Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Creation/Evolution
 Who's really censoring science?
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  

the_ignored
SFN Addict

2557 Posts

Posted - 08/05/2007 :  13:40:57  Show Profile Send the_ignored a Private Message  Reply with Quote
It seems the creos are not just active in the States, though we all knew that, this bit of news came as an unpleasant surprise...

On Saturday it emerged that the BBC documentary Life of Mammals by David Attenborough had been edited, and one entire programme scrapped because of its focus on evolution. The EO is an evangelical broadcaster which takes the creation of the world in seven days as one of its standpoints.

'If people do not accept our position on creationism they do not have to watch,' Hagoort said.

Hagoort said the decision not to buy the one episode which focused on evolution had been discussed with the BBC.

>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.

What brought that on? this. Original posting here.

Another example of this guy's lunacy here.

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15831 Posts

Posted - 08/05/2007 :  14:07:58   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message  Reply with Quote
The BBC should grow a spine, and refuse to sell broadcast rights to any anti-science group that edits nature films to remove evolution. I hope Attenborough is speaking out.


Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.
Go to Top of Page

The Rat
SFN Regular

Canada
1342 Posts

Posted - 08/11/2007 :  13:29:47   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit The Rat's Homepage Send The Rat a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by HalfMooner

I hope Attenborough is speaking out.

Apparently he isn't. I don't know if he's been muzzled or if he's simply too much of a gentleman to get embroiled in a pissing contest.

Bailey's second law; There is no relationship between the three virtues of intelligence, education, and wisdom.

You fiend! Never have I encountered such corrupt and foul-minded perversity! Have you ever considered a career in the Church? - The Bishop of Bath and Wells, Blackadder II

Baculum's page: http://www.bebo.com/Profile.jsp?MemberId=3947338590
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26004 Posts

Posted - 08/11/2007 :  13:31:41   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Randi's getting info about this, too.

Welcome back, Rat!

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15831 Posts

Posted - 08/11/2007 :  17:16:17   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I've watched the three short videos on You Tube that clearly demonstrate EO's Orwellian censorship. It's obviously systematic and intentional. The censorship removes anything that hints of evolution, or even an old earth. It even deliberately mistranslates Attenborough's words, as in changing "millions of years ago" to the Dutch for "very long ago."

And one entire episode of the ten (Episode 10: "Food for Thought," with Edenistic irony) was entirely removed by EO!

The BBC is trying to pass off this anti-science censorship as editing for "scheduling" reasons:
Q: What do you mean by scheduling reasons?

A: Issues such as differing lengths of commercial breaks, conforming with local regulations (eg nudity, swearing).
Yeah nudity. That's one thing they'll never allow in the Netherlands! And David Attenborough's contant cussing is infamous.

Attenborough's silence is shameful. BBC's (greed-driven?) enabling of the EO Creationists is outrageous.


Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.
Edited by - HalfMooner on 08/11/2007 17:39:01
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26004 Posts

Posted - 08/11/2007 :  17:44:47   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Before laying a bunch of blame on Attenborough and even the BBC, it's likely that there is a contractual relationship between the EO and the BBC which hamstrings the BBC. Giving them the benefit of a doubt, they probably didn't see such abuses forthcoming. And to stop it, they'd probably have to stop offering any programming to the EO.

I'd only call it "greed" if the BBC's mandate or mission runs counter to what the EO did (for example, a clause saying "furthering accurate dissemination of science"). If they don't actually address such situations, then we shouldn't expect them to be science cops, and chalk this situation up to "business as usual" in the harsh, uncaring world of big media.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15831 Posts

Posted - 08/11/2007 :  17:59:46   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dave W.

Before laying a bunch of blame on Attenborough and even the BBC, it's likely that there is a contractual relationship between the EO and the BBC which hamstrings the BBC. Giving them the benefit of a doubt, they probably didn't see such abuses forthcoming. And to stop it, they'd probably have to stop offering any programming to the EO.

I'd only call it "greed" if the BBC's mandate or mission runs counter to what the EO did (for example, a clause saying "furthering accurate dissemination of science"). If they don't actually address such situations, then we shouldn't expect them to be science cops, and chalk this situation up to "business as usual" in the harsh, uncaring world of big media.
I think you are being too kind by half, Dave. The BBC entered into a contract that it should not have signed. It's responsible for the consequences. The "Beeb" has gone as far as making misleading statements about "scheduling" to excuse the actions of EO. That, to me, indicates the BBC is willing to go that extra ass-kissing step to protect its cosy financial relationship with these Creaps.

Attenborough had his words censored and changed. He should be held responsible for making a stink about the misrepresentation, or expect that his reputation will suffer.


Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.
Edited by - HalfMooner on 08/11/2007 18:00:41
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26004 Posts

Posted - 08/11/2007 :  18:40:58   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Attenborough's reputation is only going to suffer from those who see nothing but the censored version, and it wouldn't be a stretch to say that his reputation would suffer more if those viewers saw the uncensored stuff. The rest of the world has access to the original. And most of them will understand that his control of the project was likely terminated once the film was in the can.

The BBC probably had a roomful of lawyers looking at the contract after this problem came to light. The way I read what's going on, it looks like the "scheduling and language" clauses are being abused, but not legally compromised. If the BBC wishes to "police" things better in the future, then those clauses will be rewritten to limit what can be done, and hopefully prevent a repeat. If, on the other hand, the BBC considers itself a purveyor of science no more than The Learning Channel (with its one-time lineup of animal psychics, haunted houses and Bigfoot), then nothing will be done.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15831 Posts

Posted - 10/19/2007 :  20:23:44   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Bump: James Randi reports that David Attenborough has now objected to EO's censorship, though he's done so rather more mildly than someone like myself might have. Meanwhile, the Beeb still says everything's fine, from their viewpoint:
Sir David has now called on the BBC to stop such deletion of references to evolution from his documentaries. Says he:
Instead of saying "70 million years ago, something happens," they say "a very long time ago something happens." They also omit paragraphs such as: "This is inherited from my warm-blooded ancestors…” I would much rather they kept to the letter, as far as that is possible, of what I said.


Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.
Edited by - HalfMooner on 10/19/2007 20:31:20
Go to Top of Page

Coelacanth
Skeptic Friend

United Kingdom
50 Posts

Posted - 10/21/2007 :  06:02:50   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Coelacanth a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I don't see anything wrong with people editing something they find offensive. It may be silly to air Attenborough if you disagree with what he says, but editing things you find offensive are very normal.

How I see it is that, some of the things Attenborough says was factual and some were opinionated (various aspects of evolution etc), therefore those parts were removed and the facts were sustained.

It's cheap, but expected.
Go to Top of Page

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15831 Posts

Posted - 10/21/2007 :  06:31:32   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Coelacanth

I don't see anything wrong with people editing something they find offensive. It may be silly to air Attenborough if you disagree with what he says, but editing things you find offensive are very normal.

How I see it is that, some of the things Attenborough says was factual and some were opinionated (various aspects of evolution etc), therefore those parts were removed and the facts were sustained.

It's cheap, but expected.
Welcome to SFN, Coelacanth!

Attenborough would beg to differ with you.

EO took his series and gutted it of its unifying theme of evolution, and even of any mention of the millions of years which separate the life depicted in one episode from the next. To do so they even removed the whole episode on apes and humans. That was Orwellian in its scope, and anti-science in intent and effect.

The reason evolution is unifying to the series is that it's just that basic to the revealed facts of biology, especially over the vast time scale covered by the series. Without evolution and a reference to deep time, the series becomes just a pretty, and disconnected, pastiche of nature scenes.

When Attenborough spoke of evolution, he wasn't just expressing some kind of personal crackpot "opinion," but was rather reflecting accumulated scientific evidence.

The EO version is an abomination.


Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.
Go to Top of Page

Coelacanth
Skeptic Friend

United Kingdom
50 Posts

Posted - 10/21/2007 :  08:46:13   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Coelacanth a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Ah I see...

Doesn't help that I hadn't seen the series, but being as you say it was it does sound like a grotesque endeavor.
Go to Top of Page
  Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.5 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000