The BBC are on poor form at the moment. I shall be complaining - my complaint is more about the framing of Humphrys' interview - presenting climate change as a debate between 'believers' and 'skeptics'. I'm so tired of this. Here is another, more egregious example:
http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2012/07/radio-5-does-the-worst-climate-change-programme-ever
The BBC are not being impartial on this so written complaints are justified.
Humpreys was lazy on this occasion.
James Pavitt
Transition Stratford
On 13 Jul 2012, at 21:02, Byron Smith wrote:
> Those wishing to lodge a complain may find this document useful.
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/our_work/science_impartiality/science_impartiality.pdf
>
> It is a BBC Trust Review of the impartiality and accuracy of the BBC's coverage of science, with expended independent input from Professor Steve Jones. Perhaps the most relevant section is on page 5 where Prof Jones' concerns about false balance are summarised like this:
>
> -----
> An at times “over-rigid” (as Professor Jones describes it) application of the Editorial Guidelines on impartiality in relation to science coverage, which fails to take into account what he regards as the “non-contentious” nature of some stories and the need to avoid giving “undue attention to marginal opinion”. Professor Jones cites past coverage of claims about the safety of the MMR vaccine and more recent coverage of claims about the safety of GM crops and the existence of man made climate change as examples on this point. He suggests that achieving “equality of voice” may be resolved by the new 2010 Editorial Guidelines which incorporate
> consideration of “due weight” in relation to impartiality. A more common-sense approach to “due impartiality” would also help, he believes.
> -----
>
> Regards,
> Byron Smith
>
> PhD candidate
> University of Edinburgh
|