Bishop Hill BBC will stop being biased
Oct 13, 2010 BBC Climate: HSI Climate: Sceptics New editorial guidelines have been issued by the BBC and the Telegraph is reporting that these are likely to force the corporation to take a more balanced approach to scientific issues, presumably including global warming climate change disruption.
But the BBC’s new editorial guidelines, published yesterday after an extensive consultation that considered over 1,600 submissions by members of the public, say expressly for the first time that scientific issues fall within the corporation’s obligation to be impartial.
“The BBC must be inclusive, consider the broad perspective, and ensure that the existence of a range of views is appropriately reflected,” said BBC trustee Alison Hastings.
I feel certain that the head of factual programming will be telephoning to commission a miniseries based on The Hockey Stick Illusion, so I'll wait by the phone today...
Reader Comments (68)
You cannot help but feel this is an implied negative on the behaviour of the BBC to date.
One problem they will face is that their contact book for "skeptic" opinion is fairly empty at the moment. They even use Bjørn Lomborg as a skeptic.
There may be more work in the pipeline for UK based exerts with a good grasp of the whole subject. Maybe FGS Bob Ward might be the paid-voice on the counter?
Have to say - I have seen a marked decrease in the gushing grinning delight of some idiot reporter that having been flown onto an ice flow/glacier/rain forest/desert, then proceeds to tell us with mock shock and awe that "We're all gonna die!"
The bias within the BBC was getting beyond a joke.
Can you hear that? It the sound of me not holding my breath.
Stand by for a flurry of Warmologists complaining that climate skeptics should receive the same treatment as Creationists in terms of media balance.
Creationists, they say, cling blindly, fervently and rigidly to a position which they defend principally by attacking their opponents as immoral pieces of trash.
If only a Warmologist would look into a mirror once in a while......
Ah but what does "appropriately" mean and who decides what is appropriate?
Perhaps Bish you could compile a list of sceptical scientific "voices" and send it to the BBC trustees.
Weasel wording, I too am not holding my breathe.
I love a bit of sarcasm in the morning :)
Doug, did you miss the BBC chap dangling off a rope down some cave the other day in the name of climate change reporting? They only send them to the icy scenes when it's melting, just wait for spring ;)
About 10 days ago, I posted here a complaint which I had sent to the "British Biased Corporation" re comments made during the Commonwealth games about the Maldives and how they are in danger from Global Warming. They must be very busy in the complaints Dept because it took them more than a week to acknowledge my few lines. They will get back to me in due course.
Since then I noticed 2 more "blame global warming" events.
One was on the Evening News Monday 4th October at 2138. Joanna Gosling was interviewing a Greenpeace member, Richard Paige (I think thats how he spells it). Paige was talking about Coral reefs being destroyed by global warming and Joanna Gosling also passed a comment about climate change.
Then, about 5 or 6 days back, I was watching the Commonwealth Games. Clare Balding was interviewing some sports person, I can't remember whom. It must have been about the Maldives, because, sports commentator Balding then read out a pre-scripted item on how the Maldives were in danger...from Global Warming. This was not a 2 or 3 second aside, it was definitely pre-scripted. Clare is a sportswoman and now sports commentator.
Now she is also obviously and expert climate scientist.
Peter Walsh
Perhaps in the future, I can watch BBC nature documentaries with the sound on.
I always play some ambient music.
It's easy to lose sight of the fact that the BBC isn't a scientific institution. It can't add value to scientific dialogue. It doesn't employ people who know how to add value. It doesn't know how to recognise people who could.
"...say expressly for the first time that scientific issues fall within the corporation’s obligation to be impartial."
Worthy of Lord Weasel of Oxburgh.
But the last sentence in the Telegraph report states:
'However, the new editorial guidelines make clear that the requirements for due impartiality do not necessarily require equal time to be given to the range of opinions on a given subject.'
So what is going to change then?
None Dusty...absolutely none.
Al Beeb will continue to wear its blinkers and do what it does pest, agitate for socialist change.
If these guys were SERIOUS about changing Al Beeb they would start by getting rid of all their blogs because Al Beebs job should be to report the news, not its opinion and sadly to Al Beeb, its opinion has become the news.
Mailman
I wonder if the BBC will now read out a summary of Harold Lewis's APS resignation letter. Or even interview him.
The key phrase for me is, "The BBC must be inclusive".
That indicates that the BBC, a public service broadcaster, had deliberately excluded other views in scientific prgramming and broadcasting. The basis for such exclusion can only be political or ideological, and mirrors exactly the behaviour of scientists involved in advocacy, environmental groups, policy makers and politicians.
The BBC had forgotten the old journalistic adage that if you mother says she loves you, you go and check it out.
The key phrase for me is, "The BBC must be inclusive".
"Inclusive" is the language of Diversity Seminars: We must have the right mix of minorities who all think exactly the same.
So I'm not convinced.
I'd love to know who the “1600 submissions" were from. Were any of the major sceptics or sceptical organisations asked for submission?
If not, who was?
I'd be tempted to submit a freedom of information request for this information if I wasn't 100% sure that the BBC would reject it out of hand using the ‘for journalistic purposes’ excuse they've used to reject almost every single other freedom of information request I've tried.
I suspect that only change will be that instead of making a statement such as "Climate change WILL cause increased hurricane activity" the statement would be: "Climate change MIGHT cause increased hurricane activity".
**NOTE** I have no idea if the BBC has made any such statement. It is intended as an example of how their reporting might change.
Funny thing is, at the BBC they do know how to do good, impartial, open-minded, probing science coverage, when they put their minds to it...
I've just foolishly listened to the first item on You and Yours discussing carbon foortprints and food labelling. One chap from the Carbon Trust and one other chap. Now "climate change is real and is happening now" was mentioned along with reducing our carbon footprints. There was no balancing view on that programme.
BBC bias is chronic, endemic and institutionalised, as their own investigation demonstrated. It has about as much chance of impartiality on climate as does the IPCC. This 2007 article in the Times is still accessible on its website.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1942948.ece
That indicates that the BBC, a public service broadcaster, had deliberately...
Surely that is because it is not a public service broadcaster but a state controlled broadcaster in double-plus ungood language...
Interesting is this:
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/10/price-of-knowledge.html
"Coincidence or not, this morning I got a phone call from BBC Radio Oxford, asking if I would speak on their show tomorrow (at about 10:10am) on ... climate change. Specifically, they are having a debate about the resignation of Hal Lewis, which Dellers did big, amongst others."
So even the BBC is taking notice now
The BBC think their lefty liberal outlook is being impartial, it's deeply ingrained.
See http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2007/05/strewn-very-wonderful-jane-garvey-is.html
and follow a few of the links on the right.
I recall when the BNP had a couple of MEPs elected. The BBC weren't reporting the news, they were visibly in a state of shocked mourning, analysing the tragedy.
As for the AGW bias, they might make an effort to have a few dissenting voices where the issue is specifically dealt with, but there's a background noise of talking about carbon footprints and AGW as if it was a given, in all sorts of programmes not specifically talking about it. I don't see that changing in a hurry.
I came across this on the DT website yesterday.
http://tinyurl.com/3xpkrff
My initial reaction was "of course the BBC news has always been 'straight as a die'; straight down the left wing!" Which may be a little unjust but any organisation that considers "balance" to be a debate between e.g. Denis Skinner and Austin Mitchell has lost its compass bearings slightly! If you insist on only recruiting through the pages of the Guardian what do you expect.
I have a niece who has just started with the BBC and finds the whole situation highly amusing. The whole organisation, she reckons, is one mass of interlocking mindsets, some of them politically left of centre (she's not unhappy with that) and others pure PC. It's fashionable to be "anti-", apparently. If you actually express approval of anything — fashion, art, music — you're weird.
I suspect is that all it means is that, previously, they really thought that CAGW sceptics were indeed the equivalent of flat earthers and a truly lunatic fringer - or at best, indeed paid PR attack dogs (you know - like Bob Ward).
After recent events - including things like the Guardian debate - they have come to understand that, just possibly, it's not quite as black-and-white as that. That does not mean that they truly understand the issues.
WOuldbe nice if the ailment spread to the Grauniad, but somehow I doubt it. Here's another 10:10 style moment, as documented by El Reg. -
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/10/12/graun_robbins_counterblast/
The question is, how much time should be given to opposing views? Clearly 50/50 is wrong. Any of you lot who don't think you're in a small minority, are living in a dreamworld, no matter what you might like to think.
Can anyone think of a better way of dividing screentime than climate science consensus? I can't.
Again - you won't like this, but the only two studies I've seen that genuinely try to poll climate science/scientists, come out with a figure of around 97%. Now, I've aired these round here before, and can't really be bothered retreading the (in my mind somewhat trifling) arguments as to why you lot don't like it. If you have a good study of climate science/scientists suggesting otherwise, please point me to it. And if any of you even think of mentioning the Oregon Petition, then take the time to hit yourself over the head with a brick for being so silly first.
Would you prefer that science be represented according to public opinion? That would probably play more to what you want, but would strike me as a poor step for science if views were represented according to people who are unfamiliar with them, or have agendas. And yes, that would be a good time for the Creationist analogy.
So, why should the Beeb pipe up for you shower more than 3% of the time? I'd love to know.
Because the BBC is an advocate of CAGW does not mean that it is due to it being a lefty/liberal organisation. If that were the case the Tories would be also a lefty/liberal party. We need to remember that the criticism of CAGW is due to the fact that sceptics reject the simplistic notion that man-made CO2 is the sole driver of global warming. We must not allow the political extremes to dominate in this debate, be they the extreme right or left. The hair-shirt brigade from the green movement are just as bad and dangerous as those numpties in UKIP/BNP.
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/01/consensus-what-consensus/
Apologies for quoting direct from JoNova, but the consensus argument is fallacious
How many scientists does it take to prove the debate is not over? More than 30,000 scientists have signed The Petition Project. More than 9,000 of them have PhDs (not that that proves anything about carbon, but it does prove something about the myth of “consensus”). The petition’s wording is unequivocal:
“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”
Source: www.petitionproject.org
The Petition Project is funded by donations from individuals and run by volunteers. It receives no money from industry or companies. In late 2007, The Petition Project re-did the petition to verify names again.
AGW says: Everyone knows the petition is bogus and filled with duplicate and fake names.
Skeptics say: Name 10 fakes.
NOTE: This is potentially distracting. Science is not democratic. The numbers and qualifications on either side don’t matter except to put an end to the statement that “the debate is over.” Science is not done by consensus. The climate does not respond to boatloads of scientists, no matter how much hot air they produce.
When did scientists vote anyway?
We should take heart from Neil Midgeley's report in the DT- 'BBC told to ensure balance on climate change'. He says ' James Delingpole, a prominent climate change sceptic and Telegraph columnist said '(Inter alia).......whenever they invite dissenters like me on to debates, they surround us with warmists. On Any questions, for example, Jonathan Dimbleby, does his best to be impartial, but this is a man with a wind turbine in his garden'.
"And if any of you even think of mentioning the Oregon Petition, then take the time to hit yourself over the head with a brick for being so silly first."
Oct 13, 2010 at 2:18 PM | ZedsDeadBed
"More than 30,000 scientists have signed The Petition Project."
Oct 13, 2010 at 2:29 PM | matthu
I hope that brick really hurt you.
Mac,
CAGW is largely about redistributions of money and power, and you simply can't excide the politics. In general the right wing (and I don't include the BNP as that) is distrustful of government and thinks its role should be carefully limited, the left thinks more state involvement is the answer to everything.
CAGW is a glorious excuse for more state control and international state control. I suggest that the lefty liberal bias of the BBC does have a bearing on this as it does with The Guardian. I'd class the Tories as paternalistic socialists.
The "consensus" argument can't apply. The BBC is not in the business of "presenting the consensus" to its viewers, otherwise all its investigative programmes should be axed on the spot.
The BBC is in the business of informing and entertaining its viewers and listeners, eg via the adversarial tactics of the "Today" programme's presenters. Most documentaries aren't really afraid of turning stones. Alas, most documentaries about climate change, they are.
@ZedsDeadBed
Does "Nullius in verba" mean anything to you?
If not I suggest you brush up on science history, if it does I suggest you repeat it to yourself a few times prior to engaging in some misplaced apeal to authority.
@ ZDB
"You lot" ... "you shower" ... "I hope that brick really hurt you"
Is yours an exercise in testing the tolerance of your host in this place? Are you simply trying to assess just how much unpleasantness the BIshop will allow from you before he finally bars you? What is the point of your behaviour?
They'll just redefine what the peer-reviewed literature is.
Is this an admission of sorts that they have not been impartial.
Do we assume that because they say they will now "be inclusive, consider the broad perspective, and ensure that the existence of a range of views is appropriately reflected" that they will?
No suggestions yet as to what actual percentage of BBC climate science coverage should be mainstream AGW, and what should be otherwise.
I would have thought that was extremely relevant when trying to remove bias? Is it that climate science consensus is by far the best system, but nobody wants to admit it?
I would have thought I'd get some other suggestions on the issue by now.
@JerryM
I suggest that the point is self-expression and self-reassurance - - not communication.
Hi ZDB
Are you taking over from bishop phil this week? You seem to take it in turn.
"The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing." - Albert Einstein
A quote that should be pertinent to all responsible bodies, be they scientific or governmental and history adequately illustrates that is especially applicable to the media. An investigatory, inquiring media is far more beneficial to society than one that simply repeats the mantra of the day.
Well, I see ZDB relapsed in a week. A pity. Maybe he should visit the Troll Whisperer again -- the first visit seemed to do wonders. If this keeps up they could make a weekly series on the Tele with Cesar Millan flying over in his private jet. (Bet none of you thought there was so much money in training dogs.)
As for the current debate and lack of breath holding, may I point out that Climate Warming is not a scientific issue, nor was it ever so. It is a political issue, pure through. Given that, Beeb will continue on its left wing agenda.
Perhaps the level of CAGW science coverage should be directly proportional to the amount of evidence i.e. no evidence of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming so no coverage?
The idea that they should dedicate a fixed percentage of time to either side of the issue is, quite frankly, ridiculous. What would be wrong with them, for example, simply reporting news stories (from either side) when they happen?
Perhaps then stop having random presenters (I'm thinking sports correspondent Claire Balding) offering opinions on AGW and, dare I say it, sticking to subjects they are actually knowledgeable about.
Then is documentaries maybe concentrating on the scientific arguments and the evidence supporting them (from either side) rather than, again, offering little more than opinion ieces based on appeals to authority (meaningless claims of consensus etc...).
Perhaps treat the audience with a bit of respect and report science based on scientific principles. I say to you again, nullius in verba. A powerful enough message to have made it as the motto oof the Royal Society, yet not suitable for climate 'science' apparently.
Tea Party Chant:
No Tax
No Fee
No Lying BBC
Recycled from:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DubpQ7N4PGo
Tonight's edition of Costing the Earth (Radio4, presented by arch-warmist Tom Heap) is described in the Radio Times thus:
"As climate change claims its first victims in the form of displaced people from the Carteret Islands, Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Kenya and the Niger Delta, Tom Heap talks to victims of Hurricane Katrina and of the UK floods in the Autumn of 2000 to find out why they have taken their cases to court to seek compensation for meteorological events."
Now is that BBC bias, sheer nonsense or what? Have the BBC never heard of the millions who died from a cooling climate in the 1300s (Michael Woods' programme about Kibworth on the BBC of all places - how did that slip past the censors?). Who did they sue for causing mass starvation in the 1300?
I was under the impression that scientific excitability about Katrina had somewhat calmed. And that the consensus view now was that it had nothing at all to do with climate change. Poor engineering and building below sea level were in the frame last time I looked.
And gosh, hasn't the global hurricane season been a fright this year! What with it hitting a 30-year low and all?
But the BBC doesn't mention that in its efforts to provide a balance and informative coverage.
'And gosh, hasn't the global hurricane season been a fright this year! What with it hitting a 30-year low and all?'
Sorry. That should have been 'global cyclone activity' and the link is here:
http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/
You can call me a cynic, but I wouldn't be surprised if the BBC intends to give less time to sceptical views. There are many in their ranks who feel they have been overly generous in the past, on a matter that is beyond debate.