Skip to comments.Climate change sceptics should get less BBC coverage and be challenged 'more vigorously', says....
Posted on 07/19/2011 8:08:15 AM PDT by Sub-Driver
Climate change sceptics should get less BBC coverage and be challenged 'more vigorously', says report on science output
Broadcasters to give less airtime to critics of majority view
By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 12:44 PM on 19th July 2011
Opponents of global warming should be given less coverage by the BBC than the climate change lobby, the corporation will rule.
The BBC is set to publish a report tomorrow on its science output announcing changes to rules on impartiality.
Following the overhaul, programme makers and broadcasters will be compelled to give less prominence to those who oppose the scientific community's majority view.
According to the Daily Telegraph, the report draws heavily on an independent review of BBC coverage by Steve Jones, a professor of genetics at University College London.
Professor Jones is understood to have cleared the BBC of any suggestion of bias in its programming.
But the main conclusion made is that in cases where there is a widely held scientific view, such as on GM crops or the MMR injection, the BBC shouldn't give airtime to critics of the scientific consensus. Warning: Leading geneticist Professor Steve Jones
Review: The BBC changes were based on recommendations by Professor Steve Jones
A further recommendation of the report is that the BBC should appoint a science editor for its coverage, and should also feature more experts in the field on prgrammes like Question Time.
One BBC executive, who has seen the report, told the Telegraph: 'It is about recognising when the debate has moved on beyond whether a theory is true or not, and on to what we do about it.'
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Makes sense that they would tow the government line.
This is turning out to be another V for Vendetta. Just happening in the US.
If someone is going to wear the mask, I hope it is Ted Nugent.
Doesn’t the BBC have its retirement plan in “Green” energy?
So as the liberals say, you can’t trust megacorps (unless they’re far left wing - in which case, they’re okay).
Lets form a committee to decide what the news should be. Also, lets form a committee to decide what history should be. First step there is to rewrite these stories from Oceania’s past:
1986: NASA’s James Hanson predicts “hottest temperatures in 100,000 years”:
This one from 1986 on temperature increase in America:
Hansen said the average U.S. temperature had risen from one to two degrees since 1958 and is predicted to increase an additional 3 or 4 degrees sometime between 2010 and 2020.
The Press-Courier (Milwaukee) June 11 1986
Staying in 1986 for the moment, we have this unequivocal prediction:
Within 15 years, said Goddard Space Flight Honcho James Hansen, global temperatures will rise to a level which hasnt existed on earth for 100,000 years.
The News and Courier, June 17th 1986
I searched in vain for John Semmons’s tagline. Sadly, this is real-life, not satire.
It's a touch obvious, like Liberace coming out of the closet, but honesty is a virtue.
This reads like a page out of George Orwell's 1984.
BBC Report: We are not biased enough, lets do more!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.