Energy crisis and BBC bias

Last night's 10 O'clock News saw another classic illustration of BBC bias. 

Reporting on the looming energy crisis Britain faces, the BBC kept referring to the "failure of the markets" to provide energy.  The idea that we are not producing enough energy because of "the markets" is absurd.   

The energy sector is one of the most heavily regulated parts of our economy.  Energy producers need the permission of officials at almost every turn.  Suppliers are unable to supply enough energy precisely because of the rules that force them to shut down power plant, purchase renewables, and jump through all manner of regulatory hurdles.

At no point did the BBC mention that one of the reasons energy bills are rising is because householders are being forced to pay hidden levies - which are then put on to the balance sheets of big corporations.

It is not the free market that is failing to supply us with energy, but a corporatist con trick. 

The BBC invited a comment from the regulator OFGEM - who called for more regulation.  The BBC invited comment from a government minister - who called for more government.  At no point did the BBC consider the view that perhaps it is the regulator and the government that have got us into the sorry mess - and they are the last people we should be depending on to get us out of it.

Listening to the BBC presenter last night, I was reminded of how the BBC covered the Stern Report on climate change.  Opinion reported as fact.  Assertions made without caveats.  No opposing view or doubt allowed.  The BBC seems to have learnt nothing from its blanket failure to ask the right questions about global warming.     

No doubt the producer of last night's BBC News is unaware that they were even being biased.  That is what is so disturbing.

Posted on 4 February 2010 by Douglas Carswell

Comments

It's totally true ! It's not a conspiracy it's just plan ignorance. If you live in a world where you go to a state school, then state university, read the Guardian and watch the state broadcaster you will never learn any free market economics or political philosophy. It's Keynes for breakfast, Keynes for lunch, Keynes for tea and Keynes for supper. It's called the 'K' plan ! Why can we not get a documentary like this on the BBC: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpATNp5DjYI ???

Posted on 4 February 2010 12:12 by AC

Can't we have Messrs Carswell, Hannan, and Nelson in new party that is worth voting for? I know the only current viable alternative Labour is the Conservative Party, but in it's current form is is mired by the old-politics of pocket filling, fraud, and second raters from the toffs world. It is also not radical and is putting forward policies that are as close to status quo as they can get. This may do for a year or two, but in the long run something radical is needed and I believe that the three gentlemen mentioned above are on the right track and are capable of taking this forward. Bring on the Peoples Democratic Party (my name for it.)

Posted on 4 February 2010 13:31 by C Wilson

Wait and see what would happen if anyone suggested to a BBC interviewer that instead of switching off 35% of our generating capacity in 2016 simply to comply with the EU's Large Combustion Plant Directive, we should tell the EU to take a very long walk off a very short plank.

Posted on 4 February 2010 14:09 by David Cooper

"... a corporatist con trick"

As was calling the banking crisis a failing of capitalism. Where the State fails, blame it on someone else and insist a bit more State is the solution.

By aligning themselves with the cargo cult of climate catastrophy Ofgem have ceased to put consumers first. They have happily taken onboard a social responsibility that is vastly beyond their original remit.

Posted on 4 February 2010 14:20 by Gareth

When their pension fund is geared to renewable energy and all things green,why do you expect fair comment?

Posted on 4 February 2010 14:26 by Peter Whale

Never mind the anti-market spin, where was the analysis of what we need to do for the future? Nothing about nuclear power (sorry, I said a rude word there) and how it is the only credible way out of the mess NuLieBore have left us in.

Posted on 4 February 2010 15:13 by JohnRS

No, What is scary is that the majority of people watching didn't realise.

Posted on 4 February 2010 15:18 by Rob H

There is a crisis but you will not get the truth from the BBC and its caused by global corporations and their political lobbyists who want to control energy and fuel resources including the prices and availability. All part of the New World Orders plan which extends beyond countries and politics to reduce the population of the world , on their terms. As I said in a previous post we have 600 years of coal underground almost unused since the eighties.The global warming greensters ( funded by private banks) scam stopped these coal resources being used.

Posted on 4 February 2010 15:24 by Glenn

We all know the BBC is a left-wing organisation. We all believe, I hope, that it is deeply damaging to our democracy to have such a partisan outfit funded by the state. It is only misplaced sentiment that keeps it in place. Cameron could axe the lot, and no-one under 35 would care. We have grown up in a world of satellite and cable tv, and now the internet with its legal and illegal innovations. The licence fee is dead as an idea. Let's see some radical policy from the Tories. Scrap it. Put 150 pounds back in everyone's pocket to spend on what they want. Don't mess about with piffling rearrangements of the management structure. No-one outside Westminster gives a stuff.

Posted on 4 February 2010 17:54 by thomas

Can't we have Messrs Carswell, Hannan, and Nelson in new party that is worth voting for?

YES!!!!!!!!
and if Mr John Gough can get himself elected as MP for Barrow & Furness there will be four Englishmen straight and true standing up for what is right.

Posted on 4 February 2010 17:54 by Derek

Dougy,

You might like this; a very pertinent reason as to why the BBC is so keen on the climate change nonsense:

http://bastardoldholborn.blogspot.com/2010/02/bbc-and-climate-change.html

Their pensions depend on it!

Its a pity you wax lyrically on this subject in a vain attempt to pull the mote out of others' eyes but refuse to see the beam in your own; Cambo has indicated nothing to me that says he is willing to deal with this issue with the grave seriousness it requires, nay - his dedication to the climate change creed will doom us to stagnation.

You want to make a real change? Resign from the Bory's and become the first elected LPUK MP; sound mad? Probably, but you talk a perfectly good fight about how safe seating wrecks the commons yet have yet the stones to prove it; here's your chance.

Their is always a warm application form waiting for you at our website: www.lpuk.org

Thom

Posted on 4 February 2010 21:41 by http://jerubbaalsvent.blogspot.com/

I hope one of the first things the incoming conservative governement does is dismantle the Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation which has played a major part in the disintegration of our society!!

Posted on 4 February 2010 23:25 by Iain

The only thing worth watching on BBC is Match of the Day. How sad the money from tv licensing can't even go to getting a few premier league matches on.

As you have mentioned so many times before, the internet has leveled (and continues to level) the playing field in the individuals favor. Those who hunger for varying viewpoints (maybe even something resembling the truth) can now find it in many different places online.

What is a worry, is the future of the internet. The state has many tools in its arsenal. Will the internet remain a bastion of free speech (even, gasp, speech of a dissenting nature)? I can already see the state regulators trying to stop the competition the internet is creating with brute force (the only language the states speaks).

The only thing that needs regulating is the state.

Posted on 5 February 2010 01:45 by Tyler

But what, Mr Carswell, is the Conservative policy on energy?

Posted on 5 February 2010 11:06 by backofanenvelope

I saw that too & was disgusted. It was the complete & exact opposite of the truth & clearly, because they have not retracted it, the very highest standard of honesty to whic any of these lying statist parasites eve aspire. Big Brother's Minitruth could not have lied more.

The truth is that if we had a free market in energy we would have built lots of nuclear power stations which would be supplying unlimited power to individuals & industry at 1/4 the present price. That would obviously get us well out of recession, as it the example of China shows.

Most developed countries have 1kw of electricity per $4 of GNP. China has 1 per $2.5, Britain per $6.14. Only Ireland, which is linked to Scottish nuclear & Singapore & Hong Kong, which are city states & undeveloped & failed states have worse.
http://a-place-to-stand.blogspot.com/2008/06/snok-s-needed-for-each-kilowatt-hour.html

Posted on 5 February 2010 11:25 by Neil Craig

Hopefully, if you get into power, you will set about the BBC with the sharpest axe you can find.

Posted on 5 February 2010 11:42 by lola

Tyler said 'The only thing that needs regulating is the state.'

Exactly. Which is what Parliament was meant to be for and whose functions in that regard Labour have consistently and constantly eroded. Then came expenses-gate, so Parliament has lost its powers and its credibility. There must be a General Election as soon as possible.
If you have any concerns about these issues please write to our complaints department at:

Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith

Buckingham Palace
The Mall,
London
SW1A 1AA

Posted on 5 February 2010 12:34 by Adam

V. interesting article here

http://www.john-daly.com/history.htm

which once again suggests that it was Maggie (with her BSc degree in chemistry) who revived the idea of global warming in the 1980s, as a ploy to reduce the power of the coal industry (who didn't vote Tory).

The BBC is simply continuing to promote a Tory inspired idea?

Posted on 5 February 2010 13:31 by I'm Not Airbrushed

We don't need to totally dismantle the BBC, just to radically restrict what it does.Radio 3 and 4 and BBC1 plus the overseas service would be fine. The rest can be done by commercial services if they think it worthwhile.

Posted on 5 February 2010 18:28 by eddyh

Mr Carswell,

Please, another bill:

"The BBC television license fee is abolished."

That's it. It is a matter for the BBC how they persuade all the current license fee payers to continue to pay. I suggest a voluntary subscription.

But it really isn't the government's affair.

Posted on 5 February 2010 21:29 by APL

I've just returned from a 2 week holiday in the USA.
Whilst not defending the general standing of US television, the variety of views aired on political matters is astonishing.
Such views as expressed on this blog and its comments are part of main stream media over there.
I feel saddened to flick through the left-liberal conformity of our TV news.

Posted on 6 February 2010 00:49 by Stephen

WHY oh WHY don't we all wake up to the real shallenge that is behind so many of our problems today: Climate Change, Poverty, Famine, Social Breakdown etc.

OVER POPULATION!

Who is brave enough to voice this?

Posted on 6 February 2010 08:12 by Eric of Walton

Thomas Malthus: "OVER POPULATION ... Who is brave enough to voice this?"

Nobody would, the end of the world has been foretold many times, fortunately it hasn't arrived ... yet.

In any case, we in the west have done our bit to address 'OVERPOPULATION', in the UK through the good offices of the 1967 Abortion act. We in this country, jointly and severely, have aborted 6,000,000 unborn children since 1967.

That is just the UK, I have no idea what the tally for the rest of Europe and the US may be.

But you can see why Politicians should not be permitted to manage society. In 1967 it was thought a good idea to permit abortion on demand, since then the rate of abortion has increased each and every year.

in 2007, the politicians decide that we have insufficient population and recruit foreign labour to supplement our shortfall. Wouldn't it have been better to have left well alone in the first place?

Oh! and our 'Demographic time bomb' so loved of the chattering classes and the 'Meja' that is a direct result of the '67 act.

Posted on 7 February 2010 10:35 by APL

Please see what Bill Gates & wealth friends discussed;
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6350303.ece

Optimum Population Trust chairman Roger Martin says that 95% of the poorest countries have identified rapid population growth as a significant factor inhibiting their development and keeping their people poor. See
http://www.optimumpopulation.org/

Posted on 8 February 2010 08:36 by Eric of Walton

Roger Martin: "... that 95% of the poorest countries have identified rapid population growth as a significant factor inhibiting their development"

APL says: " for 100% of the poorest countries a significant factor contributing to their poverty is graft and corruption in their ruling class."

Posted on 8 February 2010 19:15 by APL

Make A Comment