A Christian Eye on Politics
Propaganda Causes the BBC's 'The Power of the Planet' to Fall Flat
A Christian Hawk review of the 2007-08 BBC geography series, 'The Power of the Planet,' presented by Dr Iain Stewart ('geography,' by the way, found to be spelled 'goegraphy' on the BBC HD website special feature on this programme in December, 2008, as the BBC continue their website's apparent love affair with often appalling grammar and spelling)
This 2007 lavish BBC series ('no expense spared' in the typical and most aggravating BBC manner; after all, British TV license-payers pick up the bill, don't they?), has been given another recent showing (Christmas, 2008, BBC TV HD).
First of all, let us be positive where one can be: the photography on this series is constantly absolutely stunning. As already stated, the BBC spared no expense in shipping Dr Iain Stewart off to every corner of the world (was it really necessary to ship him off to virtually every location mentioned in his commentary?), and while the series works well as a sheer visual feast, the science - make no mistake - is frequently lamentable, indeed, we really must present that word in inverted commas as, "science." While the naive will surely be taken in by it, the truth is that the average programme is about 95% speculation and only about 5% science. Dr Stewart just loves to tell us what happened "millions of years ago" (an oft-repeated quote), even when no data can possibly exist to tell us what may or may not have occurred at such a time. There is far too much of this sort of thing on BBC science presentations, that is, there tends to be far too much hype, speculation and propaganda presented as serious science.
Though admittedly a fine communicator, Dr Stewart is one of those who can deliver perfectly well-accepted and accurate information on such matters as the world's ocean currents, but then - while barely pausing to take a breath - launch into entirely hypothetical, speculative, ornate and non-evidential "scientific" 'flavour of the month' theories concerning why this or that 'catastrophe' might or might not have occurred. It is all then passed off together as, presumably, 'good science' and, without doubt, the average viewer (already in awe of the often breathtaking photography), will - initially at least - be won over. Yet I think that the series should have been issued with a kind of 'health warning' of the order of something like,
"The BBC would like to warn viewers that the following programme has been independently assessed as containing only 5% science, but 95% hype, speculation and propaganda for a particular point of view."
In view of the huge cost of producing this series, it should come as no surprise that Dr Stewart turns out to be a most rabidly enthusiastic 'Global Warming' fanatic (the BBC are only giving "science" series to such individuals at present), and what little hope was left for the series in view of it's non-scientific highly theoretical and speculative approach is ruined by the soon very predictable lectures on the effects of Co2 in the atmosphere. The theme of the various programmes quickly descends into a kind of, 'look at this great natural wonder and here is how mankind will soon destroy it,' scenario - all of this presented with complete seriousness and no admittance that thousands - yes thousands - of scientists, climatologists and physicists would vehemently disagree with such apocalyptic theories simply because of a very serious lack of evidence. Very soon, one's attention is taken off the visual feast simply because of the commentary's glaring shortcomings - oh, it all sounds "scientific" enough but, very soon, only to the most naive and the most easily-swayed by hype and propaganda. Fact is: most people settling down to watch a science programme do not want propaganda to be thrust at them. I checked with ten friends who had been genuinely keen on seeing this series, all but one of them had given up on the series long before the final programme, even despite the often outstanding photography.
One's conclusion can only be that what could and should have been a most enjoyable and absorbing series turns out to be yet more global warming rhetoric and propaganda, and that the BBC has - yet again - thrown a considerable amount of money away in foolish pursuance of leftist 'green' propaganda. When, yes when, will the BBC start to truly represent their audience? One would wish for a re-showing of the the series with a new commentary which freely admits the presence of many theories and differences of opinion on many of the geological, astronomical and climatological hypotheses put forward. That is how you respect your audience, BBC, not by commissioning such one-dimensional and biased, er, "science."
But there is no doubt that Al Gore (if he ever gets to see it), will love this series.
The Christian Hawk, January 2nd, 2009.
UK APOLOGETICS HOME