Post by nickle on Dec 6, 2009 0:30:31 GMT
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8397265.stm is an example of the BBC on climate change.
Here's my complaint
Climate change is controversial. Even the BBC have admitted this.
"Controversy over climate change"
So as a controversial subject the guidelines are particularly clear.
we seek to provide a properly balanced service consisting of a wide range of subject matter and views broadcast over an appropriate time scale across all our output. We take particular care when dealing with political or industrial controversy or major matters relating to current public policy.
So the reporting has to be balanced, in particular climate change since so much of public policy relates to punitave taxation for CO2 production.
we strive to reflect a wide range of opinion and explore a range and conflict of views so that no significant strand of thought is knowingly unreflected or under represented.
So there should be a balance of opinions, for and against in BBC articles
we can explore or report on a specific aspect of an issue or provide an opportunity for a single view to be expressed, but in doing so we do not misrepresent opposing views. They may also require a right of reply.
If you don't give an equal voice, then you will misrepresent opposing views.
we must ensure we avoid bias or an imbalance of views on controversial subjects.
So how does the article stack up against these principles?
Factually, you present no evidence for this statement.
Thousands of emails and documents were stolen from the unit.
It may well have been an inside job.
Professor Jones gets a quote. On the alarmist side. 1:0 for the alarmists in having a say.
Tomas Stocker is also on the alarmist side as part of the IPCC.
2:0 to the alarmists
Ditto Professor Qin Dahe
[Backed by their statement that you quote]
3:0 to the alarmists.
No sign of any balance so far.
Next in is Gordon Brown. [There is an anti-science group, there is a flat Earth group, if I may say so, over the scientific evidence for climate change ]
4:0 to the alarmists. Still waiting for a little balance, in line with your remit.
Professor Jean-Pascal van Ypersele. Another alarmist from the IPCC.
5:0 i sthe score.
Now Ed Milliband. Clearly he hasn't read the emails, but since the government is so desparate for tax, any excuse.
6:0 to the alarmists.
Met office now
7:0 to the alarmists.
So a clear categorial breach of the BBC editorial guidelines.
Are you now going to write a balancing article where 7 skeptics get to make their points without a right of reply?
Here's my complaint
Climate change is controversial. Even the BBC have admitted this.
"Controversy over climate change"
So as a controversial subject the guidelines are particularly clear.
we seek to provide a properly balanced service consisting of a wide range of subject matter and views broadcast over an appropriate time scale across all our output. We take particular care when dealing with political or industrial controversy or major matters relating to current public policy.
So the reporting has to be balanced, in particular climate change since so much of public policy relates to punitave taxation for CO2 production.
we strive to reflect a wide range of opinion and explore a range and conflict of views so that no significant strand of thought is knowingly unreflected or under represented.
So there should be a balance of opinions, for and against in BBC articles
we can explore or report on a specific aspect of an issue or provide an opportunity for a single view to be expressed, but in doing so we do not misrepresent opposing views. They may also require a right of reply.
If you don't give an equal voice, then you will misrepresent opposing views.
we must ensure we avoid bias or an imbalance of views on controversial subjects.
So how does the article stack up against these principles?
Factually, you present no evidence for this statement.
Thousands of emails and documents were stolen from the unit.
It may well have been an inside job.
Professor Jones gets a quote. On the alarmist side. 1:0 for the alarmists in having a say.
Tomas Stocker is also on the alarmist side as part of the IPCC.
2:0 to the alarmists
Ditto Professor Qin Dahe
[Backed by their statement that you quote]
3:0 to the alarmists.
No sign of any balance so far.
Next in is Gordon Brown. [There is an anti-science group, there is a flat Earth group, if I may say so, over the scientific evidence for climate change ]
4:0 to the alarmists. Still waiting for a little balance, in line with your remit.
Professor Jean-Pascal van Ypersele. Another alarmist from the IPCC.
5:0 i sthe score.
Now Ed Milliband. Clearly he hasn't read the emails, but since the government is so desparate for tax, any excuse.
6:0 to the alarmists.
Met office now
7:0 to the alarmists.
So a clear categorial breach of the BBC editorial guidelines.
Are you now going to write a balancing article where 7 skeptics get to make their points without a right of reply?
