Hi Chris,

I think you are dignifying the BBC editors!  They really should know better. Any questioning around climate scientists would have put them right.  The scientists are not exaggerating global warming or its affects.  Indeed, in the program they asked whether the UEA business had made scientists more reticent.   So the editors must realise that scientists are liable to understate the dangers, not overstate them.  The program asked a simple question - about influence of AGW (anthropogenic global warming) on the floods - and managed to give credibility to the "don't know" answer, thus giving the oxygen of publicity to climate sceptics.  The program was a disgrace.

But the BBC is not alone.  It seems that, as the effects of global warming become more and more apparent, the media will more and more downplay them.  Wishful thinking has become editorial policy.

However, there is the occasional glimmer of reality breaking through, from none other than the normally sceptic Daily Mail [1].

Cheers,

John

[1] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1301713/The-crack-roof-world-Yes-global-warming-real--deeply-worrying.html

---

Chris Keene wrote:
[log in to unmask]" type="cite"> I suspect that the editors genuinely believe there is scientific controversy, and thanks to the UEA email theft (I won't dignify it with the term 'climategate' since it implies wrongdoing by UEA) they suspect there is a conspiracy by scientists to exaggerate climate change to get more money for research into it

Chris Keene

On 24/08/2010 10:05, Chris Shaw wrote:
[log in to unmask]" type="cite">Dear all

I have been following the work of Medialens (one of the editors being our very own David Cromwell) since the  inception of that project. The work of Medialens has shown repeatedly that the BBC is the voice of the establishment on certain areas, such as economics, foreign policy, the wonders of Western democracy etc etc. However, I think the BBC has also tried to ensure that its coverage is accurate (I think a seperate thing from bias). Thus I really struggle to make sense of why they insist on airing the opinions of contrarians as science, when of course they are simply value statements, grounded in particular attitudes to risk.

What issues are deemed by the BBC to be in need of impartiality is very revealing of the BBC's relationship to power - for example dead British soldiers are invariably described as heroes, with no perceived need to balance this opinion.

Chris
On 24/08/2010 09:34, George Marshall wrote:
Dear Bob and all

I believe that it is entirely appropriate (and important) to call a news
programme directly and complain about their coverage- all calls are logged
and recognised (if not heeded) by editorial staff.

Here are the numbers for standard complaints, though i find that It is
usually much more effective to ask for the programme office and speak to the
desk staff (or better still the editor involved with the problem piece)
directly rather than being fobbed off with someone in a call centre. I have
done this myself many times and enjoy putting them on the spot and I think a
good grilling from you, Bob, would teach them a lesson!

MEDIA COMPLAINTS
Channel Four and ITV News -0207 833 3000 and ask for liaison line (recorded
messages checked hourly)
BBC TV and Radio Complaints Line-08700 100 222  (someone staffing the line
24 hours day)
Channel Five Complaints Line-0845 7050505

And if you want to be more personal, you can usually ask for any programme
news editor or a specific journalist through the switchboard.

BBC Radio Switchboard  0207 580 4468
ITN Switchboard 0207 833 3000
Channel Five Switchboard 0207 550 5555
BBC TV Switchboard 0208 743 8000




-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion list for the Crisis Forum
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bob Ward
Sent: 23 August 2010 19:44
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: 'Newsnight' losing the plot?

Andrew Montford has pointed out on his blog that he is due to appear on
'Newsnight' this evening about the link between the floods in Pakistan
and climate change. I had heard rumours that the Newsnight editor now
thinks all climate change coverage should include a 'sceptic' and this
seems to be confirmation. I've left the comment below on the 'Newsnight'
blog.

I see that Andrew Montford is bragging on his Bishop Hill blog that he
is an interviewee on this evening's programme about the link between the
floods in Pakistan. His only contribution to the climate change debate
so far has been a controversial book about palaeoclimatology, so it is
not clear what his expertise on climate change and extreme weather is
meant to be. Or perhaps he will be representing Lord Lawson's group, the
Global Warming Policy Foundation, which now regularly provides the
'balancing' voice of dissent every time a scientist is interviewed about
climate change on 'Newsnight'. If so, this is presumably evidence of the
commitment of 'Newsnight' to impartiality rather than accuracy? And can
I look forward to further instances of this balance by for instance,
including comments from a creationist every time there is a story about
evolution?



Bob Ward

Policy and Communications Director
Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment
London School of Economics and Political Science
Houghton Street
London WC2A 2AE

http://www.lse.ac.uk/grantham

Tel. +44 (0) 20 7106 1236
Mob. +44 (0) 7811 320346


Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic
communications disclaimer:
http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/planningAndCorporatePolicy/legalandComplian
ceTeam/legal/disclaimer.htm
   


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3091 - Release Date: 08/24/10 07:34:00