BBC to launch review into allegations of bias in its science coverage
Eric Gisin
http://news.google.com/news/more?um=1&cf=all&ned=ca&cf=all&ncl=dELNXlSKYx6milMmqz0-DQwzUGXpM
Why doesn't Canada ever review the CBC's bias, which is even worse than BBC's?
UK during the ice age: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/8447023.stm
The BBC Trust is to launch an investigation into allegations of bias in its coverage of science.
By Urmee Khan, Digital and Media Correspondent
Published: 3:18PM GMT 06 Jan 2010
The BBC has been criticised for its reporting of science stories in recent months and it has been
accused of failing to cover the climate change debate objectively.
The Trust will carry out the review in the spring to assess the "accuracy and impartiality" of the
corporation's coverage of science.
The corporation's governing body said the review follows "heated debates" around topics like GM
crops, MMR and global warming.
The BBC came under fire in November, after a broadcaster admitted he knew about controversial
emails in which scientists discussed "spinning" climate data long before it reported on them.
Paul Hudson, a BBC weather presenter and climate change expert, said he was sent the leaked emails
from the University of East Anglia, indicating that researchers massaged figures to mask the fact
that world temperatures have been declining in recent years, a month before the story broke.
It raised questions about why the BBC did not report on the matter sooner, and it reignited the
debate over whether the corporation is biased on the issue of climate change.
Peter Sissons, the veteran newsreader, claimed last year that it was now "effectively BBC policy"
to stifle critics of the consensus view on global warming.
The review, which will be published in 2011, will assess science output relating to public policy
and "matters of political controversy".
The "science" label will include technology, medicine and environment coverage that "entails
scientific statements, research findings or other claims made by scientists". The review is
expected to consult scientists and experts in the field.
Richard Tait, a BBC trustee and chair of the Trust'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."
However, some critics have said the BBC Trust is not in a position to conduct the review as it is
regarded as being to close to the corporation.
Godfrey Bloom MEP said: "I would like to see a completely independent judicial review, the BBC
cannot be objective as it has consistently shown. It has blocked sceptics of a scientific view
point of climate change for years. No debate is allowed. It is biased in its reporting which is a
disgrace and nothing less than a fully independent review is good enough."
A BBC Trust spokeswoman said: "As set out in the BBC's Charter and Agreement, the Trust is the body
charged with ensuring that the BBC's coverage of any issue is duly impartial. This review, which
will be carried out independently on behalf of the Trust, will take an in-depth look at the BBC's
coverage of science, taking into account the views of relevant stakeholders, to make sure that the
coverage adheres to the high standards that audiences expect."
erschro...@gmail.com
> There are several articles on topic listed by google news, including one at BBC:http://news.google.com/news/more?um=1&cf=all&ned=ca&cf=all&ncl=dELNXl...
>
> Why doesn't Canada ever review the CBC's bias, which is even worse than BBC's?
> UK during the ice age:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/8447023.stm
>
>
> The BBC Trust is to launch an investigation into allegations of bias in its coverage of science.
>
> By Urmee Khan, Digital and Media Correspondent
> Published: 3:18PM GMT 06 Jan 2010
>
> The BBC has been criticised for its reporting of science stories in recent months and it has been
> accused of failing to cover the climate change debate objectively.
>
> The Trust will carry out the review in the spring to assess the "accuracy and impartiality" of the
> corporation's coverage of science.
>
> The corporation's governing body said the review follows "heated debates" around topics like GM
> crops, MMR and global warming.
>
> The BBC came under fire in November, after a broadcaster admitted he knew about controversial
> emails in which scientists discussed "spinning" climate data long before it reported on them.
>
> Paul Hudson, a BBC weather presenter and climate change expert, said he was sent the leaked emails
> from the University of East Anglia, indicating that researchers massaged figures to mask the fact
> that world temperatures have been declining in recent years, a month before the story broke.
>
> It raised questions about why the BBC did not report on the matter sooner, and it reignited the
> debate over whether the corporation is biased on the issue of climate change.
>
> Peter Sissons, the veteran newsreader, claimed last year that it was now "effectively BBC policy"
> to stifle critics of the consensus view on global warming.
>
> The review, which will be published in 2011, will assess science output relating to public policy
> and "matters of political controversy".
>
> The "science" label will include technology, medicine and environment coverage that "entails
> scientific statements, research findings or other claims made by scientists". The review is
> expected to consult scientists and experts in the field.
Leaves out the wacko kooky denialists then.
>
> Richard Tait, a BBC trustee and chair of the Trust'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."
>
> However, some critics have said the BBC Trust is not in a position to conduct the review as it is
> regarded as being to close to the corporation.
>
> Godfrey Bloom MEP said: "I would like to see a completely independent judicial review, the BBC
> cannot be objective as it has consistently shown. It has blocked sceptics of a scientific view
> point of climate change for years. No debate is allowed. It is biased in its reporting which is a
> disgrace and nothing less than a fully independent review is good enough."
Shocker! BBC did not do one single story on the idea that the earth
is just 6000 years old, or that it doesn't go around the sun!
Obviously biased!
Rich
@news.eternal-september.org:
>
>
>
Smug, tax-payer funded jerkoffs who basically say, if you don't like our
methods, so what? What they need is the kind of threat of suspension of
funding that PBS in the U.S. was faced with. THAT might ensure a little
impartiality. The liberal bastards at Canada's CBC need the same.
.
LOL! What a whining Jackass. Launching a review in no way implies
there is bias.
Yeah, your minority opinions that aren't supported by any peer
reviewed science must get the same exposure as legitimate science
accepted by 90% of the world's climate scientists, 100% of the world's
science academies, 80% of the worlds major corporations and almost all
but a few of the world's democratically elected governments (and even
China).
Grasping at straws as usual. The denialist standard.
Hilarious.
Chom Noamsky
> There are several articles on topic listed by google news, including one
> at BBC:
> http://news.google.com/news/more?um=1&cf=all&ned=ca&cf=all&ncl=dELNXlSKYx6milMmqz0-DQwzUGXpM
>
>
> Why doesn't Canada ever review the CBC's bias, which is even worse than
> BBC's?
Are you really taking issue with bias in the media or just the fact that
it isn't biased the right way? I've never heard you complain about the
heavy conservative bias of Fox News, an outfit that deliberately quotes
people out of context and manipulates video to make its political
enemies look like Shrek. They've been caught countless times doing this
shit yet I've never heard you say a peep. So I'd have to say your
motive for protest is because the BBC just doesn't have the right kind
of bias. Hey, we all like objectivity as long as it doesn't get in the
way of our biases.
JohnM
> On 1/7/2010 5:47 PM, Eric Gisin wrote:
>
> > There are several articles on topic listed by google news, including one
> > at BBC:
>
> > Why doesn't Canada ever review the CBC's bias, which is even worse than
> > BBC's?
>
> Are you really taking issue with bias in the media or just the fact that
> it isn't biased the right way? I've never heard you complain about the
> heavy conservative bias of Fox News, an outfit that deliberately quotes
> people out of context and manipulates video to make its political
> enemies look like Shrek. They've been caught countless times doing this
> shit yet I've never heard you say a peep. So I'd have to say your
> motive for protest is because the BBC just doesn't have the right kind
> of bias. Hey, we all like objectivity as long as it doesn't get in the
> way of our biases.
Very well put. Gisin is exactly that kind of pillock, as you can see
from his previous posts.
mrbawana2u
wrote:
> On 1/7/2010 5:47 PM, Eric Gisin wrote:
>
> > There are several articles on topic listed by google news, including one
> > at BBC:
>
> > Why doesn't Canada ever review the CBC's bias, which is even worse than
> > BBC's?
>
> Are you really taking issue with bias in the media or just the fact that
> it isn't biased the right way? I've never heard you complain about the
So, fucktard, you're dumb as a box of rocks. Check.