BBC to Probe Own Bias on Science Issues

[Teddy Bear]

The BBC trust is to review whether the corporation has been biased in relation to how its presented science topics like global warming, the MMR vaccine and GM foods, following complaints that it has. If it goes like previous reviews following similar accusations, then any finding is likely to only detect minor 'discrepancies', especially since they select the scientist to do this review. For some reason it will take at least a year to finish this review, which is disgraceful in itself.

BBC Trust to review science coverage amid claims of bias over climate change, MMR vaccine and GM foods
By Paul Revoir
Last updated at 5:22 PM on 06th January 2010

The BBC's governing body has launched a major review of its science coverage after complaints of bias notably in its treatment of climate change.
The BBC Trust today announced it would carry out the probe into the 'accuracy and impartiality' of its output in this increasingly controversial area.
The review comes after repeated criticism of the broadcaster's handling of green issues. It has been accused of acting like a cheerleader for the theory that climate change is a man-made phenomenon.
Critics have claimed that it has not fairly represented the views of sceptics of the widely-held belief that humans are responsible for environmental changes such as global warming.

The investigation will also focus on coverage of issues like genetically modified foods, the MMR vaccine and the way it reports on new technologies.
It will scrutinise the way the BBC has handled scientific findings on areas which affect 'public policy' and are 'matters of political controversy'.
A scientific expert will be hired to lead the review and it will concentrate on coverage of the issues featured in its news and factual output.
The corporation's Royal Charter and Agreement requires that the BBC covers controversial subjects with due impartiality.
The new report will not just include the natural sciences but also aspects of technology, medicine and the environment that include scientific findings or claims.

Richard Tait, BBC Trustee and chair of the governing body's Editorial Standards Committee (ESC), said: 'Science is an area of great importance to licence fee payers, which provokes strong reaction and covers some of the most sensitive editorial issues the BBC faces.
'Heated debate in recent years around topics like climate change, GM crops and the MMR vaccine reflects this, and BBC reporting has to steer a course through these controversial issues while remaining impartial.
'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.'
The review will be launched in the spring and the findings of the probe will be published in 2011.
The BBC is planning to raise the profile of science this year with a focus on the genre across television, radio and online.
But there has been a string of rows in recent years over the way it has handled a number of scientific issues.
Last year a leading climate change sceptic claimed his views had been deliberately misrepresented by the BBC.
Lord Monckton, a former adviser to Margaret Thatcher, said he had been made to look like a 'potty peer' on a TV programme that 'was a one-sided polemic for the new religion of global warming'.
In 2007 the then editor of Newsnight hit out at the BBC's stance on climate change.

Peter Barron said it was 'not the corporation's job to save the planet'. His comments were backed up by other senior news executives who feared the BBC was 'leading' the audience, rather than giving them 'information'.
Mr Barron had claimed the BBC had gone beyond its remit by planning an entire day of programmes dedicated to highlighting environmental fears.
His comments had come after the broadcaster had already been accused of not being objective on green issues and of handing over the airwaves to campaigners. In 2007 it had devoted a whole day of programming to the Live Earth concerts.

The BBC then decided to scrap the Comic Relief-style TV event on climate change amid fears it would make it look biased.
In the past the BBC has also been attacked over other scientific issues. It was accused by an adviser of adding to the hysteria about genetically modified crops with factual errors and bad science.

The expert claimed that makers of thriller Fields of Gold, starring Anna Friel, had ignored his advice when he pointed out factual errors in 2002.
More recently flagship current affairs programme Panorama was found to have broken editorial guidelines in a programme about the potential health hazards of wi-fi.

The BBC's editorial complaints unit said in 2007 that the programme 'gave a misleading impression of the state of scientific opinion on the issue'.
In 2006 scientists accused the corporation of 'quackery' in a programme which they claimed attempted to exaggerate the power of alternative medicine.
Earlier this year former BBC newsreader Peter Sissons claimed it was now 'effectively BBC policy' to stifle critics of the consensus view on global warming.
Mr Sissons said: 'I believe I am one of a tiny number of BBC interviewers who have so much as raised the possibility that there is another side to the debate on climate change.
'The Corporation's most famous interrogators invariably begin by accepting that "the science is settled", when there are countless reputable scientists and climatologists producing work that says it isn't.'

[Teddy Bear]

[Teddy Bear]

If the BBC Trust were genuinely interested in seeing whether their charge were guilty of global warming bias, they wouldn't need a year of investigation, in fact they wouldn't need to go any further than see this insidious clip from CBBC Newround 2 days ago.

BBC = Blatantly Brainwashing Children
(hat tip -David Vance/DB)

[proftony]

And further to the earlier Children's TV post, we had the ridiculous BBC poll on the 10.00pm news tonight, reported by the totally impartial David Shukman. Ostensibly referring to increased scepticism in global warming, we had the usual shots of ice sheets falling into the ocean with Shukman detailing, in Janet and John style, some very dubious figures which seemed to purport that the numbers questioning AGW was, in fact, very small. The only talking head was the government's favourite alarmist, Bob Watson, and typically, no dissenting voices. Surely if you headline a poll with increased numbers questioning AGW, you might consider, if you really are serious, impartial, JOURNALISTS, getting an expert who supports that hypothesis. Plus ca change..........weather, climate and the BBC.

[scoobydont]

Isn't this like the police investigating the police!
It's a pointless act and a show now the AGW house of cards is collapsing. The BBC is full of politicised reporters who are only interested in pushing their views. Doesn't help when the BBC charter says 'the science is settled and we must push this view'. They can't produce a nature show without telling us how all the fluffly little creatures are are under threat because of man made global warming and all the science/geology shows (with Dr Iain Stewart predominantly, the only geologist i've heard who says it's all our fault, all other geologists i've read/seen say it's part of a natural cycle) tell the same story.... One of them even had Dr Stewarts kids in the last show with the 'we must save the planet for our kids' guff. Maybe if the BBC's pension pot wasn't invested in Carbon Credits they might be slightly less biased. After all how can they tell us that it's mainly a natural process and it isn't all our fault and watch their pension pot crumble! The sooner there is a credible debate on the subject with proper data and information not Bob Watson sputing the 'Science is settled' rubbish and not being challenged the better. The only person at the BBC who seems to ask searching questions on the subject is Andrew Neal and he's had Mr Watson squirming before, we more of that not the simple questions answered by it must be true the IPCC says so!
The sooner the BBC becomes impartial the better, we need to save this institution for our kids.

[Teddy Bear]

Welcome Scooby.
In the same insidious way that the BBC pursues their agenda on global warming, they follow similar tactics on every other issue that we cover here.
My intellectual conjecture for the reasons that the BBC were so 'green' was to give the appearance that they were truly caring and concerned about the environment, while it cost them nothing. The most recent example of how 'green' the BBC TRULY is, is the fact that they sent more staff (74) to cover the winter Olympics than Britain have participating in it (52). For the licence payers benefit, or a junket for staff to have a holiday at our expense? They clearly are not concerned at the cost to the environment to send so many unnecessary staff to this event.

So your mention of the 'pension pot' in relation to Carbon Credits is something I've not heard of before. Perhaps it's one more factor to account for their bias in this respect. Can you elaborate more on it?

[scoobydont]

biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2010/02/fingers-in-pies.html
Check the linky, it's not the only one i've seen others that refer to the same thing. Most of the BBC's pension fund is tied up in a massive Carbon Exchange/Profit system. So telling the truth about 'global warming' will destroy their pension....
Coincidence?

[Teddy Bear]

Wow - truly impressive.
I think this story is so relevant and important that it deserves its own topic, so I will repost it with the fuller outline as detailed by Robin Horbury at Biased BBC Blog.

Many thanks for the pointer Scooby