Sunday, 29 November 2009

Climategate: The Naked Lunch

William S. Burroughs described the meaning of his book's title thus:

"NAKED Lunch - a frozen moment when everyone sees what is on the end of every fork."

Climategate is such a moment. Now we can see amongst the corporate media which ones see their job as informing the public, so that we can make up our own minds, and those which follow the party line, pushing a PR message, giving us a 'narrative'.


The BBC is one of the most influential corporate media entities in the world. It poses as the dispassionate, high-minded, liberal voice. But the BBC is no watchdog for truth. Rather it plays the part of a crooked gatekeeper. To this crooked gatekeeper many messengers come, but only some of them can gain entrance.

Of this matter in question - Climategate (a term, I dare say, from which the Beeb's hacks would recoil in horror) - it is true that the BBC has reported the story - but what have they reported?

Exhibit A: The house 'Environment Analyst' uses an 'inside sources at CRU' line and shills to the mighty heavens in their favour.

Exhibit B: An enquiry into the circumstances of the leak is announced. Apparently:

"BBC News understands that senior individuals at UEA have acknowledged the potential damage to the university's reputation from the CRU affair and are anxious to clear the institution's name."

So, this is what they've reported:

the existence of a news story, but not the news story itself.

A newsworthy event has taken place, and the BBC acknowledges this, by reporting some of the reaction to this event; specifically the reaction of insiders at the CRU - those most implicated in the event, and the reaction of the CRU's higher authorities - also implicated.

But it won't cover the story. It won't sift through the thousands of pages, and it won't report what others have found whilst sifting, and the reason is clear why it doesn't:

Because it doesn't fit with the PR narrative the BBC is selling. It thinks its got all the middle classes worrying about recycling and wittering over their carbon footprint - WHY THROW THAT ALL AWAY by telling the people anything that could induce thought thereby shattering the pretty picture?

No comments: