Following on from the earlier DB post, I have known Ray Snoddy, the editor of the BBC’s Newswatch, for more than 25 years and I admire him as a journalist. But his decision to interview Fiona Fox – director of a body called the Science Media Centre (SMC) – to give a supposed impartial verdict on the current standards of BBC science reporting was a major mistake.
First, this harpy is not a scientist, but a camapaigning lefty journalist. Second, as I have pointed out in previous posts, the body she works for is in no sense “independent”; not least because it is run partly run by a senior BBC editor (of Today), Ceri Thomas. Further, SMC long since dropped any pretence of impartiality and all its seminars on anything to do with climate change are addressed only by warmist fanatics. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Ms Fox – although she may have picked up scientific jargon with relish – has not the faintest idea of how science works and appears to think the veracity or otherwise of scientific theories is decided by the weight of evidence.
Equally as chilling (though no surprise on this blog) was her revelation on Newswatch that Richard Black and Roger Harrabin have been campaigning hard to reduce the appearance of sceptics on BBC science items. This confirms yet again that they are political activists. Snoddy should have torn her apart for this, but he let her walk all over him, and showed not a flicker of curiosity or surprise at her fanatical, absurd responses.
It is deeply depressing, but also predictable, that it will be to bodies like the SMC and women like Fiona Fox that the BBC Trustees will turn in their current investigation of the standards of science reporting. As with Oxburgh, rubbish in, rubbish out.
Robin
Yes it was an atrocious interview, Newswatch is meant to be about criticisms of the BBC, not puff-pieces by rank amateurs whose jobs depend on BBC support.
I deaslt with Snoddy quite a lot back in the 1980s. Sorry, I do not agree with you about his abilities – when he was covering satellite broadcasting technologies he was far ready to accept patent rubbish from big companies – and from the BBC as a broadcaster. There were much better journos at the FT at that time.
Is there any chance of Snoddy repeating the programme ? Probably not. He allowed all the issues to be ducked, showed himself woefully ill-informed.
This week he should be covering the disgraceful failure of BBC TV to broadcast the second debate among party leaders. I bet he misses that target too.
End of 2nd para should read ‘weight of political opinion’ not ‘weight of evidence’. There’s no evidence for man-made global warming. Just a bunch of failed climate models and fradulent tree-ring graphs.
Thanks for clearing that up, I was very confused!
We don’t really need Snoddy or anyone else to give a verdict on BBC science, especially climate science.
There’s enough evidence about for us all to make the verdict for ourselves.
For example, why trust the science views of an organisation which has as its main business the mass manufacture of junk TV like Eastenders, Casualty and pop music radio, and which can’t even be bothered to have science graduates as its main science correspondents?
And just how strong is the corporation’s grasp of the alleged problems of CO2 emissions when we hear that BBC bosses have taken 68,000 domestic flights in the last two years and have huge, 3 litre engined company cars?
On looking at the list of the SMC’s science panel, I wondered if it is accurate and up to date in listing Susan Greenfield still as Director of the Royal Institution and David King as the government’s Chief Scientific Adviser.
I had a feeling that both had moved and been replaced but maybe I’m wrong.
(It doesn’t help that I can’t think of the names of their successors, if I am right. :-[ )
I think that Greenfield was made redundant when they abolished the position of Director and so she wasn’t replaced.
David King was replaced by John Beddington on 1st Jan08. Hope that helps…
Yes, I hope it helps the Science Media Centre.
(I had a feeling that the CSA was someone with a name beginning with B. And David King felt like a name from quite a while ago.)
According to Wikipedia Fiona Fox is a former member of the Revolutionary Communist Party.
Maybe that is where she learned about journalistic balance…
‘His decision to interview Fiona Fox… to give a supposed impartial verdict on the current standards of BBC science reporting’
..goes to the heart of all that is wrong about agenda driven editorial.
Who decides who gets invited, what questions get asked and what gets broadcast for the public to absorb? It’s like their pension fund depends upon it.
When I saw this my only thought was why I was, again, only getting one view. Now I can easily appreciate, but not condone the one-track thinking: resistance is futile.
What next, total infiltration of the political news departments by friends and family of but one party…? Oh.
If you can’t trust a former revolutionary clown — I mean commie, who the hell can you trust?