[icopyright one button toolbar]
Update 2: 10:55 am Pacific, 8 July 2014
- BBC admonished for giving climate change deniers equal air time
- BBC staff told to stop inviting cranks on to science programmes
- Stop Giving Airtime to Crackpots
- BBC to Censor Scientists that Question Global Warming
- BBC’s “Crank-less” Science Policies May Lead To Censorship
- BBC strives for better science reporting by refusing airtime to climate deniers
Monday’s headlines were colorful, but were they accurate?
Not really. Great click bait, though.
This week’s “news” from The Telegraph (a BBC competitor with a “conservative” political voice) is actually a status report on an effort that began four years ago. That’s when the BBC Trust began reviewing the accuracy and impartiality of BBC science coverage.
In plain talk, the BBC policy on science reporting since 2011 has been to make it clear when there is scientific agreement and not to provide a platform to alternative voices if so doing implies significant disagreement where none exists the case.
In the 2011 report, Professor Steve Jones illustrated the typical — and problematic, in his view — frame for a TV news story:
[B]ogus impartiality (mathematician discovers that 2 + 2 = 4; spokesperson for Duodecimal Liberation Front insists that 2 + 2 = 5, presenter sums up that “2 + 2 = something like 4.5 but the debate goes on”) can, perversely, lead to bias in its own right, for it gives disproportionate weight to minority views – and some of the minorities involved are expert in taking advantage of the platform offered.
Cable television comics (Jon Stewart, John Oliver, Stephen Colbert) make their livings poking fun at stories presented in this predictable frame.
In short:
- The “news” is three years old (going by calendar years) and it is this: BBC news reports should not present a “false balance” in science reporting by presenting minority opinions with equal weight as scientific consensus, thus implying widespread conflict where none exists. Examples from 2011: vaccines, GMO crops and climate change.
- There is no censorship, i.e., “[an act] of changing or suppressing speech or writing that is considered subversive of the common good.”
- There is no censorship, i.e., the BBC is not a government nor is it the only source of news in the UK, much less in the world.
- There is no censorship, i.e., BBC reporters have not been forbidden to interview to anyone, headlines notwithstanding.
Did the Trust just tell the BBC to “stop inviting cranks” or “crackpots” to comment on science stories?
No.
The 2011 report implied that fringe voices in matters of science should not be included as a matter of course (2011 report, pdf).
The 2014 analysis reported on progress towards an impartial presentation of the “weight of scientific agreement.” One means of reaching that goal: (2014 report, pdf).
[N]early 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…
Judging the weight of scientific agreement correctly will mean that the BBC avoids the ‘false balance’ between fact and opinion identified [in the 2011 report].
So where did this story come from?
The Telegraph article alluded to a Science and Technology Committee report in April that criticized how the BBC covers climate change, which was delivered to the world by Labour MP Andrew Miller.
The Telegraph did not link to the report or its own story from April.
However, the BBC did link to the report in its April 1 story, alone among the many outlets that wrote about the issue at the time (e.g., The Guardian, HuffPostUK, The Independent, Breitbart.com, referencing paywalled The Times of London). Read the April report from Parliament.
From the report, not MP Miller’s public comments at the time:
In order to communicate what climate change is, the Government must agree a clear consistent and precise definition which can be related to direct observations and measurements.
And …
Submissions to our inquiry commented on a tendency for the media to approach climate science as an argument about two equally valid points of view, rather than discussion about scientific facts, and on the false balance of views being presented as a consequence.
Ironically, MP Miller’s criticism of “false balance” comes straight from the BBC Trust’s own 2011 report.
And a final quote from the report, irony alert full-on:
Scientists, politicians, lobbying groups and other interested parties should be heard on this issue but the BBC should be clear on what role its interviewees have and should be careful not to treat lobbying groups as disinterested experts.
I can’t reconcile a statement from the BBC’s David Jordan, Director of Editorial Policy and Standards, where he asserted that the BBC failed to follow recommendations from the 2011 BBC Trust report (Q93), with the contents of the written report:
[Professor Steve Jones] said we should regard climate science as settled in effect and, therefore, it should mean we should not hear from dissenting voices on the science of climate change. We did not agree with that because we think the BBC’s role is to reflect all views and opinions in society in its output, and we have continued to do that.
In the 2011 report, Professor Steve Jones wrote the exact opposite (page 68):
[There] is general agreement that warming is a fact even if there remain uncertainties about how fast, and how much, the temperature might rise… A debate remains, and it deserves to be reported with as much objectivity as would any other unresolved issue. (emphasis added)
What did the BBC Trust say about impartiality last week (2014 report, pdf)?
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 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 (emphasis added).
Ignored by political pundits: ditch the male-dominated slant on science news
Another problem identified in 2011 was a lack of gender balance in science reporting (reporters and those interviewed). The 2014 status report was lackluster on this item. I challenge you to find a news report or analysis that a includes this tidbit.
What did the 2011 report say about alternative voices in science reporting?
Professor Jones wrote:
The central element of this review is Impartiality…
I found disagreement about how the word should be interpreted and about whether science demands a version of its own…
[Those without a science background] claim [a variety of opinions are needed] to apply due impartiality…
[Those with a science background] point out that much of the topic is not contentious and does not demand the airing of opposed views found in, for example, politics… Equality of voice calls for a match of scientists not with politicians or activists, but with those qualified to take a knowledgeable, albeit perhaps divergent, view of research. Attempts to give a place to anyone, however unqualified, who claims interest can make for false balance …
[The BBC] must accept that it is impossible to produce a balance between fact and opinion. (emphasis added)
In addition, the 2011 report criticized the BBC:
- For poor gender balance in both reporters and scientists. Men dominated in news relative to the male-female balance of scientists in the U.K.
- For “an over-reliance on a narrow range of external information sources.” For example, “three quarters of broadcast news items about scientific research related to stories where the institution that was the source of the story had provided a press release.”
Scientific literacy: MIA but essential to today’s economy
Professor Jones noted that science is important to the British economy. However, its citizens have poor scientific literacy:
A recent survey that used True/False questions such as “The oxygen we breathe comes from plants”, “Electrons are smaller than atoms”, “Antibiotics kill viruses as well as bacteria” and “All radioactivity is man?made” puts the British public no higher than number eleven in the European Union for general scientific knowledge.
And where do most people learn about science news? On the tele:
To emphasise the role of the BBC in fostering a scientifically literate society, a 2004 MORI poll found that 84% of those questioned said that they received most of their information on science from television news, from documentaries and from other programmes.
He also criticized the BBC for failing to use tools like the Web of Science and the Scopus system as part of its science reporting.
Like many news organizations, the BBC continues to wrestle with the concept of impartiality, which the organization summarized in 2007 thusly:
Impartiality involves a mixture of accuracy, balance, context, distance, evenhandedness, fairness, objectivity, open?mindedness, rigour, self?awareness, transparency and truth.
The BBC Trust develops strategy for the Corporation and oversees the work of the Executive.
:: Reports from the BBC Trust:
:: Reports from Parliament
Published July 8, 2014 at 3:51 am Pacific; updated 9:40 am Pacific: additional links in lead list and the “in short” summary; updated 10:55 am Pacific: background on April criticism; 1:30 pm Pacific: made some links more readable, added links to all reports in foot of story
Known for gnawing at complex questions like a terrier with a bone. Digital evangelist, writer, teacher. Transplanted Southerner; teach newbies to ride motorcycles. @kegill (Twitter and Mastodon.social); wiredpen.com