The Register has a fascinating story regarding a complaint to the BBC about its coverage of a scientific issue. Could We Survive A Mega Tsunami? was:
dramatised the effects of a giant ocean wave ("starting at one kilometre high"), far greater than the tsunamis created by earthquakes, and illustrated by (in the BBC's own words) "Hollywood-style graphics". The film showed havoc being unleashed upon European and North American seaboards.
Unfortunately, the mega tsunami theory appears to be viewed as comical among geophysicists, and has apparently been comprehensively debunked in the scientific literature. This, you might have thought, would therefore be an open and shut case, since the BBC has repeatedly said that they must follow the scientific consensus. A backdown and apology is surely in order?
Not a bit of it:
The BBC Trust's Editorial Standards unit interpreted the complaint in an unusual way. [The complainant], the Trust decided, was not challenging the presentation of the weight of evidence, but challenging the authority of the people making the argument.
It thus rejected the complaint on credentialist grounds: the academic promoting the Mega Tsunami theory "is a recognised expert in the field". The film makers had included sufficient hedging material to pass a narrow reading of the accuracy tests, even though it had failed to reflect the geophysical academic consensus.
You really have to read the whole thing. The takeaway message is that non-consensus views are welcome at the BBC so long as they are crazy and millenarian or green-tinged. If they are sensible or measured or have anything to do with science they have no place on the corporation's output.