intervention.

They are not, obviously, saying that the episodes were morally comparable, or that the FOI episode was as bad as the Saville one. Obviously it was not, it lasted a shorter period of time, and it was a breach of journalistic integrity, not the infliction of damage on children.

When we think about institutions we need to look at them in the round, and if we are going to accuse a culture, we need to point to more than one manifestation of it. One product safety failure is an aberration which we deal with by a recall. A series, even if some lead to less human tragedy than others, is evidence of a pattern and a cultural issue.

What people are saying is basically that the BBC has a problem. It seems unable to enforce standards of behaviour on its staff and contributors. It may not even have any to enforce. They are tying this to guaranteed tax payer funding. Their argument is, this and lack of public accountability either through market mechanisms or through Ofcom has produced a culture in which abuses of various sorts have flourished. They are not saying that all the abuses that have flourished are comparable in gravity or extent. They are saying that they flourished in the same fertile soil.

Personally I cannot see the BBC News department survive without severing most if not all ties to the Corporation.

Its a serious argument. It tends logically to a change of structure. For instance, making subscription voluntary. Regulation by Ofcom. Or sharing the license fee income if its kept with other broadcasters. Its not an argument [snip] that some of the abuses were worse, a lot worse, than others.

TwentyEightGate – il mio scoop giornalistico che ha fatto il giro del mondo

Breve excursus sul TwentyEightGate, il mio ultimo..ahem..secondo voglio dire “scoop” che ha fatto il giro del mondo essendo un bello (e legale!) sgambetto al bulletto chiamato BBC.

È uno “scoop” importante abbastanza da aver portato quasi 21mila visitatori su questo blog in un giorno solo (13 Novembre).

In poche parole: la BBC ha combattuto per cinque anni contro un pensionato (il blogger Tony Newbery ad Harmless Sky) per impedirgli di ottenere una lista di nomi di partecipanti a un seminario sul cambiamento climatico, tenuto il 26 gennaio 2006. Io ho trovato quella lista (in maniera perfettamente legale, già su internet) e ne ho facilitato la lettura.

Maurizio 1 – BBC 0. In altre parole, Gente Comune 1 – Bulletti 0.

Che quella lista fosse importante non lo dico io, lo dicono le 140mila sterline (175mila euro) spese in QUATTRO GIORNI dalla BBC stessa per avere SEI, dico SEI avvocati in tribunale a difenderne il segreto, mentre Newbery era presente senza avvocato, e con la moglie, avendosi dovuto sobbarcare un viaggio da fuori Londra.

Di fronte a tale bullismo di bassa caratura, una volta che il Tribunale ha dato ragione alla BBC (e te pareva!), come si dice “non c’ho visto più” e mi sono messo di buona lena a cercare la lista su internet. Ho pensato che visto il numero di partecipanti (una sessantina) a qualcuno potesse essere “sfuggita”.

Infatti ho trovato una pagina di uno degli organizzatori (lo IBT) dove per farsi belli come si suol dire hanno un bel giorno deciso di mettere online la lista di tutti i partecipanti ai seminari con la BBC dal 2004 al 2007.

Il file PDF non era più su quel sito, ma bene in vista sulla “Wayback Machine”, un sito dove vengono conservate copie di tante pagine su internet.

Qui il link originale al mio blog in inglese dove mostro la lista al mondo.

In inglese ne hanno parlato in molti su internet, in Canada, USA, Australia, Regno Unito (per esempio Bishop Hill ha un po’ di link). Ci sono anche articoli in Francia e in Olanda. Prima o poi ne farò una lista. Ho anche partecipato come ospite per parlare proprio di “28Gate” alla recente maratona TV online di 24 ore sul clima, organizzata da Anthony Watts su WUWT (il video sarà messo qui appena disponibile).

Il nome “28Gate” è stato dato da uno dei commentatori su WUWT, in assonanza con il mitico Watergate e il numero di “esterni” presenti al seminario BBC, che erano appunto ventotto (o almeno così diceva la BBC…ora se ne vedono trenta. Boh.)

Sulla carta stampata è uscito un articolo di James Delingpole sullo Spectator, dal titolo al solito molto esplicito “Ecco lo scandalo alla BBC che dovrebbe davvero farvi sentire disgusto” (ricordiamo infatti che la BBC in questo periodo va da uno scandalo all’altro – fra l’altro i quattro alti dirigenti appena dimessisi erano tutti al seminario del 2006).

In Italiano ne hanno parlato Piero Vietti de Il Foglio (online e su carta) e Guido Guidi di climatemonitor (online). Più un altro blog dove l’ossessione nei miei confronti non ha limiti…ma quando io sono l’argomento di discussione, non c’è evidentemente da sprecare neanche un link.

Qualche precisazione:

  • io di quella lista, la cui prima richiesta è di cinque anni fa, non mi interessavo. Non avevo neanche comprato l’e-book da Bishop Hill.
  • Che la BBC abbia davvero cambiato linea editoriale il 26 gennaio 2006, mi sembra una bufala fatta e finita, una bufala raccontata però dalla BBC stessa.
  • È la BBC e non io ad aver dato importanza a quella lista. Non è colpa mia se la BBC ha deciso di buttare via 40mila sterline al giorno per quattro giorni due settimane fa e per giunta contro un pensionato.
  • Lo “scoop” è nel fatto di aver trovato pubblicato online (da un altro degli organizzatori) quello che alla BBC hanno spergiurato essere un segreto. Magari potevano pagare un avvocato in meno e far cercare il documento a una persona in più.

Adesso sappiamo che:

  1. la BBC ha probabilmente mentito quando ha detto che era un segreto (stiamo parlando di una lista di nomi, non di cosa abbiano detto al meeting);
  2. la BBC ha probabilmente mentito quando ha detto che era un meeting di alto livello;
  3. la BBC ha probabilmente mentito quando ha detto che quel meeting aveva cambiato tutto;
  4. nessuno alla BBC né alcuno dei suoi strapagati avvocati sono capaci di usare internet (come detto ho trovato la lista lunedì sera in una mezz’oretta).

Ci sono cose ancora più gravi (la presenza di qualcuno dall’Ambasciata USA al seminario sarebbe una violazione dei principi fondativi della BBC) – ma non mi interessano almeno per il momento.

Tengo anche a dire il seguente:

  • A me non importa se la BBC si ispira editorialmente a maghi e fatine. A me importa che la BBC sia esplicita, chiara, limpida e trasparente, e dica a tutti quando si fa ispirare da maghi e fatine. È una questione di Trust, in tutti i sensi della parola.
  • Non so se qualcuno ha notato, ma non c’era in quel meeting nessuno del Met Office…come se in Italia la RAI facesse un meeting sul clima senza invitare il CMCC. Se vi va bene così…
  • Padronissima la BBC di usare avvocati in tribunale. A me però importa che la BBC, dopo avermi preso 145 sterline all’anno, non le dedichi poi al bullismo, perché di questo si tratta – continuo ad aspettare di trovare una-persona-una che giustifichi la necessità di ingaggiare sei avvocati contro un pensionato. Non uno (ragionevole), due (se se li possono permettere), non tre (già troppi) – addirittura sei!

There’s a bit more to “student” Eleni Andreadis

Participation of “student” Eleni Andreadis has raised a few questions among the many for 28Gate. Her LinkedIn page is a bit short on CV:

Experience

  • Member of the Board SANI SA January 2008 – Present (4 years 11 months)
  • Founder/Director Planet Agents January 2008 – Present (4 years 11 months)

Education

  • Harvard University Masters in Public Policy, Environmental Policy, Government Strategy, Media 2004 – 2006
  • University of Bath BSc in Management, Business 1996 – 2000

However the Wayback Machine (what else?) can help fill the gaps. At some point, Eleni had her TV presence managed by Take 3 Management. The site included a CV (broken link)(wayback machine link for Sep 5, 2008 snapshot):

Presenter/Reporter/Journalist
Harvard University, Kennedy School of Government
Masters in Environmental Policy and Media.
University of Bath, School of Management, with year study at University of Virginia.
First Class Honours BSc (Hons) in Business Administration 2000.
TV/RADIO CREDITS
2007 – ongoing GREEN TV, London Presenter and Green Talk Host. Work at the UNEP/Greenpeace sponsored channel & iTunes Top Science/Tech podcast, includes green event coverage as well as interview with prominent environmental figures.
2007 -
current
SMARTPLANET, London, UK Presenter of online environmental video podcasts for CNET’s new green lifestyle website (launching October 2007). CNET Networks is an American company with millions of viewers each month in the US, Europe and Asia.
2007 – ongoing NEW CONSUMER TV,
London
Presenter of online and TV green and ethical lifestyle weekly video pod casts from across the UK. Pieces include organic farm visits, fair-trade coffee tasting, eco-tourism destination and green technology reviews.
2007 THE REAL NEWS, Canada Presenter/producer of pilot programme Global Warning, a longer-form news segment on the independent news world network focusing on environmental issues, launching late Autumn 2007 and London environment correspondent.
2006 – 07 CURRENT TV, New York Freelance Presenter/Producer – wide range of stories in US
2006 Kennedy School of Government, Harvard Video Documentary Director and interviewer for the Communications Dept. Directed 5 documentary shorts over 5 months profiling the non-profit work of alumni. Interviewed in India, Vietnam, Serbia & US for Harvard’s website & DVD.
2006 THE TODAY PROGRAMME Freelance US Producer for the programme – BBC Radio 4.
2005 – 2006 CAMBRIDGE MEDIA & ENVIRONMENT PROGRAM(supported by BBC News) US US/UK Researcher & Writer. Led & conducted over 30 interview in the area of climate change media coverage.
2005 THE TODAY PROGRAMME,BBC Radio 4 Journalist intern in London. Researched & booked guests, conducted interviews & broadcasted packages- included coverage of the London bombings, essays with historian Eric Hobsbawm & Joseph Rotblat on Nuclear proliferation.
OTHER EXPERIENCE
July – Oct
2007
PARTICIPANT PRODUCTIONS/CENTURY FILMS, UK Environmental Consultant for feature-length climate change documentary for international cinematic release.
2003 – 04 FRIENDS OF THE EARTH, UK Researcher & briefings Writer, Policy and Campaign Dept. Directed research with the Policy & Campaign Dept to quantify the regional impacts of climate change in twelve UK regions. Authored public briefings for each region for the 200 local groups & volunteers.
2001 – 03 ACCENTURE Senior Analyst, Government Strategy (UK, Ireland & Canada.
OTHER
2000 – 2001 Assistant Science officer
& Honduras – trained volunteers
PADI Scuba Diving Master at Coral Cay Conservation in in Scuba diving & underwater species recognition.

 

It seems Ms Andreadis was more qualified to attend than at first hypothesised. The trouble of having BBC News sponsor a Masters student to work at CMEP to lobby the BBC, it’ll be for another day to understand.

No prize to guess the name of the “feature-length climate change documentary for international cinematic release” worked on in 2007. Who knows what happened at the end of that year though, that made Eleni change her life’s focus.

Green TV doesn’t show anything when her family name is used.

BBC: The most curious piece of evidence of institutional AGW bias

From “Yes, John: Steve Jones Is Wrong And The BBC Totally Unbalanced On Climate Change“, 1 year 3 days ago on this site – see what happens when everybody including the Head of Comedy is pushed to insert climate change / global warming in their BBC output:

[...] I can now present [...] the most curious piece of evidence yet of BBC’s institutional bias in favor of AGW proponents and away from skepticism.

And yes, this evidence makes a mockery of Steve Jones’ allegations too. Introducing Spiked Online and Patrick West’s experience with various language courses in Italian, and in particular the words dedicated to the BBC (my emphasis):

I’m currently on the second volume of the BBC’s Active Talk Italian Course. The two books and CD companions contain some bizarre diversions, Talk Italian 2 (2007) especially so. This volume is rich fare for those convinced that the BBC is governed by a liberal-left cabal, aging hippies and proselytising environmentalists.

Much of Talk Italian 2 is concerned with asking for directions in the rustic campagna of Tuscany and Umbria, where one would expect BBC bigwigs and well-to-do liberal-left champions of the corporation to take their vacations. A chapter is devoted to renting and buying luxury property (In zona panoramica e comoda… quattro camere, due bagni, cantine di 50mq, garage e giardino… Prezzo: €840,000). This no doubt appeals to Italy-loving Islingtonians who think holidaying in Spain is for the ghastly hoi polloi and that the south of France is a repository for the vulgar bourgeoisie.

The section in Talk Italian 2 on telling the time casually envisages a scenario of ‘Jorge’ and ‘Alessandro’ co-ordinating a meeting at a climate-change conference: Il cambiamento climatico: rischio per la biodiversità marina. The reader is invited to insert the Italian for ‘we start’ in the following ominous sentence ‘_____ alle dieci e un quarto con il discorso del Ministro sul cambiamento climatico’ (answer:Cominciamo) (1). Whatever happened to time-keeping dialogues simply based on railway enquiries?

On visiting the doctor, a further chapter asks you how to recognise notices for ‘alternative solutions’: medicina olistica, agopuntura, omeopatia, meditazione. Would you like to mettere in armonia le dimensioni fisiche, emotive, spirituali e sociali della persona? When ‘Simona’ complains of having l’influenza and asks for some painkillers, you, her hypothetical friend, are inveigled to suggest a superior alternative: Io ho un prodotto omeopatico molto efficace (2). Simona ought to reply Che stronzata! (3)

Some translation to help:

(1) “We start at quarter past ten with a speech by the Secretary of State for Climate Change”

(2) “I’ve got a very effective homeopathic medicine”

(3) “What a load of bull!”

[...]

Cretins United For Climate Change

I have seen replies from several warmists today claiming that 28Gate, the revelation that the list of the Jan 26 2006 participants to a BBC/CMEP seminar has been on the ‘net all along. is a non-story. Well, let’s agree with them, shall we.

The BBC has spent untold amounts of money to prevent the non-story from happening. Evidently, those warmists believe that there is no story in discovering the BBC wasting a lot of money on lawyers for no reason at all.

The BBC has fielded six lawyers against a lawyer-less pensioner to defend its right not to do anything about a non-story. Evidently, those warmists believe that there is no story when a Big Corporation tries the squash the Little Guy.

The BBC Trust has disseminated untruths: either the Jan 26 2006 meeting was not as important as claimed by the Trust (so, the Trust’s story was not true) or the participants were not as scientifically expert as claimed by the Trust (so, the Trust’s story was not true). Is this a non-story? If it is, those warmists are saying it is so common for the BBC Trust to mislead the public, there is no news about it.

There we have it then: if 28Gate is a non-story, the BBC Trust is revealed as usually untrue, the BBC as a public-money-wasting machine, and the democratic rights of the individual as betrayed without anybody worrying about them. What a nice description of the world the average CAGWer inhabits.

ps not a single pingback from warmist blogs in the day this site got 20,000 visitors. Plenty of shock to recover from, hence the lack of arguments.

Favorite Why the List of Participants to the BBC CMEP Jan 2006 Seminar is important

updated Nov 13 23:29: those four were not actually “low level”

updated Nov 18 10:20: added direct link to Bruce’s comment

Yesterday night this site has seen the second large journalistic scoop of my life (so far): “Full List of Participants to the BBC CMEP Seminar on 26 January 2006” (here’s the first one: “World Exclusive: CIA 1974 Document Reveals Emptiness of AGW Scares, Closes Debate On Global Cooling Consensus (And More…)“).

Here’s a summary of why such a list if very important, thanks to Bruce Hoult in a Bishop Hill comment I wish I knew how to link to:

  • 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)

For more background read Andrew Montford’s “Conspiracy of Green” and Andrew Orlowski’s recent article “FOlA judges: Secret 28 who made the BBC Green will not be named“.

Full List of Participants to the BBC CMEP Seminar on 26 January 2006

This list has been obtained legally.

This is for Tony, Andrew, Benny, Barry and for all of us Harmless Davids.

January 26th 2006,

BBC Television Centre, London
Specialists:
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 catriona@tightropepictures.com

BBC Television Centre, London (cont)
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