Thanks John
Fascinating to revisit these articles and comments after years have passed. Advise everyone to take a peek!!

Thanks Jenny

I documented Fiona Fox here:

http://www.ageofautism.com/2012/12/leveson-inquiry-submission.html

http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/04/autism-the-64-billion-dollar-a-year-question-for-simon-baroncohen-ben-goldacre-fiona-fox-and-autism-.html

http://www.ageofautism.com/2012/02/hacked-off-boss-martin-moore-sat-on-uk-government-panel-with-editor-who-hired-brian-deer-.html

About the egregious Steve Jones:

http://www.ageofautism.com/2011/07/scientific-totalitarianism-at-the-bbc.html

In View of what John and Sophie are saying about the BBC and the Science Media Centre. This is one of my previous AoA complete comments on the subject from a few years ago. Also, US folks (and UK ones) might be interested in way the SMC is funded:-
"UK taxpayers unwittingly subsidise Science Media Centre with £370k per year to manipulate the science agenda
http://www.gmfreecymru.org/documents/science-media-centre.html"

"John Stone says:-
"Journalists may also like to bear in mind that the campaign to deny MMR damage has been masterminded by former LM (Living Marxism) acolyte Fiona Fox."

AoA readers who are avidly following the Andrew Wakefield MMR issues, involving Brian Deer, the BMJ, Fiona Godlee, (BMJ EDITOR), The UK Science & Technology Select Committee, and University College London, might be interested to know how these are linked with Fiona Fox, Chief Executive of the Science Media Centre, a woman with NO scientific or medical qualifications whatsoever, but considerable expertise in journalism and media manipulation.

The following is extracted from the recently commissioned report on BBC Science broadcasting by Steve Jones, Emeritis Professor of genetics, University College London:-
A review of the impartiality and accuracy of the
BBC’s coverage of Science
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/our_work/science_impartiality/science_impartiality.pdf

From the ‘Executive Summary’:-
“Equality of voice calls for a match of scientists not with politicians or activists, but with those qualified to take a knowledgeable, albeit perhaps divergent, view of research. Attempts to give a place to anyone, however unqualified, who claims interest can make for false balance.”

Prof Jones makes it plain here that he has no time for ‘unqualified’ opinion and yet his report was plainly very much influenced by persons who were not scientifically qualified, but had extremely polarised and partial opinions.

Jones evidence gathering included the following:-
“Group meetings of those involved with an interest in science broadcasting. They include members of the Science Media Centre, of the House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology, of the Department of Energy and Climate Change and, within the BBC, of the Natural History Unit and the BBC Radio Science Unit. Towards the end of the process I met with the Editorial Standards Committee of the BBC Trust and discussed with them a draft version of the Review. I also participated in a Wellcome Trust panel on science broadcasting”.

“I refer also to a 2009 Cardiff University report on science journalism (Mapping the Field: Specialist Science News Journalism in the UK National Media)1, to a paper entitled Science and the Media: Securing the Future2, published by the Science and the Media Expert Group and chaired by Fiona Fox of the Science Media Centre with the assistance of the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills; and to the Research Councils UK 2008 Report on Public Attitudes to Science3 and the House of Lords Select Committee 2000 Report on Science and Society.”
“Letters to external organisations – scientific societies, educational charities, commercial companies and more – that asked for views on BBC science output. Replies came from around twenty of these (Annex 4). Although no public input was solicited, I have had some correspondence from the online, radio and television audience.”

And there you have it folks NO PUBLIC INPUT, and this from the BBC a broadcaster fully funded by LICENCE PAYERS and NOT the UK government.

The propaganda which Prof Jones wants to shove down our throats includes, promotion of GM foods (absolutely HATED and banned in Europe), total vaccine safety using MMR vaccine as an example, and those contentious ‘global warming’ issues already being taught in schools although NOTHING has been proven, and I don’t need to lecture anyone here about vaccine safety issues. I have in my possession a BBC letter quoting the Danish Madson et al epidemiological studies, including indicted for fraud Poul Thorsen, as effectively ‘debunking’ all MMR and other vaccine issues.
So That’s OK then!!
* Fiona Fox is a female Brian Deer. Her many blogs about the above issues can be accessed here http://fionafox.blogspot.com/

Sophie

By and large journalistic conformity is not maintained in the UK by advertising - it was the Clinton administration that de-resticticted pharma advertising in the US in the 90s - it is maintained by professional intimidation through Whitehall and lobby organisations like Science Media Centre and Sense About Science. In 2003 'File on (BBC) Four' ran an excellent program on Thimerosal in vaccine and had had Juliet Stevenson on morning chat show to discuss 'Hear the Silence', where she was given - if I remember - a respectful hearing. The conformist brigade in the BBC only finally got the upper hand with the warped Hutton report (January 2004) when the chairman and the director general resigned.

In the UK - and well beyond the BBC - it is done almost entirely through bullying. These days journalist don't even think about it, and they have become a different breed.