BBC Bias on climate change - time to complain?
Discussion
I post the stuff below in the hope that others who feel that the BBC’s coverage of climate change is unbalanced, and are as sick as I am of hearing programme after programme reporting as if man made global warming is fact, will listen to and write to complain to the BBC about the horse’s mouth justification of this given on the Feedback programme today.
I have sent the following e-mail to the contact address for the programme
feedback@bbc.co.uk
and to the BBC Trustees - http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/about/complaints_app...
If anyone feels similarly motivated – my concern is the constant drip feed of pro-MMGW propaganda potentially influencing people who do not follow the debate or study the science to acquiesce more readily to the expensive and imho economically damaging government policies on CO2 that are not properly warranted on the grounds of any proven certainties about the ‘threat’ or its causes - and wants to use any information from the text below as a short cut please feel free.
“Dear Sirs
I write to express my concern over comments made by the BBC’s ‘Director for Editorial Policy’, David Jordan, reported on the “Feedback” programme today, 22nd October, regarding the impartiality of reporting on issues around climate change.
He quoted the ‘general consensus’ to justify, again, the BBC’s stated line that it is not necessary to represent both sides of the argument about whether climate change is ‘man made’ equally. How genuine and overwhelming this consensus is still open to debate; a consensus fabricated and pushed by those on the pro-anthropogenic warming side, particularly the IPCC, and quoting a relatively small number of scientists – and others, included as if scientists, such as activist bodies Greenpeace and the World Wide Fund For Nature – as if they represent the majority, which has never been satisfactorily demonstrated despite repeated use of the claim to bolster the ‘science is settled’ line. Ignoring also the letters, petitions and articles of scientists, including those originally claimed to be part of the consensus, who doubt or counter the man made aspect of global warming. This then is a lazy justification.
He went on to add that it would distort the debate to provide access to those who dispute the idea of man made global warming in every programme on the subject and that it is satisfactory if across the coverage on the BBC airwaves this is represented ‘from time to time’. This very line admits to a preclusion of fairness and balance. The BBC’s coverage of climate issues has been very far from balanced now for a significant period.
As a license payer I expect to receive balanced coverage of any issue; this has not been the case. I would appreciate his being able to support the balance he feels appropriate by reference to the air time given to pro and anti ‘mmgw’ proponents over, say, the past 5 years against the level of academic presentation for and against man made climate change. As someone who has studied the subject in depth, including as part of my professional work as a mathematician, and as a frequent listener I doubt that the two correlate.
I listen to between 10 and 15 hours of broadcasting by Radio 4 per day either live or via iPlayer, searching out scientific, environmental and engineering based programmes, and think that if a balance were present I would have noticed it. Instead I – as with those members of the public whose concerns led to the article – have become increasingly convinced of a serious disparity in the coverage that tells of either partiality or poor broadcasting controls.
The spokesperson defending the particular programme reported a scientist quoting that there needs to be “evidence and modelling based on proven statistics” but who then, although admitting that the models could not prove the increased likelihood of climate disruption had, contrarily, been allowed to say that the statistics show hurricanes etc. to be more likely. There are no such ‘proven’ statistics and the debate about data sources, the evaluation of data, the statistical and computer modelling used and the actual increased likelihood of extreme weather events is regularly and hotly contested. A weak defence then.
The debate centered around a previous ‘Costing The Earth’ programme so it was ironic, if not adding insult to injury, to hear this week’s edition on threats to wine production which, from c. 12 minutes in, turned almost entirely to climate change, presenting the line that it is real, is occurring now and is a threat to the wine manufacturers interviewed. The notion that recent seasonal variation might be part of natural cycles or that there is a possibility for the changes claimed to reverse was, predictably, ignored.
Even the ‘History of the World in 100 Objects’ series – describing solar lamps - ended with a bald statement stating clearly that climate change is an issue and is linked to the use of electricity. What academic background or scientific qualifications allow the art historian responsible for the programmes to make such black and white claims?
For those of us who remain skeptical of the level, direction or causation of climate change it seems that the BBC has adopted a partisan stance and that its broadcasts are designed to influence the general listener in one direction, thereby helping to sanction and justify the swinging financial costs, economic limits and curtailment of personal freedoms pushed upon us by politicians and lobbying organisations. This puts you outside of your remit or the proper behaviours of an impartial broadcasting organisation (that your pensions trust is heavily involved in investments in carbon trading etc. does little to reassure . .) and give the lie to Mr. Jordan’s disingenuous claims that the BBC does not campaign on issues.
I await your considered response . ."
etc.
I have sent the following e-mail to the contact address for the programme
feedback@bbc.co.uk
and to the BBC Trustees - http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/about/complaints_app...
If anyone feels similarly motivated – my concern is the constant drip feed of pro-MMGW propaganda potentially influencing people who do not follow the debate or study the science to acquiesce more readily to the expensive and imho economically damaging government policies on CO2 that are not properly warranted on the grounds of any proven certainties about the ‘threat’ or its causes - and wants to use any information from the text below as a short cut please feel free.
“Dear Sirs
I write to express my concern over comments made by the BBC’s ‘Director for Editorial Policy’, David Jordan, reported on the “Feedback” programme today, 22nd October, regarding the impartiality of reporting on issues around climate change.
He quoted the ‘general consensus’ to justify, again, the BBC’s stated line that it is not necessary to represent both sides of the argument about whether climate change is ‘man made’ equally. How genuine and overwhelming this consensus is still open to debate; a consensus fabricated and pushed by those on the pro-anthropogenic warming side, particularly the IPCC, and quoting a relatively small number of scientists – and others, included as if scientists, such as activist bodies Greenpeace and the World Wide Fund For Nature – as if they represent the majority, which has never been satisfactorily demonstrated despite repeated use of the claim to bolster the ‘science is settled’ line. Ignoring also the letters, petitions and articles of scientists, including those originally claimed to be part of the consensus, who doubt or counter the man made aspect of global warming. This then is a lazy justification.
He went on to add that it would distort the debate to provide access to those who dispute the idea of man made global warming in every programme on the subject and that it is satisfactory if across the coverage on the BBC airwaves this is represented ‘from time to time’. This very line admits to a preclusion of fairness and balance. The BBC’s coverage of climate issues has been very far from balanced now for a significant period.
As a license payer I expect to receive balanced coverage of any issue; this has not been the case. I would appreciate his being able to support the balance he feels appropriate by reference to the air time given to pro and anti ‘mmgw’ proponents over, say, the past 5 years against the level of academic presentation for and against man made climate change. As someone who has studied the subject in depth, including as part of my professional work as a mathematician, and as a frequent listener I doubt that the two correlate.
I listen to between 10 and 15 hours of broadcasting by Radio 4 per day either live or via iPlayer, searching out scientific, environmental and engineering based programmes, and think that if a balance were present I would have noticed it. Instead I – as with those members of the public whose concerns led to the article – have become increasingly convinced of a serious disparity in the coverage that tells of either partiality or poor broadcasting controls.
The spokesperson defending the particular programme reported a scientist quoting that there needs to be “evidence and modelling based on proven statistics” but who then, although admitting that the models could not prove the increased likelihood of climate disruption had, contrarily, been allowed to say that the statistics show hurricanes etc. to be more likely. There are no such ‘proven’ statistics and the debate about data sources, the evaluation of data, the statistical and computer modelling used and the actual increased likelihood of extreme weather events is regularly and hotly contested. A weak defence then.
The debate centered around a previous ‘Costing The Earth’ programme so it was ironic, if not adding insult to injury, to hear this week’s edition on threats to wine production which, from c. 12 minutes in, turned almost entirely to climate change, presenting the line that it is real, is occurring now and is a threat to the wine manufacturers interviewed. The notion that recent seasonal variation might be part of natural cycles or that there is a possibility for the changes claimed to reverse was, predictably, ignored.
Even the ‘History of the World in 100 Objects’ series – describing solar lamps - ended with a bald statement stating clearly that climate change is an issue and is linked to the use of electricity. What academic background or scientific qualifications allow the art historian responsible for the programmes to make such black and white claims?
For those of us who remain skeptical of the level, direction or causation of climate change it seems that the BBC has adopted a partisan stance and that its broadcasts are designed to influence the general listener in one direction, thereby helping to sanction and justify the swinging financial costs, economic limits and curtailment of personal freedoms pushed upon us by politicians and lobbying organisations. This puts you outside of your remit or the proper behaviours of an impartial broadcasting organisation (that your pensions trust is heavily involved in investments in carbon trading etc. does little to reassure . .) and give the lie to Mr. Jordan’s disingenuous claims that the BBC does not campaign on issues.
I await your considered response . ."
etc.
Edited by Lost_BMW on Friday 22 October 22:55
Edited by Lost_BMW on Saturday 23 October 07:44
beanbag said:
You have a lot of spare time.....
Irrelevant and spastic non-point. Never heard of people (e.g. who regularly work 18+ hour days) listening as they pepare for work or when travelling to clients?If you're not concerned by media manipulation of a current and important issue or believe the BBC are right why bother to respond to the thread. Too much spare time?
Lost_BMW said:
Too much spare time?
Spot on.Nevertheless, regardless of what you do, the views of an individual journalist will never change and your letter will end up in some "archive" in the BBC dungeon.
There are always obtuse individuals who believe everything they read (DM readers for example), and whatever you do it'll never change. They'll be sucked in by it all.
I gave up complaining long ago. It made me miserable being paranoid about so-called propaganda so I just get on with life.
And a final point. You need to address issues closer to home before you start your campaign against the BBC. If you truly are working 18+ hours a day, then you have serious issues of your own and one messed up work-life balance. (IMHO).
beanbag said:
Lost_BMW said:
Too much spare time?
Spot on.Nevertheless, regardless of what you do, the views of an individual journalist will never change and your letter will end up in some "archive" in the BBC dungeon.
There are always obtuse individuals who believe everything they read (DM readers for example), and whatever you do it'll never change. They'll be sucked in by it all.
I gave up complaining long ago. It made me miserable being paranoid about so-called propaganda so I just get on with life.
And a final point. You need to address issues closer to home before you start your campaign against the BBC. If you truly are working 18+ hours a day, then you have serious issues of your own and one messed up work-life balance. (IMHO).
I know what you mean about complaining, it seeming a waste of time and being a misery making and thankless job. Usually I do keep out of it - just hear, disagree with and resent stuff claimed and done in 'its' name but occasionally feel the need to fight back. The BBC are the prime example for their obvious bias and hypocrisy. I wouldn't mind if it weren't an area where the greenies, environ-mentals and govt. weren't constantly trying to browbeat us into accepting costly hits to business and citizen alike on shaky grounds.
And yes, I know my work-life balance is screwed but I'm trying to milk it for what I can now - guarantee my kids' future security and with a view to retiring/going part time by 55, or making enough links to stay afloat if the economy issues impact on my work which they could easily do. But I'm not complaining, I've got it easy compared to many, many workers or the poor buggers about to lose their jobs and god knows what else these days.
Lost_BMW said:
GKP said:
Lost_BMW said:
As a license payer
Tsk, tut and pffft.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff