BBC caves to executives, scraps climate change series.
By on Sep 5th, 2007 at 5:51 pm
BBC caves to executives, scraps climate change series.
The BBC has scrapped plans for Planet Relief, a television special on climate change designed to “raise consciousness” about the environment and encourage viewers to save energy. The network’s corporate executives protested the series, claiming it was “not the corporation’s job to save the planet.” “Negative reaction to the flop Live Earth concert, promoted by Al Gore…was cited as a factor in the decision not to go ahead with Planet Relief.”
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
53 Responses to “BBC caves to executives, scraps climate change series.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Bush Legacy
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
DADT
Economy
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Franken
Global Warming
Guantanamo
Health Care
International Relations
Iran
Iraq
Justice
Krauthammer
Kyl
LGBT
Limbaugh
McCain
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Public Plan
Race
Radical Right
Rove
Sanford
Sotomayor
Steele
Supreme Court
Terrorism
ThinkProgress
Tiller
Torture
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Is it ANY corporation’s "job" to save the planet? I thought it was making money for shareholders?
September 5th, 2007 at 5:54 pmWho got to the BBC?
September 5th, 2007 at 5:54 pmIt is the corporation's job to get people to buy crap that they do not need, over charge for what they do need, and to keep them dumbed down. They do a great job.
September 5th, 2007 at 5:59 pmNeither is it the corporation's job to save Africa, but they still broadcast Comic Relief. And it's not their job to save children, but they still broadcast Children In Need every year.
September 5th, 2007 at 6:00 pmBecoming one big corporate take over.
September 5th, 2007 at 6:00 pmShouldn't that be "the BBC have scrapped. . ."? I mean, to get the flavour of BBC English and all.
September 5th, 2007 at 6:02 pmJake -
It's funny that you think the two are mutually exclusive. You wouldn't last long in our industry.
Sincerely,
September 5th, 2007 at 6:10 pmSo, whose job is it to save our precious planet? I can almost imagine in 100-200 years people are going to be fighting over the last few pieces of clean dirt on our globe. How can we strive for profit if we are killing off our ability to survive?
September 5th, 2007 at 6:10 pm...The network’s corporate executives protested the series, claiming it was “not the corporation’s job to save the planet.â€
You would think that these exec's that have children and grandchildren would do all they can to bring awareness to the problem. I guess it's politics over family. How commendable.
September 5th, 2007 at 6:12 pmIs it ANY corporation’s “job†to save the planet? I thought it was making money for shareholders?
Comment by Jake D.
I can't believe I am saying this, but Jake is right. I wish there were more morals associated with corporations, but there are basically none, except for creating a return to their shareholders - even if it means the death of our planet.
September 5th, 2007 at 6:13 pmThe only industry Jake would last long in is the troll industry. Its requirements suit his talents perfectly: an ability to type and an inability to reason.
September 5th, 2007 at 6:14 pmIt's just one program. There's no danger of the BBC transforming itself into an environmental-crusading network just for broadcasting one program. Networks broadcast a variety of programs on a variety of subjects. Does the BBC question whether the subject of every program it broadcasts will transform the entire network into a crusader for the cause described in that program? To me, this is just a case of certain highly influential corporate dictators deciding they don't like the political message in a certain program and therefore want the message censored.
September 5th, 2007 at 6:15 pmWell, I agree Jake its not corporations sole responsibility to save the planet, but they should at least try to help, after all they did have a hand in polluting it.
September 5th, 2007 at 6:16 pmIs it ANY corporation’s “job†to save the planet? I thought it was making money for shareholders?
Comment by Jake D. — September 5, 2007 @ 5:54 pm
Poor Jake D. thinks NEWS organizations don't have a responsibility to cover NEWS. That explains why he and his fellow retards love FOX so much! NO NEWS!!!
September 5th, 2007 at 6:21 pm"flop"?
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,22037660-1702,00.html
THE Live Earth global pop concerts have broken a record for an online entertainment show by generating more than nine million internet streams, Microsoft web portal MSN said.
September 5th, 2007 at 6:27 pmUsed to be, at least in the USA, that broadcast licenses were issued based on serving the PUBLIC interest. Not sure how this pertains to the UK, or even the US for that matter, anymore.
September 5th, 2007 at 6:30 pmJake the Terrorist, did you hear? Bush just announced support for the CLIMATE CHANGE MEASURES of the APEC coalition!!! So now BUSH is one of your climate change wackos that you keep whining about!!! How funny is that?
September 5th, 2007 at 6:37 pmIs there really any doubt that man will (has) destroy all of the life on this planet? Those who hope against hope that there will be an outpouring of rational self-interest and at the last moment (or has it passed?) the nations will embrace eco-consciousness are I believe sadly mistaken.
Humans are are by nature a vicious, narcissistic, ruthless species. Look to religions for good examples amoral behavior. Who could really believe they could rise to anything different within the time they would have to.
We are on the cusp of destruction and totalitarianism. What a great legacy for the human species.
September 5th, 2007 at 6:38 pmTorr you are so correct, it was anything but a Flop....the corporate attempt to take over of the world has now taken over the BBC. Another fallen for the evil empire.
September 5th, 2007 at 6:39 pmI don't care if the planet dies. I want good returns on my investments. It's the American way.
September 5th, 2007 at 6:40 pmThe BBC turned Corporate Shill long ago. Remember their hit piece on 911, "The Conspiracy Files?"
September 5th, 2007 at 6:44 pm"I don’t care if the planet dies. I want good returns on my investments. It’s the American way."
Comment by Jake D. — September 5, 2007 @ 6:40 pm
Because with enough money you can live with the other ultra-wealthy survivors in whatever safety dome they've created!
September 5th, 2007 at 6:46 pmTom: "I wish there were more morals associated with corporations, but there are basically none, except for creating a return to their shareholders - even if it means the death of our planet."
This is why corporations should have a minimum amount of political power and must be regulated by the state.
September 5th, 2007 at 6:51 pmI don’t care if the planet dies. I want good returns on my investments. It’s the American way.
Comment by Jake D.
I was hoping Jake wasn't going to diappoint me, but he did. For a second, I thought he grew a brain AND said something at least partially accurate, but I was mistaken. He's up to his old tricks.
September 5th, 2007 at 6:51 pm#
I don’t care if the planet dies. I want good returns on my investments. It’s the American way.
Comment by Jake D. — September 5, 2007 @ 6:40 pm
This, of course, does beg the obvious question... if the planet dies, where TF does "Jerk D" intend to spend his money?
On YERanus? Or upit? Jes' askin'... ;-)???
September 5th, 2007 at 6:59 pmNo Planet, No Profit.
September 5th, 2007 at 6:59 pm-----------
Amazing. Somebody wakes up and realizes Global Warming is just myth & propaganda to control the masses.
I honestly can't believe people are finally seeing through the lies & bullshit.
All we need is a Volcano to erupt and spew tons of debris into the atmosphere and see how easily old Mother Nature handles it just to cement the fact that Global Warming is a lie.
A good day!
-----------
September 5th, 2007 at 6:59 pmI'm glad that our corporate overlords have decided they don't need to pretend anymore. It makes it easier to recruit for the revolution when they stop hiding their real motives.
Aux armes, mes citoyens!
September 5th, 2007 at 7:01 pmThis is why corporations should have a minimum amount of political power and must be regulated by the state.
Comment by Ret. Col. Jack Ripper
Well said Colonel. When I was chasing one of my many business degrees, I always argued against giving corporations sort of a 'human' element. That is, corporations can donate money, buy and sell things, lobby congress, etc...I never won the aguement though, because limiting the corporations' reach would limit also their ability to earn a profit; and subsequently limit their ability to reward their investors. State regulation would be a good start, but so many corporations have their hands (so to speak) in businesses which are regulated by the federal government. The feds would never give up their interests in those situations.
September 5th, 2007 at 7:08 pmI don’t care if the planet dies. I want good returns on my investments. It’s the American way.
Comment by Jake D. — September 5, 2007 @ 6:40 pm
So do you suggest we return to the pre clean air/water acts days in the interest of your portfolio?
September 5th, 2007 at 7:12 pmIs it ANY corporation’s “job†to save the planet? I thought it was making money for shareholders?
Comment by Jake D.
I can’t believe I am saying this, but Jake is right. I wish there were more morals associated with corporations, but there are basically none, except for creating a return to their shareholders - even if it means the death of our planet.
Comment by Tom
As corporations are for making a profit, this is the best reason why they need to get out of health care, our media, quit contributing to politicians, .... If we are ever going to get back to the constitution.. We the People, then corporate power must shrink.
September 5th, 2007 at 7:19 pmSo I called a old friend and retired B-52 pilot and asked him. What he told me offers one compelling case of circumstantial evidence. My buddy, let’s call him Jack D. Ripper, reminded me that the only times you put weapons on a plane is when they are on alert or if you are tasked to move the weapons to a specific site.
Is he speaking about you, Colonel? it is on Boomans Tribune site.
September 5th, 2007 at 7:23 pmIf we are ever going to get back to the constitution.. We the People, then corporate power must shrink.
Comment by had enough
Understood, and agreed.
September 5th, 2007 at 7:26 pmIs it ANY corporation’s “job†to save the planet? I thought it was making money for shareholders?
Comment by Jake D.
I can’t believe I am saying this, but Jake is right. I wish there were more morals associated with corporations, but there are basically none, except for creating a return to their shareholders - even if it means the death of our planet.
Comment by Tom — September 5, 2007 @ 6:13 pm
No, a responsible corporation understands that long-term goals are as critical as short-term returns. A corporation that thinks only in terms of this quarter's profits will not long stay in business. The corporation has to invest in infrastructure, research, etc. in order to make long-term successes. The classic example was Henry Ford, who realized he'd sell far more cars and make a lot more money if he paid his employees well enough for them to afford to buy one of the cars. If modern corporations don't do what they can to ensure the long-term health and viability of customers and potential customers, they're screwed.
September 5th, 2007 at 7:36 pmIt doesn't matter if climate change is or is not an issue, whether the water is palatable or not, the soil poisoned or not, the fisheries depleted or not, and so it goes? As the parent of two very special little girls, I will trust that much of the cavalier attitudes expressed here are nothing more than the silly bravado so often spewed. Reasonable stewardship is both intelligent pragmatic business practice as well a is a moral obligation
September 5th, 2007 at 7:46 pmReasonable stewardship is both intelligent pragmatic business practice as well a is a moral obligation
Comment by dbadass — September 5, 2007 @ 7:46 pm
Well, ya'd think so, woodenya? I've lived near not one, but TWO Superfund clena-up sites in this lifetime. It was infuriating to see what some people don't mind doing to their neighbors for an extra buck.
September 5th, 2007 at 8:08 pmAgreed. And I hope the neocons keep reminding us of this fact. That will help enough people recognize that the rules around corporations must change: No corporation should be able to own another corporation; corporations are not equivalent to people; natural monopolies such as cable should be government-owned; maximum executive compensation tied to the minimum employee wage, etc, etc.
September 5th, 2007 at 8:09 pmHow ill-informed so many of you are. The BBC is not setting out to make money for its shareholders; it doesn't have any and is not a profit-making entity. There was a lot of criticism about the BBC showing the "Live Earth" concert because there was a LOT of one-sided politics and oversimplistic science which came along with it. The BBC has a legal obligation to be politically impartial. That's why they have decided not to go ahead with this - it's simply too political.
September 5th, 2007 at 8:23 pmLet's be fair, is there anyone out there who doesn't know about global warming or at least doesn't have a position.
Yeah I'm against global warming but how much more can I take? It's everywhere. It's like the Paris Hilton of activist movements.
September 5th, 2007 at 8:30 pmThe BBC is a state-owned corporation: so 'shareholder value' is an interesting concept.
And according to its charter, it's to be "free from both political and commercial influence and answers only to its viewers and listeners".
Sounds to me like the charter isn't exactly being upheld.
September 5th, 2007 at 8:42 pmNo planet, no life, no share holder's..Even dumbass bird's know enough not to crap in the own nest forever with out cleaning it up...Corporations are owned and operated by human's, if those human's continue bad practices for profit only soon there will be no one left......War's and greed will create more of the same, only sane thinking can fix this clusterf***....
September 5th, 2007 at 8:46 pm"...I’m against global warming..."
funny... just, too cute...
September 5th, 2007 at 9:01 pm...
"“not the corporation’s job to save the planet.â€
So judging by negative programs, their job is to destroy the planet ?
Like Descarte's wager - neutrality is impossible.
September 5th, 2007 at 10:03 pmIs this the same BBC that aired the mockumentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle?" Ha! That was a funny show. I love that dry British humor!
Oh, sorry - humour.
September 5th, 2007 at 10:23 pmSince man-made global warming is a fraud, this makes complete sense.
Only 38% of published scientists agree with the IPCC conclusions.
About the same percentage of folks who approve of George Bush as President.
September 5th, 2007 at 10:44 pmOnly 38% of published scientists agree with the IPCC conclusions.
About the same percentage of folks who approve of George Bush as President.
Comment by muckdog — September 5, 2007 @ 10:44 pm
HA ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! AH ha ha ha ha ha! See what I'm talking about? That British humour - it's just so subtle. I totally imagined your post as read by Terry Jones dressed up as an old lady and it was HILARIOUS! It was all "onny fir'y eiyt puh-cen' of publisht sointists agree wif da OI PEE SEE SSE conclusions"
Very droll. Very droll.
September 5th, 2007 at 11:38 pmTchau
September 6th, 2007 at 12:25 amThis is why corporations should have a minimum amount of political power and must be regulated by the state.
Comment by Ret. Col. Jack Ripper
---------------------
What an authoritarian you are Colonel.
One reason people are being turned off to the possible consequences to AGW is the ridiculous hyperbole used to frighten them that have been exhibited on this very sh-tty thread.
September 6th, 2007 at 1:31 am"ridiculous hyperbole used to frighten them"
aka those pesky "facts"
September 6th, 2007 at 9:36 amIs it ANY corporation’s “job†to save the planet? I thought it was making money for shareholders?
Comment by Jake D. — September 5, 2007 @ 5:54 pm
WOW! imagine the return for the SHAREHOLDERS of the COMPANY who makes this their task.
September 6th, 2007 at 9:45 amOnly 38% of published scientists agree with the IPCC conclusions.
About the same percentage of folks who approve of George Bush as President.
Comment by muckdog
Huh, and how many of them are left handed?
September 6th, 2007 at 9:46 amHave any of you actually read the BBC story? It's scrapping the project because it sees a problem with Ricky Gervais blabbing on about a serious subject that he's not qualified to talk about. A documentary (which is what Brits actually WANT) on climate change is still a possibility and would not be refused by the BBC.
Quite frankly I agree with BBC on this one. I'm sick of the "celebritization" of global warming.
September 6th, 2007 at 9:48 amNot their job to save the planet? Then, they can join the rest of us and senselessly DIE on it. Avoidable, except that the human race is too stupid to survive.
September 6th, 2007 at 3:49 pm