In Soviet Russia, there is no dissent. Everybody agree.
THE BBC was criticised by climate change sceptics yesterday after it emerged that their views will get less coverage because they differ from mainline scientific opinion.
In a report by its governing body, the BBC Trust, the corporation was urged to focus less on opponents of the “majority consensus” in its programmes.
It said coverage should not be tailored to represent a “false balance” of opinion if one side came from a minority group.
The report was partly based on an independent review of coverage by Steve Jones, Professor of Genetics at University College, London.Although he found no evidence of bias in BBC output, he suggested where there is a “scientific consensus” it should not hunt out opponents purely to balance the story.
He highlighted climate change as an example along with the controversy over the Measles, Mumps and Rubella vaccine potentially leading to autism.
On climate change, Professor Jones said there had been a “drizzle of criticism of BBC coverage” arising from “a handful of journalists who have taken it upon themselves to keep disbelief alive”.
Rather ironic that the BBC has been lambasted for years for being pro AGW!
If true I think this is rather sad, if you look at Horizon they put both sides of any science argument across and be neutral and let the viewer decide. Now it seems they will be handicapped before they even start. Let’s not forget that continental drift was regarded as crank science for a lot of years and landbridges were all the rage.
I think the BBC should learn from Steve’s blog, there are a few dissenting voices ( I refuse to name names 😀 ) but he lets them post up without censorship even though they get a bit uppity at times at the back of the class ….
Steve’s Blog 1 BBC 0
Andy
“…the Ministry of Truth derives from the BBC’s overseas service, controlled by the Ministry of Information; Room 101 derives from a conference room at BBC Broadcasting House;…”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four
AndyW, since about 5 or 6 years the BBC STOPPED publishing a counter view in their articles when climate science was involved; after futerra schooled them. I didn’t know about the futerra manifesto at that time yet i noticed something missing. They are WAAAY beyond the pale already and no more a news organisation i trust. I only read them now to hear what the warmists want us to think.
They used to be much better than the German media but no more; perished like the Empire.
I agree. The BBC is now just relentless, incredible propaganda. NOTHING more.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
Keep up the pressure. They have to explain the real world.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14219508
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/correspondents/richardblack/
A better page
“…a “false balance” of opinion if one side came from a minority group….”
That ‘too much balance given to skeptic scientists’ mantra point is one of three that all have every appearance of being consolidated at a US enviro-activist group 15 years ago, as I mention in my various online articles, including “Warmist Mantra Wearing Out” http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/05/warmist_mantra_wearing_out.html and ” ‘Media Too Fair to Climate Skeptics’, say reporters who’ve been unfair to skeptics” http://www.globalwarming.org/2011/06/02/media-too-fair-to-climate-skeptics-say-reporters-whove-been-unfair-to-skeptics/
It is a very clever tactic if you really stop and think about it. Any newer reporter on the scene will see such criticism of those kinds of skeptics and will say to himself, “I’m not going to be the kind of reporter who muddies an issue as important as global warming by giving equal time to a couple of outliers who are funded by fossil fuel industries.”
By default, no attempt is made to confirm the existence of an overwhelming scientific consensus or if there is merely a ‘handful’ of skeptics, or prove that big coal and oil money prompted false fabricated climate assessments by skeptics. It’s a beautiful thing, up until the point when the general public discovers it is journalistic malfeasance of epic proportions…..
Prof. Steve Jones is a lefty and a big shot with an anti-religous organization known as The British Humanist Association. It’s Little wonder that his answer to everything is censorship.
If I read him right he’s saying that the BBC has no bias towards AGW (laughable – that should discredit the guy right there), but they should start having pro-AGW bias. How did this partisan guy get put into the position of having dictatorial power of BBC content.
I presume because the BBC picked him to come up with the answer they wanted!