Finally BBC asks: are we maybe a bit biased on 'climate change'?
At last. The BBC Trust – the BBC’s governing body – is to launch a review of its science coverage, especially regarding “climate change”. (Hat tip: Yaosxx)
The review comes after repeated criticism of the broadcaster’s handling of green issues. It has been accused of acting like a cheerleader for the theory that climate change is a man-made phenomenon.
Critics have claimed that it has not fairly represented the views of sceptics of the widely-held belief that humans are responsible for environmental changes such as global warming.
Knowing what we do about the BBC, I’m sure the review’s considered conclusion after a careful ignoring of all the relevant facts will be that the Pope most certainly isn’t Catholic, and that in no wise are bears guilty of sub-arboreal defecation. But just in case the BBC is interested in having a full-on, Caliban-style bit of self-examination in the glass, the excellent website Biased BBC has an abundance of useful leads.
For example, there’s this from a recent edition of the children’s news programme Newsround, explaining – just in case kids got any funny ideas to the contrary – that the current snow showers are nothing to celebrate but are in fact yet another sure sign of man’s evil. (Mysteriously the BBC has already deleted this programme from its iPlayer files, so I can’t give you a link).
Sonali: Now this cold snap has been going on since before Christmas so you probably won’t be surprised to hear that last month was the coldest December we’ve had in 14 years. But we’re always hearing about global warming so what’s going on? Well BBC weatherman Simon King has popped into the studio to help clear up any confusion. Hi there Simon.
Simon: Hello.
Sonali: So why are we seeing this snow when the planet’s heating up?
Simon: Well the snow we’re seeing at the moment is actually a very rare event. Normally we’d expect to see much milder conditions, but if we look at the whole of 2009 and average the UK temperature, 2009 was actually the fourteenth warmest year on record, so things are signalling to be warming up.
Sonali: And do you think, then, it would have been even colder at the moment?
Simon: Well decades ago the river Thames used to freeze, we used to have snow and ice every week causing all sorts of disruption, so things in the future we could start to see more extreme weather like this. It won’t happen every year unfortunately but we could see more colder winters and much hotter summers, so lots of heavy showers, flooding possibly in the United Kingdom and other severe weather across the globe.
Sonali: Really? Everywhere, everyone is going to see extreme weather?
Simon: Absolutely. Well, the globe is warming up. If we look at the whole of the globe and average all of the temperatures there, we can actually say that 2009 was the fifth warmest year on record so the signals are certainly there that our planet is warming up.
Sonali: Thank you very much for coming in Simon. And speaking of that extreme weather, over on the other side of the world Australia has been sweltering through its hottest decade since records began. Now part of the country is recovering from another natural disaster – powerful rainstorms.
A scene from the 2006 BBC programme, Five Disasters Waiting To Happen.
Read more: dailymail.co.uk
The BBC Trust might also want to consider this fascinating story about a place called Cherrapunji in north-east India, which miraculously changed in the course of a series of bulletins from being a humdrum (and all-too-common) victim of deforestation into yet another moving, ethnic poster child for the AGW disaster. All thanks to a bit of spin, conducted under the careful guidance of the BBC’s in house Environmental Correctness Commissars.
Still it’s not all grim. Hats off to Andrew Neil and The Daily Politics Show for fighting a singlehanded rearguard action against BBC’s eco-fascist tyranny.
dailymail.co.uk
BBC Trust to review science coverage amid claims of bias over climate change
By Paul Revoir
Last updated at 5:34 PM on 06th January 2010
The BBC's governing body has launched a major review of its science coverage after complaints of bias notably in its treatment of climate change.
The BBC Trust today announced it would carry out the probe into the 'accuracy and impartiality' of its output in this increasingly controversial area.
The review comes after repeated criticism of the broadcaster's handling of green issues. It has been accused of acting like a cheerleader for the theory that climate change is a man-made phenomenon.
Critics have claimed that it has not fairly represented the views of sceptics of the widely-held belief that humans are responsible for environmental changes such as global warming.
The investigation will also focus on coverage of issues like genetically modified foods, the MMR vaccine and the way it reports on new technologies.
It will scrutinise the way the BBC has handled scientific findings on areas which affect 'public policy' and are 'matters of political controversy'.
A scientific expert will be hired to lead the review and it will concentrate on coverage of the issues featured in its news and factual output.
The corporation's Royal Charter and Agreement requires that the BBC covers controversial subjects with due impartiality.
The new report will not just include the natural sciences but also aspects of technology, medicine and the environment that include scientific findings or claims.
The BBC has also been criticised over its coverage of the MMR debate
Richard Tait, BBC Trustee and chair of the governing body's Editorial Standards Committee (ESC), said: 'Science is an area of great importance to licence fee payers, which provokes strong reaction and covers some of the most sensitive editorial issues the BBC faces.
'Heated debate in recent years around topics like climate change, GM crops and the MMR vaccine reflects this, and BBC reporting has to steer a course through these controversial issues while remaining impartial.
'The BBC has a well-earned reputation for the quality of its science reporting, but it is also important that we look at it afresh to ensure that it is adhering to the very high standards that licence fee payers expect.'
The review will be launched in the spring and the findings of the probe will be published in 2011.
The BBC is planning to raise the profile of science this year with a focus on the genre across television, radio and online.
But there has been a string of rows in recent years over the way it has handled a number of scientific issues.
Last year a leading climate change sceptic claimed his views had been deliberately misrepresented by the BBC.
Lord Monckton, a former adviser to Margaret Thatcher, said he had been made to look like a 'potty peer' on a TV programme that 'was a one-sided polemic for the new religion of global warming'.
In 2007 the then editor of Newsnight hit out at the BBC's stance on climate change.
Peter Barron said it was 'not the corporation's job to save the planet'. His comments were backed up by other senior news executives who feared the BBC was 'leading' the audience, rather than giving them 'information'.
Mr Barron had claimed the BBC had gone beyond its remit by planning an entire day of programmes dedicated to highlighting environmental fears.
His comments had come after the broadcaster had already been accused of not being objective on green issues and of handing over the airwaves to campaigners. In 2007 it had devoted a whole day of programming to the Live Earth concerts.
The BBC then decided to scrap the Comic Relief-style TV event on climate change amid fears it would make it look biased.
In the past the BBC has also been attacked over other scientific issues. It was accused by an adviser of adding to the hysteria about genetically modified crops with factual errors and bad science.
The expert claimed that makers of thriller Fields of Gold, starring Anna Friel, had ignored his advice when he pointed out factual errors in 2002.
More recently flagship current affairs programme Panorama was found to have broken editorial guidelines in a programme about the potential health hazards of wi-fi.
The BBC's editorial complaints unit said in 2007 that the programme 'gave a misleading impression of the state of scientific opinion on the issue'.
In 2006 scientists accused the corporation of 'quackery' in a programme which they claimed attempted to exaggerate the power of alternative medicine.
Earlier this year former BBC newsreader Peter Sissons claimed it was now 'effectively BBC policy' to stifle critics of the consensus view on global warming.
Mr Sissons said: 'I believe I am one of a tiny number of BBC interviewers who have so much as raised the possibility that there is another side to the debate on climate change.
'The Corporation's most famous interrogators invariably begin by accepting that "the science is settled", when there are countless reputable scientists and climatologists producing work that says it isn't.'
180grader.dk–-telegraph-blogs |
