Ben Elton lookalike, George Monbiot, recently started to blog on where he gets his money from. Fair enough. If a politician was being paid by a think tank we’d want to know about it. If a paper was getting revenue from a multinational we’d like to know about that. It might influence their behaviour.
The fact that BBC pensions are heavily invested in the IIGCC is of great interest to anyone who thinks that the BBC gives scant publicity to AGW Sceptics.
So we’d expect polemicists to be as transparent as we’d like politicians, newspapers and our national broadcaster to be. So well done George.
We should have more transparency. If a journalist is in the pay of big business, we should be told; but we should also be told if they’re in the pay of big government. It’s only fair.
And just out of fairness I should declare that I only receive an income from the Catholic Herald, the Daily Telegraph and, of course, Mossad.
And you know, me, I like Ed. So good work there.
Delingpole, as we’ve come to expect, fails to answer the question. He prefers to say that just because someone receives funding from a body with which they publicly agree that doesn’t mean that they mightn’t agree with those policies regardless of whether they receive funding. It’s not an unfair point as such. But it doesn’t tell use much about from whence he receives funding.
What Delingpole forgets is that people read between the lines. So when someone responds to a declaration of interests by the person who is the Jerry to their Tom (that’s an unfair comparison of course, Tom and Jerry are far cleverer and far more interesting than either of these two) by going off on a tangent and not addressing the point of declaration whatsoever then some people are bound to say “Why? Why aren’t you declaring? What do you have to hide?”
But of course, he’s saying nothing.
So what does he have to hide?