Climate change sceptics will get less of a hearing on the BBC because they are at odds with the majority view among scientists, a report reveals.Can they possibly get less..?
The mind boggles.
The BBC Trust report, out today, is in part based on an independent review of the broadcaster’s coverage by Steve Jones, professor of genetics at University College London.What happened to that ‘impartiality’ the Beeb is supposed to display, then?
He is understood to find no evidence of bias in the corporation’s output, but suggests that on issues where there is a ‘scientific consensus’ – also including the MMR jab and genetically modified crops – there should be no need for the BBC to find opponents of the mainstream view.
And since an overwhelming majority would like to halt immigration and bring back the death penalty, does that mean the Beeb should reflect that in their broadcasting? Or is the hallowed ‘should never be criticised’ tag only applicable to scientists?
It seems it’s the latter:
Corporation sources admit climate change is unlike most other areas of science in the passions it arouses and the political debate that surrounds it.Well, a few hundred years ago, the consensus was that the earth was flat and ‘bad humours’ were responsible for many illnesses, so it’s not like that’s much to rely on, is it?
But a BBC insider close to the report said that when an issue had moved from ‘hypothesis’ to ‘consensus’, the broadcaster now needed to reflect that in the weight it gave to the different sides of the debate.
‘When they are minority views, the BBC is entitled to give them less weight rather than present it as “half the world thinks this and the half the world thinks that” ,’ the source said.Yes, clearly, the Beeb should never bring us any news on what people think. It should never, ever be allowed to colour their reporting.
Can we take away their public funding now?