Trust to review impartiality in science coverage:
The BBC Trust has today announced that it will carry out a review to assess the accuracy and impartiality of the BBC’s coverage of science.
(h/t George R)
Review of science coverage
Bookmark the permalink.
What prompted this ? But, if the “review” is carried out by the Trust, it cannot be impartial. Just another BBC whitewash.
Well, we can hope, but I am not optimistic:-
“Impartiality is described in the Agreement as “due impartiality”. It requires us to be fair and open minded when examining the evidence and weighing all the material facts, as well as being objective and even handed in our approach to a subject. It does not require the representation of every argument or facet of every argument on every occasion or an equal division of time for each view.”
Why aren’t you optimistic? If there are actual material facts on your side, you’ll be fine. That this statement makes you less than optimistic is a tacit admission that there’s not much evidence behind your ideas.
Perhaps your BBC is a little different from my BBC. Do you really expect objectivity and transparency?
Although I might be at risk of being accused of prejudging the issue, I suspect that the results of the inquiry – following on from this quote from the Trust’s announcement to the effect that “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” – will be a resounding endorsement of the BBC’s performance and its “impartiality”.
As the announcement also reminds us (while forgetting to tell us exactly which apparatchik(s) will do the actual enquiring) “due impartiality” does not require the representation of every argument or facet of every argument on every occasion or an equal division of time for each view particularly [I would add] if those views on immigration, Israel, climate change, education, policing etc do not accord with those views approved by the BBC, its managers and reporters. So mission accomplished! Any criticism – or even discussion – of BBC scientific bias (particularly on AGW) is kicked into the long grass until 2011, conveniently after the general election and, with any luck, a better summer than the last one.
More blather… Probably going to sound like Al Gore still going on about sea level rises and disappearing ice caps as if it is fact. They’re as bad as each other but I live in hope to be proved wrong…
For some reason the Balen report comes to my mind.
Perhaps the stupid Newsnight stunt with the pop bottles and CO2 comes to mind? climate change for Top Gear man they called it. The ‘experiemnt’ was pulled apart on the net by proper scientists not arts graduates.
Oh and nice to see the BBC bump the story about McMong and his own party turning on him being bumped from the top story, just like a good BBC.
The BBC Trust has today announced that it will carry out a review to assess the accuracy and impartiality of the BBC’s coverage of science.
PAUSE FOR EFFECT
Okay folks, review over. Nothing to see here, move along please.
Maybe they can get that rocket lady from Newsnight’s climate change proof episode to ‘oversee’ the accuracy bit.
More like they’ll just get some chappie in who went to Oxbridge who can give good test tube having seen one in a programme, once.
Oops! The ‘Keeper of the Wet Lettuce’ is going to be summoned to administer ‘Ye Light Smack on the Wrist’ and then business as usual.
hippiepooter
Key bit about the BBC’s definition of “impartiality”:
Impartiality is described in the Agreement as “due impartiality”. It requires us to be fair and open minded when examining the evidence and weighing all the material facts, as well as being objective and even handed in our approach to a subject. It does not require the representation of every argument or facet of every argument on every occasion or an equal division of time for each view.
Fair enough, we don’t expect 50/50 balance on all issues at all times. But it’s the first bit about being “fair and open minded when examining the evidence” that is the problem at the BBC. They are not open-minded, and have admitted as such when it comes to Warmism. Let’s see if the Trust will call them on it.
I bet the BBC will come away pretty unscathed, because the Trust members will let logic be superseded by emotion when it comes to the “unknowns” about GM crops and the vaccine. Except, of course, for a slap on the wrist about one or two extremely minor errors in one of Harriban’s reports to show that they were serious about doing this report.
Biased BBC gets mentioned here:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100021508/finally-bbc-asks-are-we-maybe-a-bit-biased-on-climate-change/
All excellent posts above. Surely you are not suggesting it will be a stitch-up ? You are all so cynical !!!
Not mentioned by BBC, but the Whaling ship crew was attacked by a laser the day before.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5aa_1262140768
And this
After careful deliberation, the BBC Trust have found that the BBC’s coverage is, albeit inadvertently, in favour of the Climate Change Sceptic position and in future should give more prominence to the views of scientists and politicians who say that MMGW is occurring.
For previous BBC Trust decisions, please look at our review of the BBC’s coverage of Israel/Palestine where we concluded that the BBC was favouring Israel.
Saw the bit this evening with the Met Office director who claimed that because of global warming December and January’s cold snap is not as bad as it could have been!
Anyway, in other news;
http://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/3210444/Doubts-cast-on-warmest-decade
This is an interesting point…if there was no wanking on about global warming would anyone really bat an eye lid on the supposed fact that last year was .06c warmer than the next warmest year in the history of the universe?
Regards
Mailman
Anyone know what time period qualifies as a ‘cold snap’?
Interestingly, it does seem to get used before the duration is actually finalised.
highly recommend you watch Brillo giving the twat from the Met Office a right good kicking on the DP today. Excellent, also Toenails making a twat of himself.
Expect the review to go pretty much the same way as this one….
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/news/press_releases/2007/may/25_05_2007.shtml
…..one huge pat on the back.
I hope I played a small part in this:
Not sure what happened there – can someone clean it up?!
You’ve got to be hopeful. The BBC’s seriously shrivelled sense of corporate self-preservation has to kick in at some point. Do they really want to be fingered as the Last Believers?
I wonder if the “accuracy” part of the brief extends to highly paid announcers proudly boasting about being only half educated? I stopped listening to the toady programme abour five years ago, after hearing Naughty introduce a typically superficial piece of popular science by boasting he couldn’t understand it! Had it been an indepth study of something on the outer fringes of knowledge I might sympathise, but I remember understanding every word with my half remembered Physics O level. I would have expected Naughty to be no less educated than I.
MarK E 13:36
According to Wikipedia, Naughtie went to Keith Grammar School, Aberdeen University and Syracuse Uni., New York.
It would appear that he has never worked outside journalism.
The BBC and `impartiality’ are an oxymoron, surely?
The whitewash is on order as we speak!
“BBC probes bias in its coverage of science and the environment”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1241209/BBC-probes-bias-science-coverage.html#ixzz0c2kyzqVq