While we may be far from happy with reportage in the local media we all know that the BBC is not renowned as a provider of objective coverage of climate change and EU issues. How often do we hear balanced reports on these subjects? With only one side of the story provided how can we hope to make up our minds about the truth of the matter? (Thank goodness for alternative media sources).
Christopher Booker, one of the few journalists in conventional media who is not afraid to swim against the tide, points out how BBC angles on news items have proved to be dubious:
But in each of these important fields where dissent has been treated as thought crime, the world has moved on – and very much as the heretics were urging for so long. The global warming scare has not continued to unfold as projected by those bent computer models on which it rested. Temperatures have not risen as predicted, the ice caps aren’t melting, nor sea levels rising, nor hurricanes, droughts and heatwaves intensifying as we were assured they would.
Similarly, as we watch the euro undergoing its catastrophe, for precisely the reasons that the dissenters foretold, it is fascinating to see the disarray in which this leaves the cheerleaders for the cause. We recall the days when the BBC obsessively promoted calls for Britain to join the euro; when Evan Davis, in 2002, was telling us how the euro had made Greece financially “stable”; or when Stephanie Flanders, in 2008, derided those who thought the euro would “crash and burn” and proclaimed that its role as a global currency was now “secure”.
Just who are these people who believe they have exclusive rights to the truth and who dismiss sceptics as being guilty of thought crime? Do we hear local media querying the climate change dogma – or is it accepted as sacrosanct?