• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The BBC

Billy

Student
Joined
Jan 8, 2005
Messages
46
"I work as a director for the BBC in documentaries and factual, and I am immensely proud of working for one of the last bastions of rational, unbiased journalism in the world."

In that case you might like to do a factual, rational, unbiased documentary on the likes of "John of God". I imagine Randi would have some input for you.
 
BBC Manchester has a whole floor for the department of 'Religion and Ethics'.
As though they're the same thing.
 
Good point! It is all very well for the guy from the BBC to talk about them having worked on a program with Randi (not sure how long ago that was), but hour for hour there is not much comparison between religious programs and anything resembling critical thinking. I mean, do they have a whole floor and department for that?

From the BBC webpage.....

BBC purpose

"to inform, educate and entertain"

"to serve everyone and enrich people's lives"

"to be the most creative, trusted organisation in the world"


Anyway, it looks like my request (as a licence payer and contributer to their wages) has gone unheard. So can we at least have an in depth, factual, rational, ubiased couple of hours of J-LO with lots of close ups of her bum?
 
Well they have their Heaven and Earth show and its got a new section called "Unbelieveable".

From the website:

...snip...
Unbelievable?
Spiritualist Julie Fernandez believes anything is possible. Journalist and sceptic Matt Alright thinks it's all a load of nonsense. But can their paranormal investigation lead them closer to the truth? This week they are investigating psychic powers. Does the brain have special powers we just aren't aware of, are our minds just playing tricks on us?
...snip...

From http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/programmes/heavenandearth/programme.shtml#series


...snip...

Unbelievable? - Psychic powers

Have you ever had a hunch or an instinct? Been struck by a feeling that something is wrong? For centuries, experiences of telepathy, premonitions and the sixth sense have intrigued scientists. But can our hunches predict the future? And do we have special powers we simply don't know about or are our minds playing tricks on us? Julie believes we have supernatural powers that we just need to learn to tap into. Matt thinks it's all a load of nonsense, but can Julie convince him that her beliefs are real?

Matt and Julie meet Asham Rostrom who believes her psychic sixth sense saved her life. In 1987 she was about to embark on a journey across the English Channel on the Herald of Free Enterprise. She had an overwhelming sense of doom and could not get on the ferry. The ferry sank. Matt and Julie will also take part in a psychic development course, to learn how to use their sixth sense in every day life. Julie displays some remarkable psychic abilities, but will this convince Matt that supernatural powers exist?

...snip...

Did anyone see this?
 
Didn't see that - but it might not have been on yet.

The other program mentioned on that link "The Monestary" is on BBC2 tomorrow night. Where "Ordinary members of the public" spend 40 days in a monestary. By chance I saw "Richard and Judy" tonight (I never ever watch them, but they are on just before the Simpsons at 6- OKAY). Anyway they had Tony Burke (from the webpage) talking about his experience. Apparently he heard God talking to him during his stay and it has changed his life. This will be shown in all it's glory tomorrow - but somehow I am getting this psychic "overwhelming sense of doom" that it will be crap. But of course I will watch it with an open mind.

Speaking of Richard and Judy (who I really never ever watch but are on just before the Simpsons at 6), they had the wonderfully named Doreen Virtue on the show last week. She is touring the country giving lectures and flogging her books and stuff. She has been teaching people how to see and communicate with their guardian angels ( "if you can't see your guardian angels it is because they won't appear if you don't believe in them" - so there). She even managed to see both Richard and Judy's angels, although they couldn't see them they still went for it hook, line and sinker.
 
It probably should be noted that Richard and Judy is a Channel4 program, though. Not BBC.

I saw the guardian angel woman. She apparently used to be a psychologist or something. Clearly she saw where the money was and sold her morals.
It was funny when Richard (who’s actually a bit less gullible than most but will have anyone on his show) pretended to wave to Judy’s angel. The woman immediately jumped in with some claptrap about Richard instinctively knowing where he was because he touched the angel, who was apparently stood right behind Judy.
Richard looked very disturbed as where is hands where he would have touched the angel around the groin area.

In BBC’s defence, on the day of the recent royal wedding BBC3 ‘News’ (mainly celebrity gossip) had in the studio an astrologer/psychic/jack-of-all-woos and a royal correspondent/expert.
They asked the woo if she had any gossip and let her spout all about how she had psychically predicted this that and the other until she was blue in the face.
The interviewer then said (paraphrased), ‘OK then. Well here’s a list of what our second guest had predicted over the past year without psychic powers’ and read out a list of accurate predictions made by the royal correspondent.
Turning back to the psychic, “So would you describe your ability as more intuitive than psychic?’
Woo, “Well…er…Are they not the same thing?…er.. I’m more of a Medium anyway..”

Also, hiding away on BBC3 is Shirley Ghostman. The best anti-psychic-medium program on TV.
 
I sent Randi the initial e-mail about the BBC's article on homeopathy which led to the response from the chap at the Beeb, and somehow feel that I've come out of this being misrepresented.

The BBC article that I was complaining about was actually quite different when I complained to the one that appears now. The article was quietly ammended by the BBC in response to my complaint (and apparently those of others). I did try to let Randi know this, but apparently my e-mail must have been lost in transit somewhere along the line.

I wasn't angry about the BBC writing about homeopathy per se , but the fact that the original article had no real balance to it. As it first appeared, it was an uncritical acceptance of homeopathy, and gave very little hint of the fact that the method does not work. It was naive or misleading in its first incarnation.

I complained to the BBC, and recieved an automated reply that seemed to indicate that I wouldn't get any further response. I later got a reply that included the usual yak about reflecting the diverse views of all service users and not just those of us with the capacity for rational thought (or soemthing like that).

This reply did state that the article would be ammended to give balance, and it was at this point that I attempted to inform Randi. As it was, the short ammendments did very little to change the overall tone of the piece. It has since been further changed, and is now much more balanced in reflecting the opinion of mainstream science.

However, all of these BBC folk do insist on parroting the mantra that their service should reflect the views of the service users. I'm not sure that this should be the case; this was an article on the Health section of their website which seems to lend at least some credibility to the practice of homeopathy.

Should the BBC be acting as agents for the dissemmination of information on potentially damaging pseudo-scientific practices which are widely condemned as baseless and unscientific by most people in a position to properly judge? Is it okay to do this just because a significant number of people using their service are gullible, hopeful, or vulnerable enough to turn to such quackery?

Personally, I still feel that this sort of BBC article gives a veneer of legitimacy to a nonsense practice. However, if the Beeb is going to publish such things, they should ensure that there is sensible balance (as is now much more the case, than when the article first appeared).
 
I've just sent this to them regarding the link above:

I am writing to complain about the many factual errors, the totally unsubstantiated opinions that are expressed as facts and the bias shown in the article referred to above:

1)”Although the value of African traditional medicine is becoming increasingly respected around the world,”

This is not true. Some specific substances and chemicals from a very small number of “traditional medicines” are being investigated for possible benefits. Plus there is not one system of “traditional” African medicine, “traditional” African medicine varies tremendously from area to area, it is ludicrous to portray it as if it is some homogeneous, well defined system of treating patients.

2) “Digging for roots and searching for different plants that have medicinal properties is an arduous task, requiring a great deal of skill.”

This further implies that some medicinal value has already been established and shows the bias of the piece. It is perhaps correct to say “Digging for roots and searching for different plants that IT IS CLAIMED have medicinal properties is an arduous task, requiring a great deal of skill.”

3)” "I've helped people with so many different diseases - backaches, nosebleeds, fertility problems, STDs, cancer, and even men who can't perform well in bed," said Ambuya Muzhange.”

The bias is again shown by not challenging this statement. Is it right to allow this statement to stand with millions dying from lack of treatment of their AIDS symptoms? Why was this lady’s statements not challenged and why was she not asked to substantiate her incredible claims?

Surely it is reasonable when publishing an article about health issues and “alternative “ treatments to seek proof that they work? Perhaps the author of the piece should have considered why, as the article put it “…many now prefer the pills of Western medicine”, I will offer a simple explanation – it is because those treatments work whereas the “traditional” treatments don’t.

4)” "With Aids-related ailments, if someone comes in the early stages I can help them."

In a continent with millions dying every year from AIDS it is irresponsible reporting to allow these statements to be presented without them being challenged. There is no “traditional” cure that has been proven to cure or even slow down the progression of AIDS. (Indeed since it is a recent disease one wonders how a “traditional” cure could have been developed.)

5) “As well as being a psychotherapist, Geraldine Kocroft is a fully-fledged traditional healer or n'anga.

…snip…

"It's absolutely priceless, it really works, and God has given it to us, but unfortunately I feel it's a slowly dying art," she said.


This now passes from the sublime to the ridiculous, a claim that “it” works from “psychotherapist” is the verification for the article?

I have rarely seen such a biased article outside of a New Age healer’s website. Considering the real health issues faced by the people of the African continent (such as the millions dying from AIDS and children dying because of easily preventable diseases) your article is irresponsible, dangerous, misleading and inexcusable.

Regards

Edited to add: I've spun a new thread over in General Scepticism see: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=57240
 
Wudang said:
And today's front page on the BBC website has this unsupported drivel :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4559947.stm
"A high level of skill is certainly needed to use the traditional medicines that the continent has been blessed with. "

To their credit, they have rehashed that document to be a little bit less credulous now (I think Darat should claim full credit for that). But it would be nice if their editors would catch that sort of nonsense first.
 

Back
Top Bottom