AntZ
07-20-2011, 11:28 PM
BBC gives too much weight to fringe views on issues such as climate change
A review of the BBC's science coverage has concluded that its drive for impartiality lends too much credence to maverick views on MMR, climate change and GM
Ian Sample, science correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 20 July 2011 16.17 BST
The BBC is to revamp its science coverage after an independent review highlighted weaknesses and concluded that journalists boosted the apparent controversy of scientific news stories such as climate change, GM crops and the MMR vaccine by giving too much weight to fringe scientific viewpoints.
The wide-ranging review found the network's science reporting was generally of high quality, and praised the BBC for its breadth, depth and accuracy, but urged the broadcaster to tackle several areas of concern.
Commissioned last year to assess impartiality and accuracy in BBC science coverage across television, radio and the internet, the review said the network was at times so determined to be impartial that it put fringe views on a par with well-established fact: a strategy that made some scientific debates appear more controversial than they were.
The criticism was particularly relevant to stories on issues such as global warming, GM and the MMR vaccine, where minority views were sometimes given equal weighting to broad scientific consensus, creating what the report describes as "false balance".
The review comprised an independent report by Professor Steve Jones, emeritus professor of genetics at University College London, and an in-depth analysis by researchers at Imperial College London of science coverage across the BBC in May, June and July of 2009 and 2010.
In his report, Jones lamented the narrow range of sources that reporters used for stories, poor communication between journalists in different parts of the organisation, and a lack of knowledge of the breadth of science.
"The most important aspect is a vote of confidence in what BBC science is doing. It is head and shoulders above other broadcasters. As always, though, there is a but," Jones told reporters on Wednesday.
Jones likened the BBC's approach to oppositional debates to asking a mathematician and maverick biologist what two plus two equals. When the mathematician says four and the maverick says five, the public are left to conclude the answer is somewhere in between.
The report will disappoint some climate change sceptics who hoped it would find the BBC at fault for promoting a green agenda. "There is a consensus in the scientific community that anthropogenic climate change exists," Jones said. By failing to move the debate on, the BBC was missing other stories, he added.
Alison Hastings of the BBC Trust said the corporation must avoid "bias by elimination" and include dissenting voices in debates over science issues. But she added that clearer identification of individuals' expertise and agendas would help audiences judge their comments.
In further criticisms, Jones called on the BBC to be more proactive in finding stories. Many came from the south-east of England and some 75% were based on press releases, he said. "Simply by the BBC feeding rather than hunting, it is missing large amounts of scientific information," he said. Another concern was the lack of women who either covered or appeared in stories.
The BBC Trust welcomed the review and announced a raft of changes, approved by the BBC executive, to address the concerns raised. Journalists will be offered training on impartiality, and a forum will be set up within the corporation to foster better links between science journalists working in different parts of the organisation.
The BBC executive said it would also appoint a new science editor to raise the profile of science in BBC news and oversee the other planned initiatives.
Sir Mark Walport, director of the Wellcome Trust, said the report "highlights the issue that, from time to time, a drive for 'impartiality at any cost' by the BBC can lead to a highly misleading presentation of science in situations where the evidence points overwhelmingly in one direction rather than another. It is encouraging that the BBC executive and BBC Trust accept this criticism and will work with programme makers to improve their understanding of this issue."
Sir Paul Nurse, president of the Royal Society, said: "The BBC has played a significant part in creating the current surge of interest in science. The way in which it covers science is generally of a very high quality. It is, however, important that the need to separate opinion from evidence in coverage of some topics has been recognised. It is important to have debate, but marginal opinion – prominently expressed but not well based on evidence – can mislead the audience. The BBC usually respects this but the challenge is to get it right all of the time."
Bob Ward, policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics, said it was crucial for the BBC to "challenge inaccurate and misleading claims made by bloggers, campaigners and politicians who 'reject and deny the findings of mainstream science for ideological reasons.'
"The BBC is required by law not to sacrifice accuracy for impartiality in the coverage of controversial scientific issues such as climate change. Yet it is well known that there are particular BBC presenters and editors who allow self-proclaimed climate change 'sceptics' to mislead the public with unsubstantiated and inaccurate statements," he said.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/jul/20/bbc-climate-change-science-coverage/print
A review of the BBC's science coverage has concluded that its drive for impartiality lends too much credence to maverick views on MMR, climate change and GM
Ian Sample, science correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 20 July 2011 16.17 BST
The BBC is to revamp its science coverage after an independent review highlighted weaknesses and concluded that journalists boosted the apparent controversy of scientific news stories such as climate change, GM crops and the MMR vaccine by giving too much weight to fringe scientific viewpoints.
The wide-ranging review found the network's science reporting was generally of high quality, and praised the BBC for its breadth, depth and accuracy, but urged the broadcaster to tackle several areas of concern.
Commissioned last year to assess impartiality and accuracy in BBC science coverage across television, radio and the internet, the review said the network was at times so determined to be impartial that it put fringe views on a par with well-established fact: a strategy that made some scientific debates appear more controversial than they were.
The criticism was particularly relevant to stories on issues such as global warming, GM and the MMR vaccine, where minority views were sometimes given equal weighting to broad scientific consensus, creating what the report describes as "false balance".
The review comprised an independent report by Professor Steve Jones, emeritus professor of genetics at University College London, and an in-depth analysis by researchers at Imperial College London of science coverage across the BBC in May, June and July of 2009 and 2010.
In his report, Jones lamented the narrow range of sources that reporters used for stories, poor communication between journalists in different parts of the organisation, and a lack of knowledge of the breadth of science.
"The most important aspect is a vote of confidence in what BBC science is doing. It is head and shoulders above other broadcasters. As always, though, there is a but," Jones told reporters on Wednesday.
Jones likened the BBC's approach to oppositional debates to asking a mathematician and maverick biologist what two plus two equals. When the mathematician says four and the maverick says five, the public are left to conclude the answer is somewhere in between.
The report will disappoint some climate change sceptics who hoped it would find the BBC at fault for promoting a green agenda. "There is a consensus in the scientific community that anthropogenic climate change exists," Jones said. By failing to move the debate on, the BBC was missing other stories, he added.
Alison Hastings of the BBC Trust said the corporation must avoid "bias by elimination" and include dissenting voices in debates over science issues. But she added that clearer identification of individuals' expertise and agendas would help audiences judge their comments.
In further criticisms, Jones called on the BBC to be more proactive in finding stories. Many came from the south-east of England and some 75% were based on press releases, he said. "Simply by the BBC feeding rather than hunting, it is missing large amounts of scientific information," he said. Another concern was the lack of women who either covered or appeared in stories.
The BBC Trust welcomed the review and announced a raft of changes, approved by the BBC executive, to address the concerns raised. Journalists will be offered training on impartiality, and a forum will be set up within the corporation to foster better links between science journalists working in different parts of the organisation.
The BBC executive said it would also appoint a new science editor to raise the profile of science in BBC news and oversee the other planned initiatives.
Sir Mark Walport, director of the Wellcome Trust, said the report "highlights the issue that, from time to time, a drive for 'impartiality at any cost' by the BBC can lead to a highly misleading presentation of science in situations where the evidence points overwhelmingly in one direction rather than another. It is encouraging that the BBC executive and BBC Trust accept this criticism and will work with programme makers to improve their understanding of this issue."
Sir Paul Nurse, president of the Royal Society, said: "The BBC has played a significant part in creating the current surge of interest in science. The way in which it covers science is generally of a very high quality. It is, however, important that the need to separate opinion from evidence in coverage of some topics has been recognised. It is important to have debate, but marginal opinion – prominently expressed but not well based on evidence – can mislead the audience. The BBC usually respects this but the challenge is to get it right all of the time."
Bob Ward, policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics, said it was crucial for the BBC to "challenge inaccurate and misleading claims made by bloggers, campaigners and politicians who 'reject and deny the findings of mainstream science for ideological reasons.'
"The BBC is required by law not to sacrifice accuracy for impartiality in the coverage of controversial scientific issues such as climate change. Yet it is well known that there are particular BBC presenters and editors who allow self-proclaimed climate change 'sceptics' to mislead the public with unsubstantiated and inaccurate statements," he said.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/jul/20/bbc-climate-change-science-coverage/print