More like this
Starter for ten: is BBC science too one-sided?
Accusations of biased coverage force BBC Trust to investigate output
The BBC is to investigate its science output for "accuracy and impartiality". The study, to be carried out by the BBC Trust in the spring, will be published in 2011.
Science "covers some of the most sensitive editorial issues the BBC faces", said Richard Tait, the chair of the BBC Trust's editorial standards committee. "Heated debate in recent years around topics like climate change, genetically modified 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 carried out impartiality reviews of its coverage in the areas of business and the devolved nations in recent years. However, the science review is significantly more timely than the business review, which reported in May 2007 - on the eve of the financial crisis.
Science output is more politicised than ever – an assertion perhaps best exemplified by the furious debate over the science of climate change, which reached its apogee over the two weeks of the doomed Copenhagen climate change conference last month.
While Copenhagen – and the debate over the existence of climate change - rumbled on, David Attenborough, who for decades refused to speak out on environmental issues, made a film for the BBC's popular science strand Horizon, called How Many People Can Live on Planet Earth? The programme, which called for a reduction in the human population to save the environment, was criticised by the Daily Telegraph for being one-sided.
"The BBC decided to show what amounted to a party political broadcast by the Optimum Population Trust," wrote Charles Moore. "It simply would not have occurred to it to allow a similar programme to be made from the other side." Oddly, Moore was backed up by left-wing website Spiked, which called Attenborough's film a "human-hating parable". You know an issue is a hot potato when people start to speak badly of a national treasure like David Attenborough.
Meanwhile, Ben Goldacre, whose blog Bad Science takes great pleasure in mocking dodgy science articles in the mainstream media, questioned the entire concept of impartiality in science reporting, telling journalism.co.uk that accuracy is much more important.
"'Impartial' is a word you use to describe political disputes," he said. "We don't want media coverage of science to be obsessed with representing all political constituencies and extreme interest groups, confusing 'balance' with 'accuracy'.
"We want it to be evidence-based, to come down and say 'that's nonsense' when something plainly is nonsense."
He added that he'd like to see technical details reported so that people can make their own minds up – rather than assuming everyone is "stupid and uninterested".
The BBC Trust has a lot of material to be getting on with; and it's fairly safe to say their conclusions will be as controversial as the subject matter. ·
Comments are now closed on this article
Comments
" a broadcasting body that is the envy of the world. Posted by Keith Tomlinson"?? The BBC's funding is the envy of the world, a legalized thievery of a licence tax, useless to anyone except a propagandist socialist government lapdog media agency. Not neutral, in pH or carbon-footprintwise. About as neutral as battery acid.
Oh dear here they come again the BBC bashers, one day maybe they will have their way and we will lose one of the few remaining quality broadcasters in the world.
In the meantime try and get your idiot heads round this notion, the BBC reports what so called experts say, the BBC has only a finite amount of broadcast time and if their are more 'experts' saying we are causing global warming then it is highly likely the BBC will probably carry more reports of this message.
The complaints re: the BBCs partiality emanate from all parties involved in 'discussions' strangely they contain accusations of bias by diametrically opposed factions and when analysed reflect more accurately the complainants bias rather than that of the BBC.
I for one will happily continue paying my licence to support a broadcasting body that is the envy of the world.
Want I want to find out is what is Science fact. All to often when issues are reported we hear views and opinions, often from both sides but it is very difficult to get at the facts. For example remember when one of the oil companies wanted to sink an old drilling platform in the sea? Greenpeace eventually had to admit that it's facts were wrong and it didn't contain the oil they claimed, but I never found out why the engineers thought sinking it was a good ideal in the first place. Lets have access to all the facts please.
The BBC put it mildly, we are already way over a sustainable population of hominids, which is why the planet is becoming more polluted by the day and why other species are dying out in droves annually. An optimum number would be a tenth of the present population. Michael Jose is of course banging his idiot drum again as he does every time climate change or the BBC are mentioned, he has a problem with science and clearly would prefer to get his 'factoids' from the Torygraph and Sky [Fox], noted for their impartiality and dogged adherence to truth and science of course. Jose, you are an idiot, you understand nothing and copy and paste lies from vested interests - the oil industry and particularly Saudi Arabia - without even understanding what you're rambling on about. Despite objecting to paying for the BBC you have no problem dishing out money for crackpot videos that support your deranged denial. The licence fee is very small to support by far the most outstanding public service broadcaster in the world, and acknowledged as such by millions around the world who might wish their country had had the foresight to create something as fine as the BBC, and who use the BBC for truth when their governments lie to them. That's if you actually are a Brit and not one of the crazed yanks who come here blathering on about the BBC because it reports facts they don't like. I can't be bothered to itemise how wrong you are, the last decade has seen continued warming, the last year being the warmest on record, Australia is fast running out of water and even wild animals are dying in the worse drought ever. Here in the UK this current excess of snow is also a result, more evaporation due to warming causing more precipitation [we just had the wettest year for a very long time] and when cold air comes from Siberia, it turns to snow, amazing huh? You also got something else wrong; the radio licence fee is included in the TV licence fee, but can be purchased separately if one doesn't have a TV but does have a radio.
The BBC should not be investigating its impartiality because, as Ben Goldacre has said, science isn't something to have opinions on, it is about facts, so there is no alternative view whether trumpeted by tory fascist rags or rightwing TV stations, there is just the science and that is proved. The motives of those who deny climate change are to be examined however since they make no pretense to impartiality and pull every dishonest trick in the book to create their spurious argument. Too much to lose, don't want to change, want to continue abusing for selfish greed, that's why they deny what is so self evidently happening that only the truly challenged would think to counter it.
Not surprised it's the media/publicity arm of the labour party.
Is there an "optimum population"? Clearly not; at very lest we should have to consider the spatial distribution. More generally, we all have different preferences, so your idea of optimum and mine are probably different. However, we can be sure that there is point beyond which the world would be overpopulated if we assume no more than that people do not wish to live in a squalid, cramped and resource poor world...mass slums with starvation and disease. And it is clear that becomes more likely, especially in some parts of the world, if population increases. Since there is no loss in reducing world population by reducing birth rates it seems sensible to err on the side of caution. A growing population and a finite and diminishing resource base create a scissor effect...and the blades will seem suddenly to close without warning for the blinkered myopic people who are the majority (See "Limits to Growth", Meadows et al, Club of Rome. That reminds me, can someone tell the pope?).
I have to admit I am surprised that the BBC is now even contemplating the possiblity of investigation of its own partiality in science. Their normal procedure is to ignore everything in the high-handed 'holier than thou mode' that they don't like, until that does not work, then to deny everything, then to insult the motives of the opposition, then to maybe grudgingly admit the least. But, on the other hand, more and more people in wider and wider spheres are questioning them from every angle. Some even suggest that the BBC licence tax is an insult to our personal liberty to watch Sky and ignore the BBC if we want! Some just think it is a sick joke that TV viewing should be taxed - the radio is not taxed, so why should the audio-visual news be? I have long thought that they are biased in every way, as I generally disagree with everything they say, or at least its lack of balance and intolerance of all things that create wealth and personal liberty (that's CAPITALISM for those who need a hint). After all, there has to BE something to tax. And GLOBAL WARMING - sorry GLOBAL COOLING if you remember the mid-70s - or CLIMATE CHANGE if you are now worried that the graph is obviously not powering on up like it should according to the SCAREOLOGY and CARBON TAXOLOGY theory - is the one of the most biased areas of their politico-science output. It is not as if Henrik Svensmark's explanation of the solar magnetic field, cosmic rays, and low cloud cover controlling the sunlight warming the earth is not currently persuading many that the biggest missing factor and mechanism for climate change (remember the days when we could discuss the Medieval Warm Period without the scareologists smothering it with false graphs and vague 'anomaly' references?), is now scientifically known as a mechanism and experimentally verified. Check out the Svensmark and Calder's book 'The Chilling Stars' for a good popular explanation of the theory, now in its 2nd edition. Or get the excellent DVD (region free) from Lars Mortensen, 'The Cloud Mystery' - you can google his site easily and pay via Paypal or cheque or cash. And no, I do not have shares in it. I just like real science and dislike taxes.
I am amazed. The MMR debate was started off by really bad science, the clown who put the debate out in the open, (and had his "findings" fuelled by like Fleet Street clowns, who could never be described as impartial), was struck off, was he not, by the BMA. Probably the BMA will be described as a member of "The loony left" by the incredibly impartial Daily Torygraph, did I make a spelling error?? Science is not impartial, the idea is to seek the truth, to search out truth by testing ideas in an impartial, open and honest way. The truth comes from the conclusion, and that is not open to debate, only for science to refute the findings, by proposition, experimentation, and further conclusions.