Fraudulent idea of media ‘balance’ promotes anti science

 

media-balance-ABC-1Complaints focused on the World at One programme on Radio 4 on Friday, which featured the Australian sceptic Bob Carter. A retired geologist, he leads a group called the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, and is funded by US libertarians. His words also dominated several subsequent news bulletins.

 

Earlier in the day, the Today programme had said it could not find any British climate scientists who disagreed with the IPCC’s core findings.

 

The biologist Steve Jones, who reviewed the BBC’s science output in 2011, told the Guardian he was concerned that the BBC was still wedded to an idea of “false balance” in presenting climate sceptics alongside reputable scientists.

 

“Science turns on evidence. Balance in science is not the same as balance in politics where politicians can have a voice however barmy their ideas are. 

 

a stunning display of false balance when it devoted less airtime to IPCC scientists than it did to Bob Carter, a sceptic who is funded by a free-market lobby group in the US, the Heartland Institute. Carter was allowed to make a number of inaccurate and misleading statements unchallenged.”

 

BBC coverage of IPCC climate report criticised for sceptics’ airtime http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/oct/01/bbc-coverage-climate-report-ipcc-sceptics Steve Jones among experts querying BBC ‘false balance’ in giving climate sceptics ‘undue’ voice on global warming study , environment correspondent The Guardian, Wednesday 2 October 2013  Steve Jones said he previously advised the BBC not to present climate-change sceptics as having equal scientific weight with mainstream researchers.  The BBC has been criticised for its coverage of the most comprehensive scientific study on global warming yet published. Prominent climate experts have accused the corporation of bias towards “climate sceptics” at the expense of mainstream scientists.

 

According to John Ashton, formerly the top climate-change official at the Foreign Office, the BBC’s coverage of last week’s report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was “a betrayal of the editorial professionalism on which the BBC’s reputation has been built over generations”.

 

Writing in the Guardian on Wednesday, he says the BBC had given “the appearance of scientific authority to those with no supporting credentials”. He questions why a senior corporation figure had long meetings about climate change with Nigel Lawson and Peter Lilley, both prominent UK sceptics. His criticism was echoed by other green campaigners, and academics.

 

Steve Jones, the scientist who was asked by the BBC two years ago to assess its science coverage, accused a senior official there of misrepresenting him in a parliamentary committee and of failing to take on board one of his key findings regarding false balance in the reporting of science.

 

On Friday the IPCC, which represents the world’s leading climate scientists, produced a landmark report on the state of knowledge of global warming. The IPCC said it was unequivocal that warming was occurring and that the dominant force behind it was human activity, particularly the burning of fossil fuels.

 

The report, the first from the UN-convened body since 2007, and only the fifth since 1988, was the starkest warning yet of the dangers of climate change.

 

But in the BBC’s coverage of the report’s release in Stockholm, which was attended by several BBC science journalists, the voice of climate-change sceptics, who do not accept the IPCC’s core findings, got considerable airtime.

 

Complaints focused on the World at One programme on Radio 4 on Friday, which featured the Australian sceptic Bob Carter. A retired geologist, he leads a group called the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, and is funded by US libertarians. His words also dominated several subsequent news bulletins.

 

Earlier in the day, the Today programme had said it could not find any British climate scientists who disagreed with the IPCC’s core findings.

 

Ashton, who has been trenchant in his criticism of government on climate change since leaving the civil service, said: “The BBC should now explain how its decision to give a platform to Carter serves the public interest. Otherwise, it will be undermining its friends when it needs them most and throwing the scavengers a piece of its own flesh.”

 

The biologist Steve Jones, who reviewed the BBC’s science output in 2011, told the Guardian he was concerned that the BBC was still wedded to an idea of “false balance” in presenting climate sceptics alongside reputable scientists.

 

He said: “This goes to the heart of science reporting – you wouldn’t have a homeopath speaking alongside a brain surgeon for balance, as that would be absurd. It’s just as absurd to have a climate sceptic for balance against the work of the overwhelming majority of climate scientists.”

 

The BBC said in 2012 it moved quickly to put many of Jones’ recommendations on science reporting into effect, including the appointment of a science editor for the whole of the corporation’s output.

 

But earlier this year in a select committee hearing David Jordan, head of editorial standards, told MPs that the broadcaster had decided not to follow Jones’ key recommendations on climate change: “[Jones] made one recommendation that we did not take on board. He said we should regard climate science as settled … we should not hear from dissenting voices on the science.”

 

Jones told the Guardian that this was misquoting him; rather, he had recommended to the BBC not to show “false balance” by presenting climate sceptics as having equal scientific weight as mainstream climate researchers.

 

He said: “Science turns on evidence. Balance in science is not the same as balance in politics where politicians can have a voice however barmy their ideas are. They’re not taking this on board. Why, I don’t know.”

Continue reading

Climate change denial is as easy as ABC but not the BBC?

Posted by in Environment, IA Journal, Investigations, Media, Science on 25 April, 2012

Supporting videos on link..

http://www.independentaustralia.net/2012/business/media-2/climate-change-denial-is-as-easy-as-abc/
he ABC’s approach to reporting on climate change is motivated more by politics than science, says environment editor Sandi Keane — who compares its coverage to that of the BBC.

The ABC’s approach to reporting on climate change is motivated more by politics than science, says environment editor Sandi Keane — who compares its coverage to that of the BBC.

In recent years, the gulf between Coalition and Labor voters on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) has widened. Annual surveys by Australia’s peak science body, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) show a dramatic shift since politics overtook science in determining conservative attitudes on climate science.   

When did the right relinquish its stewardship of the natural world to cast doubt on environmental problems? According to Sharon Beder, the answer lies in environmental regulations. Environmentalism is increasingly seen by neo-liberals as the ‘slippery slope to communism’, threatening free markets with costly regulations and ‘green tape’.

It was the father of the Liberal Party, Sir Robert Menzies, who established the CSIRO. But instead of knowledge and facts being the traditional realm of scientists such as the CSIRO, unqualified sceptics have grabbed the limelight.

The Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) and the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) are in accord that ‘AGW is real’. New editorial guidelines for both emphasize two imperatives: the need to ‘distinguish fact from opinion’ and to give ‘weight’ to the ‘body of evidence’.

In this article, the delivery of these ‘imperatives’ by both public broadcasters in the reporting of climate science is juxtaposed against a third — the political imperative.

If editorial policy is subordinated to political balance, it renders science reporting hostage to the prevailing views of any government or opposition. Forcing audiences to view scientific facts through a political prism could compromise the integrity of the facts.

When the BBC commissioned Professor Steven Jones’ review of impartiality in science coverage, Jones emphasized the need to avoid ‘false balance’ (Jones’ term) and to clarify the difference between ‘fact and opinion’.

Another BBC high-level seminar concluded that

“…the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus”.

‘Impartiality’ specialist on BBC’s editorial team, Philip Abrams, explained:

One of the tests the BBC uses for deciding whether a topic is a ‘controversial subject’ is to look at the distinction between matters grounded in fact and those which are a matter of opinion”.

[Read the full BBC editorial guidelines by clicking here.]

Continue reading

BBC – Horizon – Fall-Out From Chernobyl – (1996)

DocumentaryVids2

After the Chernobyl accident, the increase in thyroid cancers in young children increased. The link to radiation was denied by the nuclear community ten years after the accident as the Japanese thyroid cancers started 20 years after the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs.

Today the UK thyroid Association and the Chernobyl Tissue Bank located at Imperial University College London, have denied that the huge increase in Thyroid cancers can be from radiation effects from the Fukushima nuclear disaster as the first thyroid cancers did not become apparent in Belarus until 5 Years.

I post this mostly nuclear lobby biased video here for you to see the same arguments are used today in Japan by the same people such as Prof Balanov. (Who has starred in many BBC nuclear biased documentaries.).

Meet Fiona Fox from the Science Media Centre UK and now Global

“The fragrant Fiona Fox of the alarmist Science Media Centre here warns on the BBC College of Journalism site that much of the reporting of Fukushima has been overblown” 
Robin Horbury |

Fiona Fox


Director of the Science Media Centre

“Good science is governed by a whole set of rules and processes, that make it harder to bullshit in science than in any other area of public life

“I would like the world to know that good science is governed by a whole set of rules and processes, that make it harder to bullshit in science than in any other area of public life, and most scientists are driven by a genuine desire to find the truth.”

http://www.spiked-online.com/articles/0000000CAA22.htm

Discuss

BBC Science coverage queried

  • MaryMartin on Sunday, 25th April 2010

    BBC Science coverage is queried by Raymond Snoddy on Newswatch. view it here: www.bbc.co.uk/iplaye…

    See particularly the interview with Fiona Fox director of the Science Media Centre and then read this spinprofiles.org/ind…

    Despite having no previous background in science or science communication, Fox has been afforded, since her appointment in December 2001, the status of expert. She has, for example, been included in a working party on peer review set up by Sense About Science, and in a steering group on improving communication over science policy and risk set up by the Office of Science and Technology. In 2003 Fox delivered a lecture at Green College, Oxford, on the challenge of adapting science to the mass media…..

    Read on. The lady has form in espousing certain causes uncritically, including the IRA and the Rwandan genocide. Hardly surprising, then, that she thinks “sceptical” science undeserving of parity of coverage on the BBC. Wiki states:

    Fiona Fox “studied journalism at the Polytechnic of Central London.. (and) started her career at Thames Polytechnic as an assistant PR officer. From there she worked for six years at the Equal Opportunities Commission where she became a senior press officer, followed by two years running the media operation at the National Council for One Parent Families. A total change of environment followed as Fiona became Head of Media at CAFOD, where she founded the Jubilee 2000 press group, which aimed to push serious Third World issues onto the media and political agendas. In December 2001, Fiona was appointed the founding Director of the Science Media Centre, based at the Royal Institution of Great Britain in London, UK. She is married to political commentator and teacher Kevin Rooney.”

    She is a perfect example of what the snoddy programme is all about – politically motivated journalists pretending to be objective and seizing the commanding heights” of the media.
    Thanks to Peter on Bishop Hill bishophill.squarespa… for this apercu.

    As with any pretension of objectivity on the BBC, who chose HER to speak on behalf of this topic? Maybe another, dissenting, voice was deemed not necessary on this occasion … ‘as you don’t always need folk to understand there is another view’. But good she thinks Messrs Black and Harrabin are tops.

  • Message 2. Posted by Kiteman on Sunday, 25th April 2010 permalink

    Hardly surprising, then, that she thinks “sceptical” science undeserving of parity of coverage on the BBC.

    Pardon my confusion, but does that mean she is more likely to promote or produce programmes about, say, astrology as if they were hard or valid scientific disciplines?

    Or does it simply mean she will be overseeing a continued dumbing-down of what BBC science already does?

  • Message 3. Posted by StuartG on Sunday, 25th April 2010 permalink

    Sun, 25 Apr 2010 20:24 GMT, in reply to MaryMartin
    Mary
    I was happy watching that piece, until it reached 05.48, says it all….
    ‘I’ve just chaired a report for the Science Minister, Lord Drayson’
    It’s the ‘scientist/politician interface’ [I have mentioned this before]

    “In 1993 he co-founded PowderJect Pharmaceuticals plc in Oxford which specialised in the production of vaccines,”

  • Continue reading

BBC World Service and US State Department: new partners, new bias? Lots of lies!

Uploaded on 23 Mar 2011

http://www.ukipmeps.org/
Gerard Batten MEP, UKIP (London), 23.03.2011

BBC World Service and US State Department: new partners, new bias?

One of the best-known broadcasters, the BBC World Service, has applied for a grant from the US State Department. The company says it needs the funding to develop anti-jamming technology, but some fear the US might use the deal to promote its agenda.

Viewers of the BBC World Service might be surprised to learn that starting in May, the news they receive could be influenced by the US.

“The cuts in the BBC budget are so draconian that they are looking for money any place they can get it and I am sure the State Department was aware of this,” said Brian Drolet from Deepdish television. “I think what you can interpret from this is that the United States feels comfortable with the political line and the interpretation of world events that are coming from the BBC.”

The World Service says it will use the money to prevent its programs from being blocked in countries like Iran and China.[See below] But there is concern that cash from the US government will come with strings attached.

“The minute you actually start taking the money, there is bound to be a certain element of ‘he who pays the piper calls the tune’,” said director of Institute of Economic Affairs Mark Littlewood. “It is a strange arrangement, and I would worry that the more complicated we make the BBC World Service, the less pure its message can be.”

This will not be the first time the BBC has accepted money from organisations with their own agendas. In 2008, the corporation faced accusations of pro-Europe bias after it was revealed it had taken out US$230 million in loans from the EU. The loans were given by the European Investment Bank, which strives to promote EU policies.

Member of European Parliament Gerard Batten has a long-running beef with the BBC.

“It is institutionally politically biased, certainly in favour of things like the European Union, mass immigration, and a whole other host of ‘politically correct’ ideas that I think it peddles to the public,” he told RT.

Batten says taking this money would expose hypocrisy at the heart of the BBC.

“The EU bans sponsorship of any news and current affairs TV programs across the EU,” Batten said. “Now that would appear then, that if the US State Department is going to fund BBC that would appear to be in breach of the directive.”

The deal with the US State Department will be formally announced on International Press Freedom Day at the beginning of May, something its skeptics are sure to find deeply ironic.

It is the worldwide reach of the BBC that has made the US State Department decide it is worth the investment. However, that brings into question what the World Service is. Is it a news broadcaster for countries that do not have reliable sources of news? Or is it now a propaganda tool for both US and UK foreign and defence policy?

http://rt.com/news/bbc-us-state-depar…

Highlighted section from article

The World Service says it will use the money to prevent its programs from being blocked in countries like Iran and China.”

This statement is odd considering this new revelation

“Natural history programming has been growing in popularity in China, partly due to BBC and CCTV’s strong relationship in China,” said Pierre Cheung, VP and GM of BBC Worldwide, Greater China.  “We’ve been providing increasingly amounts of natural history and factual programmes to our trusted partner, and this deal gives Chinese viewers even more access to award-winning quality natural history programming from the BBC’s Natural History Unit, as well as access to top quality programmes from our other genres.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/worldwide/210813cctv.html

BBC Worldwide signs deal to launch CBeebies programming block to BesTV New Media in China
Date: 11.06.2013Last updated: 11.06.2013 at 10.19
Category: BBC Worldwide
CBeebies content be seen on multi-screens across China
Click to tweet: BBC Worldwide signs deal to launch #CBeebies programming block to BesTV New Media in #China http://bbc.in/167xHCd via @BBCWpress
BBC Worldwide today announced a deal with BesTV, China’s largest new media company, to launch a CBeebies branded block on their multi screen platform.

The BBC Exposed… Pedophiles, Propaganda and the Patriotic Pushback

VexedCelt80

Published on 11 Jan 2013

original upload by corbett report 11th jan 2013
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYPUC6…

Documentation

Democracy Now coverage-Jimmy Savile scandal Time Reference: 01:20
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/11/1…

The Royal Charter of the BBC Time Reference: 03:50
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/governa…

Press TV coverage of the Jimmy Savile scandal Time Reference: 04:07
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTgLs…

BBC Bombast– Propaganda, Complaints& Black Holes of Silence Time Reference: 08:01
http://www.medialens.org/index.php?op…

George Orwell:Battling Big Brother Time Reference: 12:18
http://books.google.co.jp/books?id=HP…

BBC Scrubs Video Of US Backed Syria Rebels Committing War CrimesTime Ref: 14:57
http://www.globalresearch.ca/bbc-scru…

Continue reading

” BBC Promotes Eugenics and will Continue to Do So” during the Paralympics 2012

Screenshot from 2013-10-01 05:49:01

MrLotineGuy

Published on 1 Sep 2012

It is truly shocking that the BBC chose to use the occasion of the Paralympics to promote an agenda of eugenics. A few years ago, people would not have believed that this would be possible, but nowadays anything is possible. America and Britain seem to be leading the world into tyranny and one cannot help wonder where it will all end.