OrangeRKN wrote:Here is a BBC report concluding that their coverage of climate change was biased towards climate denialOne of the key findings of the report which still resonates today is that there is at times an:
“... ‘over-rigid’ (as Professor Jones describe dit) application of the Editorial Guidelines on impartiality in relation to science coverage, which fails to take into account what he regards as the ‘non-contentious’ nature of some stories and the need to avoid giving ‘undue attention to marginal opinion’. Professor Jones cites ... the existence of man-made climate change as [an] example of this point.”
So no, it doesn't just come down to people's own viewpoints biasing their perception of the BBC - it has a genuine problem with false balance.
That is a fair point, Orange. I would like to also share the paragraphs immediately after the one you quoted, though, ad they provide background on action taken to combat such a situation:
This is a matter of training and ongoing shared editorial judgement. The Trust notes that seminars continue to take place and that nearly 200 senior staff have attended workshops which set out that impartiality in science coverage does not simply lie in reflecting a wide range of views, but depends on the varying degree of prominence (due weight) such views should be given.
The Trust wishes to emphasise the importance of attempting to establish where the weight of scientific agreement may be found and make that clear to audiences. The Trust also would like to reiterate that, as it said in 2011, “This does not mean that critical opinion should be excluded. Nor does it mean that scientific research shouldn’t be properly scrutinised.” The BBC has a duty to reflect the weight of scientific agreement but it should also reflect the existence of critical views appropriately. Audiences should be able to understand from the context and clarity of the BBC’s output what weight to give to critical voices.
I see it as a positive thing that the BBC takes action to gain independent audits of its work; and it appears that the suggested actions are - at least, in this particular case - taken forward.
I don't think anyone would suggest that the BBC is perfect or beyond reproach, but I do feel that they are more likely to undertake these kinds of analysis and review than other media outlets. Of course, this may well be in part because we are providing the funding for them to do so! Even so, the outcome would seem to be of benefit in terms of improving production approaches and standards.