At Last: BBC Told To Ensure Balance On Climate Change
The Daily Telegraph, 13 October 2010
by Neil Midgley
Climate change sceptics are likely to be given greater prominence in BBC documentaries and news bulletins following new editorial guidelines that call for impartiality in the corporation’s science coverage.
The BBC has been repeatedly accused of bias in its reporting of climate change issues.
Last year one of its reporters, Paul Hudson, was criticised for not reporting on some of the highly controversial “Climategate” leaked emails from the University of East Anglia, even though he had been in possession of them for some time.
Climate change sceptics have also accused the BBC of not properly reporting “Glaciergate”, when a study from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) saying that glaciers would melt by 2035 was discredited.
But the BBC’s new editorial guidelines, published yesterday after an extensive consultation that considered over 1,600 submissions by members of the public, say expressly for the first time that scientific issues fall within the corporation’s obligation to be impartial.
“The BBC must be inclusive, consider the broad perspective, and ensure that the existence of a range of views is appropriately reflected,” said BBC trustee Alison Hastings.
“In addition the new guideline extends the definition of ‘controversial’ subjects beyond those of public policy and political or industrial controversy to include controversy within religion, science, finance, culture, ethics and other matters.”
However James Delingpole, a prominent climate change sceptic, yesterday said that he predicted little movement in the BBC’s environmental stories.
“It’s highly unlikely that they’ll be more balanced in their coverage,” he said.
“It’s a whole cultural thing at the BBC – that people who don’t believe are just ‘flat earthers’. Whenever they invite dissenters like me on to debates, they surround us with ‘warmists’. On Any Questions, for example, Jonathan Dimbleby does his best to be impartial, but this is a man with a wind turbine in his garden.”
In 2007, a BBC Trust report called Safeguarding Impartiality in the 21st Century said: “Climate change is another subject where dissenters can be unpopular … The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts, and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus. But these dissenters (or even sceptics) will still be heard, as they should, because it is not the BBC’s role to close down this debate.”
The BBC Trust is also currently conducting a separate review into impartiality in the corporation’s science coverage, led by Professor Steve Jones from University College London, which will report in the spring of next year.
Professor Jones has been asked to consider whether the BBC’s output “gives appropriate weight to scientific conclusions including different theories and due weight to the views expressed by those sceptical about the science and how it was conducted or evaluated.”
BBC=Coast to Coast AM
Art Bell is an AGW believer as well.
As for the poor UK public forced to pay for the BBC…. here is how their licensing arm operates: http://www.bbctvlicence.com/
Will this grand gesture change anything? Nope.
>>On Any Questions, for example, Jonathan Dimbleby does his best to
>>be impartial, but this is a man with a wind turbine in his garden.”
I did suggest to Dimbleby that if he really wanted to demonstrate his Green credentials, he should disconnect himself from the grid and only use wind power. And he clearly demonstrated his true colours, by refusing to do so.
Typical holier-than-thou, aristocratic Greens — hypocrites….
This is also the man who aggressively supported mass immigration into the UK, but when they applied to build more houses in his quaint little village, to house these extra people, he aggressively opposed the application.
Typical holier-than-thou, aristocratic Liberals — hypocrites….
.
And here is a typical piece of BBC propaganda, that still has no ‘balance’. Apparently, the biggest problem with wind turbines, is that they might spoil the view….
http://www.bbc.co.uk/climate/adaptation/wind_power.shtml
So no fears, then, about the turbines being stationary for four full weeks during a cold anticyclonic winter, and half the population dying.
That’s BBC balance for you.
Don’t ‘cha love these ‘off-the-planet’ liberals.
.
Dave Andrews says:
October 14, 2010 at 1:34 pm
Paul Deacon,
It’s not that simple. If you watch any broadcast by any broadcaster on any medium (TV,satellite, digital box, computer or mobile phone) as it is actually being broadcast you have to have a licence.
Doesn’t matter if you never watch BBC at all.
****************************************
OK, please excuse my ignorance, the law must have changed since I lived in the UK. It used to be the case that you had to be found watching BBC itself in order to be accused of evasion. That was all before satellite, cable and broadband internet, of course. It used to be a genuine license fee, way back when they even set different levels of fee for black and white and colour TVs. Now it just sounds more like a straight tax (something close to a household rate or poll tax in practice). Fairly neat, really, Orwell would be proud. Tax people to watch TV, then use the money to control the propaganda that you broadcast to them. Use this public money to support the incumbent government, political parties and corporate interests that are close to it and to you. Increase the value of your pension fund at the same time. Hard to improve on that model if you are a beneficiary of it, and either genuinely believe in it, or are morally/politically blind (or have no scruples).
All the best.
>>>Government should NEVER be in the business of funding journalism.
Technically, they don’t.
The government enacts a bill that says everyone must pay for the BBC, and is then supposed to stand back and allow the BBC to be completely independent. The BBC is not funded through government expenditure.
Unfortunately, it does not always work like that. The last government thought that Auntie** was being too critical of the new government. So they mused for many months about cutting the licence fee (the BBC budget) by about 20%. Suddenly, Auntie began a love-in with the new government.
Funny, that.
** Auntie = the BBC.
Peter Miller says:
October 14, 2010 at 1:23 pm
“Having said that, it is still one one of the most professional and least biased news organisations when it comes to reporting facts.”
How would they be able to tell a fact from fiction if they are uncapable of doing this for the “CO2 is warming the planet” hypothesis. Two possible answers:
-They are not.
-They know that their reporting about the AGW hypothesis is untruthful; but on every other fact they apply their skillful journalistic truth-finding capabilities.
Personally, i go with the first hypothesis. I think it’s pretty plausible; Der Spiegel operates on a similar basis (a guilty pleasure of mine is comparing Der Spiegel’s reporting about economics with Financial Times or the likes. Endless hilarity.)
Bureaucratic Bull#### Channel… and you have to pay.
Interesting business model.
George Orwell was a true prophet.
So I would guess this would allow the hoax to be thrown out.
Listening to BBC radio 4, every other programme has a reference to Climate Change or Carbon Footprints as an aside, the truth of which is to be taken for granted. It’s dyed into the fabric. I don’t think they know they’re doing it.
This may lead to some superficial changes, but I expect them to continue beating the CAGW drum.
Imagine a major news organization getting a “mandate” to abandon biased reporting. The next thing you know they will be cleared to tell the truth. I don’t like where this world is heading.
What most people don’t seem to understand is that the BBC thinks that what it is doing is balanced reporting. They truly believe all this nonsense.
Remember, when they seek new appointments 75% of their adverising is in one newspaper only – The Grauniad. And as for Dimbleby’s program, might as well call it the world according to Polly.
BBC? Perleese
The BBC, as Dixon of Dock Green might say, has ‘form’.
Am I the only person who remembers the: endless flu pandemic scare stories, the tacit approval of MMR vaccination scare stories. The new variant CJD (mad cow disease) scare stories. Global terror threat scare stories, Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq? (for which they fired their star reporter, Gilligan when he uncovered Blair’s Dodgy Dossier). They’re still towing the line on Afghanistan despite the growing sense of humiliation and waste felt by British forces there.
Oh and on the other side of the equation, what about that New Economic Paradigm, the endless economic growth, smugly applauding the rise in property prices, the booming fiancial services industry….soaring stock market etc etc?
Let’s be realistic the British Government of the day protects the BBC by maintaining its Charter, and the BBC backs the government through self interest.
Factor in a quivering middle class with little or no scientific education that quite enjoy a frisson of fear over their morning coffee and there you have it… a perfect seed bed for ill founded ideas to take hold.
As has been pointed out above the BBC hierarchy: broadcasters, management and financial management has nailed its colours to the mast. So I wouldn’t hold my breath wating for the wind of change.
However the mere concession that there ‘might’ be another side to the AGW story is progress and on some level (however informal) it must have been sanctioned by the Establishment.
Let’s end on a note of praise. I greatly admire BBC nature programmes, especially when they make no reference to climate change!
To be quite frank, I’m sick and tired of sending complaints to the BBC over clear and blatant bias and then having a “Dear Mr we have listened to your complaint … but it is totally groundless”
And to be honest, the BBC have vastly improved recently, to the extent that I recently realised I hadn’t sent in a complaint for over a month … but that is more because they’ve given up adding to every news story the cheap filler … “and this is yet further proof of global warming”!
Here are the origins of the unbalanced climate reporting.
It is a long document so you will have to click “Edit” then “Find” (climate)
BBC Trust “From Seesaw To Wagon Wheel”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/review_report_research/impartiality_21century/report.txt
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/review_report_research/impartiality_21century/report.pdf
Why balance in science coverage only?
Snow in Inverness Scottland, Oct. 20-21st.
Beginning of a new season of GoreBull warming!
So we will be seeing Richard Lindzen, John Christy, and Lord Monckton on the BBC?
As Simon Hopkinson says above, this was a false account circulating due to a misunderstanding of comments Hudson made in his blog. Hudson did not say that he had been in possession of the emails prior to the announcement on Air Vent etc. Rather, Hudson should be celebrated for his earlier article (Was it: Is the world warming up?) which broke the pattern on this issue at the BBC.
Simon Hopkinson –
paul hudson did not receive a single email. he called it a “chain of e-mails” which were “forwarded” to him on Oct 12 and he did not mention them in his posts on 12 Oct, 16 Oct, 19 Oct, 6 Nov, 13 Nov, and 19 Nov.
finally, on 23 Nov, after Climategate broke, he mentioned them and authenticated them, the first to do so:
23 Nov 2009: BBC: Paul Hudson: ‘Climategate’ – CRU hacked into and its implications
I was forwarded the chain of e-mails on the 12th October, which are comments from some of the worlds leading climate scientists written as a direct result of my article ‘whatever happened to global warming’. The e-mails released on the internet as a result of CRU being hacked into are identical to the ones I was forwarded and read at the time and so, as far as l can see, they are authentic.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2009/11/climategate-cru-hacked-into-an.shtml
in march this year, there was an update, which has a number of inconsistencies, such as the BBC spokesman, simon hailes, saying hudson spotted these emails from the climategate emails in “early november” which is incorrect. hailes also mentions the emails were ‘forwarded’ but not by whom. there has never been any suggestion Mann and Schneider emailed Hudson directly, so this matter should be cleared up:
March 2010: Australian: BBC defends journalist Paul Hudson over climate email claims by ABC chairman Maurice Newman
THE BBC says ABC chairman Maurice Newman was wrong to criticise BBC climate journalist Paul Hudson, who Mr Newman alleged sat on emails related to the so-called Climategate affair…
(BBC spokesman Simon Hailes )Mr Hailes responded: “Paul wrote a blog for the BBC website on 9th October 2009 entitled `Whatever Happened to Global Warming’. There was a big reaction to the article – not just here but around the world.
“Amongst those who responded were (climate change scientists) Professor Michael E. Mann and Stephen Schneider whose emails were among a small handful forwarded to Paul on October 12th…
“Although of interest, Paul wanted to consider the emails as part of a wider piece, following up his original blog piece.
“In early November Paul spotted that these few emails were among thousands published on the internet following the alleged hacking of the UEA computer system. Paul passed this information onto colleagues at the BBC, who ran with the story, and then linked to the emails on his blog.”…
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/bbc-defends-journalist-paul-hudson-over-climate-email-claims-by-abc-chairman-maurice-newman/story-e6frg996-1225839965257
BBC in March were keeping to the script they developed last November, when Hudson was prevented from speaking with his local newspaper, where he was well known:
27 Nov 2009: BBC weatherman in global warming row
A BBC Look North weatherman has become embroiled in a national global warming row…
When contacted by the Mail, the weatherman said he was not allowed to comment and asked us to speak to the BBC press office…
A BBC spokesperson said: “Paul wrote a blog for the BBC website on October 9 entitled Whatever Happened To Global Warming. There was a big reaction to the article – not just here but around the world. Among those who responded were Professor Michael E Mann and Stephen Schneider whose e-mails were among a small handful forwarded to Paul on October 12.
“Although of interest, Paul wanted to consider the e-mails as part of a wider piece, following up his original blog piece…
http://www.thisishullandeastriding.co.uk/news/BBC-weatherman-global-warming-row/article-1553969-detail/article.html
as the BBC is funded by the public via a licence fee, all relevant information should be made public and it makes no sense to me why people would want to downplay Hudson’s role. after all:
“BBC: Paul Hudson – about this blog
I’ve been interested in the weather and climate for as long as I can remember, and worked as a forecaster with the Met Office for more than ten years locally and at the international unit before joining the BBC in October 2007.”
hudson undoubtedly knows some of the CRU people, and the Met Office people, and he undoubtedly has more to say, if allowed.
“Dave Andrews says:
October 14, 2010 at 1:34 pm
Paul Deacon,
It’s not that simple. If you watch any broadcast by any broadcaster on any medium (TV,satellite, digital box, computer or mobile phone) as it is actually being broadcast you have to have a licence.
Doesn’t matter if you never watch BBC at all.”
Unless the law changed, you need a license if you have a mains powered radio. As most households have (Clock radio etc), then yes, having no license is evasion. I am not sure these days, but in the 1970’s, during the threats of the coming iceage and power strikes, TV detector vans used to parade streets checking that, if the TV was on in the house, a check was made to see if you had a license. No license = 1000 GBP fine, or even inprisonment. There were even nasty draconian adverts on all channels about the vans.
Interestingly though up to about 1996 in New Zealand, there was a TV tax to which the Govn’t agreed was a tax, which attracted the GST. I believe a group of people successfully won a case against the Govn’t because a tax on a tax is illegal in NZ. Now there is no TV license required.
But I agree with everyone here, there will not be any balance in the AGW “debate” at the BBC.
Johnny Ball was on the Breakfast couch this morning. Fingers crossed for David Bellamy next week!
Cold Englishman says:
October 14, 2010 at 3:34 pm
What most people don’t seem to understand is that the BBC thinks that what it is doing is balanced reporting. They truly believe all this nonsense.
Remember, when they seek new appointments 75% of their adverising is in one newspaper only – The Grauniad. And as for Dimbleby’s program, might as well call it the world according to Polly.
*************************
The figure is 86%, IIRC (discovered by an individual through a FOI request, figures are for the year 2006 IIRC).
During the Blair/Brown era, the Grauniad was heavily reliant on government job advertisement revenue (HR adverts are very expensive, I recall a figure of GBP70,000 for a full page advertisement in the Sunday Times). I understand the current government has decided to withdraw job adverts from the Grauniad. There is no need for this anyway nowadays, government job adverts should be online. To put them in newspapers is pure political patronage. ‘Nuff said.
All the best.
Patrick Davis says:
October 14, 2010 at 11:05 pm
“Dave Andrews says:
October 14, 2010 at 1:34 pm
Interestingly though up to about 1996 in New Zealand, there was a TV tax to which the Govn’t agreed was a tax, which attracted the GST. I believe a group of people successfully won a case against the Govn’t because a tax on a tax is illegal in NZ. Now there is no TV license required.
****************************
I don’t know about that case, it’s before my time in NZ. But I am not sure there is anything in principle wrong with tax on tax in NZ. For example, my local government rates (a relatively straightforward tax) are subject to GST (goods and services tax = VAT).
All the best.
[SNIP – violation of site policy – wtf@fu.com is not a valid email address. the fu.com domain is in Arlington, VA and your comment originates at The University of Reading, UK., until you use a valid email address, all of your comments will be discarded – Anthony]