No room to comment on a two day wind drought that renders mega-$million’s invested in windmill generators utterly useless and puts upward pressure on electricity prices. Our ABC – disgusting.
No room to comment on a two day wind drought that renders mega-$million’s invested in windmill generators utterly useless and puts upward pressure on electricity prices. Our ABC – disgusting.
You are so understated; there are four banana stories on that ABC headline page.
Yes but it’s easy to slip up on bananas.
Worth reading again is this Foreword (www.thegwpf.com/in-memoriam-sir-antony-jay-its-time-to-drastically-slim-down-bias-ridden-bbc/) by Sir Antony Jay, written in 2011 about the BBC’s coverage of climate issues. In particular, the paragraph where he remembers his own stint at the BBC many years earlier:
“…We were masters of the techniques of promoting our point of view under the cloak of impartiality. The simplest was to hold a discussion between a fluent and persuasive proponent of the view you favoured, and a humourless bigot representing the other side. With a big story, like shale gas for example, you would choose the aspect where your case was strongest: the dangers of subsidence and water pollution, say, rather than the transformation of Britain’s energy supplies and the abandonment of wind farms and nuclear power stations. And you could have a ‘balanced’ summary with the view you favoured coming last: not “the opposition claim that this will just make the rich richer, but the government point out that it will create 10,000 new jobs” but “the government claim it will create 10,000 new jobs, but the opposition point out that it will just make the rich richer.” It is the last thought that stays in the mind. It is curiously satisfying to find all these techniques still being regularly used forty seven years after I left the BBC.”
Would that “our” ABC were that subtle! If a story doesn’t fit their prejudices, they just dump it in the bin.