Is the BBC becoming the UK version of Fox News on global warming?

[steve2470]

Yes, that is the actual title of the Guardian article.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/feb/27/bbc-false-balance-fox-news-global-warming

False balance in media reporting on climate change is a big problem for one overarching reason: there is a huge gap between the 97 percent expert consensus on human-caused global warming, and the public perception that scientists are evenly divided on the subject.

This can undoubtedly be traced in large part to the media giving disproportionate coverage to the opposing fringe climate contrarian views. Research has shown that people who are unaware of the expert consensus are less likely to accept the science and less likely to support taking action to address the problem, so media false balance can be linked directly to our inability to solve the climate problem.

The BBC is one such culprit, having repeatedly given climate contrarians disproportionate air time on its programs. Frequent recent BBC guests include blogger Andrew Montford and politician and founder of the anti-climate policy think tank Global Warming Policy Foundation, Nigel Lawson. The former was recently interviewed on BBC Radio 5 Live's Stephen Nolan show, together with climate scientist Paul Williams from the University of Reading. The latter was invited onto the BBC Radio 4 Today program alongside climate scientist Brian Hoskins from the Imperial College London and Royal Society.

As climate experts, Williams and Hoskins were excellent choices to discuss the subjects at hand – climate science, models, and the link between climate change and the extreme weather causing flooding in the UK. On the other hand, Montford and Lawson are not climate scientists, nor even scientists of any sort. Williams and Hoskins are entirely capable of discussing the knowns and uncertainties in their areas of expertise, which calls into question the BBC's motives for inviting non-scientist climate contrarians onto the shows alongside these experts.

[T_i_B]

1. The trouble is....

.....climate science is considered a "political" issue by some on the right, and as such there is therefore a risk that the BBC will have to give airtime to charlatans in order to appear politically neutral.

The trouble is, climate change deniers are the sort of people who loathe the BBC for being state owned and will attack it for being biased against the right wing whatever they say or do.

At the last general election, I sent of a e-mail (courtesy of 38 degrees) to candidates from all 4 main parties asking them to protect the BBC. I did this in order to test the water and try and discover which of the candidates in my constituency might actually take the time to reply and even have reasonable views. The only reply was a bizarre rant from UKIP central office accusing the BBC of being biased for not accepting climate change denial as proper science. That is the sort of idiocy the BBC is up against on this subject.

[dipsydoodle]

2. aside from which

its no so much a matter of whether or not the public here agree with the concept of climate change : its whether or not they really give a shit.

[muriel_volestrangler]

3. Fox claims 'balance', but is permanently biased to the right

What the BBC is doing is what a lot of other American media do - say that "both sides must be represented", even when the science is on one side. The article actually gives examples of CNN and USA Today doing this, and no examples of Fox (because they don't give climate scientists a chance to speak), but The Guardian would get so many clicks with "Is the BBC becoming the UK version of CNN on global warming?".

[steve2470]

4. I think their title was a tad inflammatory

Is the BBC required by its charter to be "balanced" ? I don't envy the reputable media at all. When they present the facts (with its notorious liberal bias), the right wing screams liberal media. For the record, I've always held the BBC in high esteem. I was surprised with this article and wanted feedback.

[muriel_volestrangler]

5. Yes, it is required to be politically balanced

though that shouldn't mean they have to give time to viewpoints opposing accepted science. The pressure to give time to climate change deniers doesn't come from leading politicians - some Conservatives are skeptical, or full-blown deniers, but not really at cabinet level (nothing like the US situation, certainly). It comes more from parts of the RW press (the Mail, and the Telegraph, in particular) who spend a lot of time attacking the BBC (they are a competitor), on climate change and other subjects. UKIP, the upcoming right wing party, is pretty strong on climate change denial, but I don't think they are at the point yet where they can influence the time on the BBC much.

BBC News does like debates and arguments, however, and I suspect they often think it's good to have opposing views discussing news, and so they carry on doing that even if they have to go to the fringe to find someone. Science programmes are more likely to ignore the deniers.