I’ll be honest and say that I’m deeply sceptical that this or any other submission will make much difference, but I admire their tenacity.
Andrew Montford ( Bishop Hill ) and Tony Newbery (Harmless Sky) have put in a submission to the BBC’s Review of Impartiality and Accuracy in their coverage of [Climate] Science. It’s a good read and summarizes very well some of the major areas of complaint about the BBC’s slanted reporting on environmentalism, scepticism and global warming.
In order to get to send the submission, they had to go through the usual Byzantine intrigue of working out just where to send it and to whom to address it.
Over the last several years, Tony N (Harmless Sky) and I have taken a great deal of interest in the BBC’s coverage of the climate debate, and this has involved a good deal of behind-the-scenes research. So we were obviously interested when the BBC Trust announced in early January this year that they were to conduct a review of the impartiality of their science coverage.
Our first reaction was to write to Professor Richard Tait, the trustee who was fronting this project, requesting that we should make a submission to the review and pointing out that the main critics of the BBC coverage of AGW were in the blogosphere. Not only were we unable to get a reply form Professor Tait, but we were unable even to get confirmation from the secretary of the Trust’s Editorial Standards Committee that he had been given the letter. This will be the subject of another post.
Fortunately, in April, I happened to spot a request for comments from the general public on an obscure BBC web page. He contacted Professor Steve Jones, the person commissioned by the BBC Trust to conduct the review, who proved to be rather more approachable than Professor Tait. It was quickly arranged that we should make a submission before the end of October. His report is due to be published in the Spring of 2011.
Anybody holding their breath? Me neither.