BBC: ASH funded by charities "and the government"
Tuesday, November 3, 2020 at 17:55 Further to my previous post, I'll leave you to decide whether ASH's heavy-handed attempt to dictate how the BBC should describe Forest succeeded or backfired.
If you didn't read it, a quick recap.
Before agreeing to appear with me on BBC Radio Essex this afternoon, ASH insisted that the BBC must state that Forest is funded by the tobacco industry.
No problem, I told the producer, as long as the BBC also mentioned that ASH is part-funded by the taxpayer.
Following these delicate 'negotiations’ presenter Tony Fisher introduced the start of the programme as follows:
In the first hour of the show we always love to give you a little something to talk about and, cigarette butts, this is always something that comes up.
Why do they always end up on the floor? It's become an issue at Colchester Hospital and it's prompted them to bring in bins and shelters in and around the hospital site.
Well, Simon Clark is from Forest, the smoking lobby, which is funded by the tobacco industry, and I've also got Hazel Cheeseman, director of policy at Action on Smoking and Health, which is funded by charities and the government.
At the end, in case anyone missed it the first time, the same information was repeated pretty much word for word:
Simon Clark, thank you very much indeed, from Forest. That's the smoking lobby who are funded by the tobacco industry, and also Hazel Cheeseman, director of policy at Smoking and Health (sic) which is funded by charities and the government.
Got that? ASH is funded by charities "and the government". Hope that's clear.
You can listen to the full clip here.
Reader Comments (4)
Well done with the "full disclosure".
With tongue only slightly in cheek I'd suggest that it might be more accurate to describe ASH as funded by hate groups and government.
Most would agree a hate group is one which encourages inaccurate stereotypes and unreasonable treatment of a recognisable minority group, based on material which does not stand up to serious analysis, so some seem to meet the criteria. And I 'm not so sure some of those "charities" are charities in the layman's sense of that word either!
And some of those charities also get some funding from Government. Others are leaving ordinary people they depend on feeling used and deflated.
Imagine putting tons of voluntary effort into organising or taking part in fund-raising events, because you desperately want science to find a cure for cancer and heart disease, but then find you need to raise several hundred thousands of pounds to pay upper management staff before a penny goes to research, and then to add insult to injury, you also need to raise several hundred more on political propaganda because the Government says you need to shape up and behave properly to avoid cancer or heart disease rather than science needing to step up to find the cures or progressive treatments needed.
Making smoking, alcohol or obesity history will not cure cancers or heart diseases.
You could ask why is government funding efforts to harass smokers. I would also hope additional funding streams could be opened up for Forest. Perhaps contributions from individual smokers and libertarians could be made available? (Not that there is anything wrong with tobacco companies despite he endless antismoker/tobacco control propaganda).
The government? Government has no money. It's the poor old tax payer yet again.