BBC Faces Inquiry, Cuts, Job Losses and Ridicule

The BBC will be examined as part of the inquiry into journalistic ethics set up after the phone-hacking scandal, the Prime Minister has said. David Cameron argued that while the Left thought that Rupert Murdoch was too powerful, the Right felt the same way about the BBC. “Both have a point,” he said. –The Times, 21 July 2011

---

The BBC is planning to cut costs by broadcasting more repeats, possibly scrapping Formula 1 and bringing back the test card overnight. Bosses will meet the corporation’s governing body today to explain how to save £1.3billion over four years. This is expected to result in about 3,000 job losses across the organisation. --Daily Mail, 21 July 2011 THE BBC was criticised by climate change sceptics yesterday after it emerged that their views will get less coverage because they differ from mainline scientific opinion. --Nathan Rao, Daily Express, 21 July 2011 Anyone who has followed the BBC’s coverage of the climate change debate in any detail will surely be puzzled by a recommendation that it should give less weight to the views of sceptics. For it does not seem possible that it could give any less weight to those who doubt the strength of the link between carbon emissions and global temperature change, so partial is its approach. --Editorial, Daily Express 21 July 2011 In its explicit attack on the Global Warming Policy Foundation, it is quite apparent that the BBC Trust report is using the 'science-is-settled' mantra as a smokescreen to silence critics of climate taxes and green policies. Instead of using the crisis of British journalism to position the BBC as a fair and impartial news outlet, the report undermines the attempt by Lord Patten, the BBC Chairman, to restore credibility on one of the most contentious public policy issues. –The Global Warming Policy Foundation, 20 July 2011 Accuracy is clearly not one of Prof Jones’ strong points. He uses his BBC report to make an explicit attack on the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which he claims made a submission to his review. However, as the GPWF explain on their website, they did not make any submission to the review at all. If Jones can get something as basic as that incorrect then how can anyone have confidence in his assertions? --Autonomous Mind, 21 July 2011

---