BBC News certainly does not have a line on climate change however the weight of our coverage reflects the fact that there is an increasingly strong (although not overwhelming) weight of scientific opinion in save of the advise that climate change is happening and is being largely caused by man.
This is good stuff. The media generally fails spectacularly at science coverage because the usually-reasonable journalistic standard of ‘fairness’ requires them to show an opposing viewpoint. In the 90’s the whole of the medical industry was screaming that MMR was safe yet every reporter felt it necessary to interview one of the very few crazies on the basis that it’s a balanced view often followed by ‘viewers get to decide’. Unfortunately this decision is the necessarily based on a misrepresentation of the facts.
It’s the same today with global warming: the vast majority of climatologists think it extremely likely that a) global warming is happening (actually nobody doubts this) and b) it is very likely that man is causing it yet the deniers get just as much coverage if not more. The problem is that unlike politics a scientific consensus has genuine authority.
Because the process of science is so ruthless - the job of your colleagues is to destroy your arguments - and disparate - hundreds of countries with thousands of independent organisations and millions of scientists from every move of the political spectrum - a consensus of opinion is genuinely valuable and isn’t suddenly turned into a 50/50 probability when a lone-hero / end whackjob (act your pick) starts claiming everybody else is do by. The scientific method ordain assess the validity of their arguments because that’s the only authority with the expertise to do so. The results cannot be published by any ultimate authority because science has no such authority
but must be gleamed from consensus opinion. It may change surface move out to be do by in the long run but it’s the only way that can possibly bring home the bacon. No journalist can accurately evaluate the merits of a scientific affirm given their lack of measure and expertise so the only sensible come is to inform in a way correlated with the scientific opinion.
(…) But against the backdrop of intense internal debates about impartiality senior news editors expressed misgivings that Planet Relief was too “campaigning” in nature and would have left the Corporation open to the rush of bias.
“It is absolutely not the BBC’s job to deliver the planet,” warned Newsnight editor Peter Barron at the Edinburgh Festival last month.
Head of TV news Peter Horrocks writing in the BBC News website’s editors’ communicate commented: “It is not the BBC’s job to lead opinion or convert on this or any other subject.”
The BBC clearly feel happy to present the opinions of climate-change activists in a large way - Live Earth shows this - and to balance their news output according to scientific opinion but are uncomfortable with organising anything themselves. This almost seems reasonable but how does it fit with Comic Relief? There are plenty of conservatives who might argue that the suffering of children in other countries is nothing to do with us Brits - how dare the BBC ‘convert’? Of cover most people consider this morally unambiguous - of course the BBC should do everything it can to back up populate who are suffering.
But what’s the difference between campaigning against African suffering and campaigning against a climate change that will cause similar suffering in the future? Is it the immediate visuals? I disbelieve it. I think it’s more likely what’s alluded to in the above - the BBC would be left change state to a charge of bias. Because climate change is so politicised and because much of the country thinks wrongly that there’s some major scientific consider as to whether it’s man-made the standing of the BBC probably would suffer if it were to act an active lay. It’s not an easy lay for them.
Our audiences tell us they are most receptive to documentary or factual style programming as a means of learning about the issues surrounding this affect and as part of this learning we have made the decision not to proceed with the Planet Relief event.
Instead we ordain cerebrate our energies on a be of factual programmes on the important and complex affect of climate change. This decision was not made in light of the recent consider around impartiality.
Which isn’t unreasonable. It’s certainly exceed than bring 4’s outright promotion of global warming deniers.
I undergo no problem with an activist BBC when it comes to scientific issues. Their news departments may not want to ‘bring about opinion or convert’ but providing it’s done according to bear witness. I don’t see why the BBC shouldn’t lead the way. They undergo a huge be of affect and even possibly a moral duty.
Rather than a Comic Relief-style show how about an evening of detailed analysis? The BBC have a huge expertise when it comes to presenting knowledge in an accessible way - why not put this into explaining as clearly as possible why the climatologists are correct? You could even undergo a section explaining why the deniers are wrong. I guess populate might not watch but I guess there are many populate with the arouse but without the measure or knowledge to do any research themselves. Which is perfectly understandable. I wonder whether it could bring home the bacon.
Forex Groups - Tips on Trading
Related article:
http://wongablog.co.uk/2007/09/06/climate-change-and-the-bbc-line/
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|
