“The society which has abolished every kind of adventure makes its own abolition the only possible adventure.” Paris, May 1968

Saturday, 5 July 2014

BBC to be crank free zone.

I have never been that big a fan of the "no platform" view of opinions that differ from my own. It's not that I am concerned about the freedom of speech of the nastier fringes of the far right but rather that exposing their cretinous ideas to the light of day seems the best way of ensuring that they are seen for what they are. Opposing neo-nazis on the streets when they try to intimidate communities is one thing. Trying to airbrush their odious ideas from the media is quit another. Worst thing that happened to the British National Party was getting Nick Griffin on Question Time. Give 'em enough rope etc.
Of course not all cranks are evil as well as potty and, irritating though many of them may be, I can't think of a single  religious, political or pseudo-science screw job that I want to have silenced. Bring it on I say. It seems however that the BBC now have a different take on things and are aiming to keep cranks of the airways and make telly a fringe free zone. BBC managers are to be given a no nonsense induction course in the merits of a no platform for weirdos policy. All power to the mainstream is to be the new credo. Well I reckon it's all wrong. If we can't hear the opinions of Islamo-mentalists, vegetarian bunny huggers, climate change deniers and cracked racial theorists of every hue how can we ever develop the critical faculties necessary to deal with them?


Dr Llareggub said...

Interesting that you link climate change deniers along with a range of loonies. I am a tad disappointed. There are some powerful genuine scientific arguments against the global warming standpoint, and there are issues of scientific methodology that need addressing by those who adopt the leftist political platform here. Note that you choose the loaded term 'deniers', as in holocaust deniers, which has been well established by the BBC.
Among the deniers excluded from the BBC is Lord Lawson. Hooray, he is right wing. But included as a reliable voice on global warming is Chris Huhne, a very trustworthy politician indeed. The need to follow the left pack can lead to strange alliances.
As for the Islamic fruit cakes - look no further than the bulk of the anarchist and socialist movement for the left-conservative Islam alliance. But the real tragedy - and fair play you acknowledge this - is the no platformism that has become characteristic of the left and reveals their objectives. Ever remember arguing for anarchism and meeting the response 'Aren't anarchists in favour of disorder and no organization?' And we said: 'No, we are for different forms of organization where the people can be in control of their own lives'. To which the current reply would be 'You mean empowerment, which all political parties stand for'. But today, advocate anarchism and you get: 'You are the people who demonstrate in support of pedophile gangs, jihadists, and prevent meetings and demonstrations of those who disagree'. And the reply is 'No - we are opposing those nasty right wingers who oppose grooming gangs and jihadists, and our function is to stop them speaking. Basically, the left have gone from advocacy of a better life with guts to defend one's position to giving support to some kind of Orwellian thought blocking platform denying regime. And our BBC is in the forefront.

Gitane said...

"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum"
Noam Chomsky
The Common Good

Dr Llareggub said...

Well said Gitane.
Apologies for returning to this topic, but the position on exclusions taken by the BBC (state broadcaster) is extremely important. The decision to exclude cranks from the climate debate by asserting that they are unscientific allows the BBC to circumvent obligations to provide balance, which is in its charter. However, unscientific deliberations have their sources in the BBC itself: from Prof Jones' notorious advice to the BBC on climate change that 'the science is settled' - which is about as unscientific as one can get - the BBC created a category of excluded cranks which they regard as 'denyers'. This is more of a religious/political term than a scientific one, as science is characterised by conjectures followed by refutation, never by total acceptance.

Contrary to its charter the BBC has long avoided balanced debate in order to pursue its own political agenda. The BBC holds an international perspective - pro EU, pro UN and other supra-national bodies. Critics of these bodies are dismissed as cranks, xenophobes, racists, nationalists and little Englanders. Thus patriotism is equated with rampant jingoism, fascism and Nazism, concealing the fact that there were patriots who participated in the resistance against Nazi occupation. But today UAF oikophobes regard patriotism as an expression of Nazism. Those of us who retain Bakunin's distinction between love of the state (nationalism) and love of the mother country (patriotism) are conveniently excluded in an Orwellian re-write of history.

Sometimes the BBC supports cranks, like those who oppose fracking, and continue to peddle the discredited story about setting tap water alight. Perhaps this has something to do with the pension fund of their executives being invested in renewables.

The BBC supports euthanasia (portrayed as doctor assisted dignified death) and pro-choice attitudes to abortion, and consequently dismiss opponents as fundamentalist religious cranks of the far right, and in doing so supplies an ethical framework for left progressives. Hence the case for accelerated death and an incoherent moral basis for the pro-choice approach to abortion excludes secular objections derived from longstanding ethical arguments and class based objections to cost containment measures in health and welfare.

In positions of power within the BBC are so many graduates of the seventies, who came up through socialist societies in their universities, and in this way a left progressive image masks a political elite which sets the agenda for the left. (Wake up Class War!!) I accept responsibility for helping some of these turds in their transition from university radicals to occupying a cosy niche in the BBC bubble.

Here is one area of which I am familiar. The BBC supports euthanasia (which includes doctor assisted suicide) and propagandises it as 'death with dignity' and presents opponents of euthanasia and critics of voluntary abortion as religious fundamentalists, who are then defined as cranks and consequently dismissed as representatives of the far right. (Cue the left to support proposals for accelerated -but dignified- death and strident voices in the pro-choice movement to blur distinctions between the legal and moral arguments for terminating pregnancy). Thus the debate is presented as one between rational humanists and whacko fundamentalist spiritualists. A rejection of both positions, which I have advocated for years, will not be found in the BBC or the left progressives who take their cue from them.

Anonymous said...

I'll just reply to Doc's last point. Both my parents died of cancer. My dad went first. He died at home. A week after I'd helped the GP carry him to the loo my mum called me to tell me he was dead. The GP had called the night before. My dad was in great pain and a high fever. THe GP had given him a shot of presumably heroin or morphine and he'd died peacefully in his sleep. My mum new what the GP was doing - her father had been helped on his way after a brain haemorrhage. My mum died in a palliative care rest home where the staff stole her rings. The whole place stank of shit and suffering. She died hard. It's just my experience but I know which I'd prefer.

Dr Llareggub said...

Anonymous. I agree with you. In your dad's case the doctor acted ethically and legally. Drugs which combat severe pain can shorten life. There come a time in terminal illnesses when the amount of drugs to give a night free from pain will mean you do not wake up in the morning. The doctor has a duty to treat the pain. The doctor did not kill your dad. As you say, he died of cancer. The doctor minimised his suffering. That is so different to what the BBC and many of the left want. They want authority from the state to end lives of consenting patients on cost-benefit terms. This I strongly oppose.