BBC gives too much weight to fringe views on issues such as climate change

Gavin Esler was criticized in the review for being soft on sceptics of climate in an interview on BBC2 's Newsnight. Photo: PA

The BBC is to renew their coverage of science, after an independent review has highlighted weaknesses and concluded that journalists drove the apparent controversy of science stories, such as climate change, genetically modified crops and the MMR vaccine, giving too much weight to fringe scientific view.

The comprehensive review found network science communication was usually of high quality, and praised the BBC for its breadth, depth and accuracy, but asked the broadcaster to deal with multiple areas of concern.

Commissioned in the year to assess the fairness and accuracy in the BBC's science coverage on television, radio and internet, the review said the network at times was so determined to be impartial to put fringe views on an equal footing with well-established fact: a strategy that did some scientific debates appear more controversial than they were.

The criticism was particularly relevant to stories about issues like global warming, the GM and the MMR vaccine, where minority views sometimes were given equal weighting of broad scientific consensus, creating what the report describes as "false balance".

The review comprised an independent report by Professor Steve Jones, professor emeritus of Genetics at University College London and an in-depth analysis by researchers at Imperial College London Science coverage by the BBC in may, June and July 2009 and 2010.

In its report, Jones lamented the narrow strip of fonts that reporters use for stories, poor communication between journalists in different parts of the Organization and a lack of knowledge about the breadth of science.

"The most important aspect is a vote of confidence in making the BBC's science. He is head and shoulders above other broadcasters. As always, however, there is one, but, "Jones told reporters on Wednesday.

Jones compared the BBC's approach to opposition debates to ask a maverick biologist and mathematician who is equal to two plus two. When the mathematician says four and the maverick says five, the audience is left to conclude that the answer is somewhere in the middle.

The report will disappoint some climate change sceptics who hoped he would find the missing BBC to promote a green agenda. "There is a consensus in the scientific community that anthropogenic climate change exists," said Jones. To not pass the debate, the BBC was missing other stories, he added.

Alison Hastings of the BBC Trust said the Corporation should avoid "bias by deleting" and include dissenting voices in the debates on issues of science. But she added that clearer identification of the skills of individuals and agendas would help audiences to judge their comments.

In further criticism, Jones invited the BBC to be more proactive in seeking stories. Many came from the southeast of England and about 75% were based on press releases, he said. "Simply by BBC food instead of hunting, does not have large amounts of scientific information," he said. Another concern was the lack of women who covered or appeared in stories.

The BBC Trust welcomed the review and announced a series of amendments, approved by the Executive, BBC, to deal with the concerns raised. Journalists will be offered training on impartiality, and a forum will be created within the Corporation to promote better links between science journalists work in different parts of the organization.

The BBC Executive who also said he would appoint a new science editor to increase the visibility of science on BBC News and oversee other planned initiatives.

Sir Mark Walport, Director of the Wellcome Trust, said the report "highlights the issue that once in a while, a drive to ' impartiality at any cost ' by the BBC may 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 Executive of the BBC and BBC Trust accept this criticism and will work with manufacturers of program to improve the understanding of this issue ".

Sir Paul Nurse, President of the Royal Society, said: "the BBC has played a significant role in the creation of the current surge of interest in science. The way in which covers science usually is of a very high quality. However, it is important that was recognized the need for separate opinion of proof in the coverage of some topics. It is important to have the debate, but seem marginal – expressed a prominent place, but not well on the basis of evidence – can mislead the public. The BBC usually respects this but the challenge is to get it right all the time ".

Bob Ward, policy and communications director of the Grantham Research Institute on climate and the environment, London School of Economics, said it was crucial for the BBC "challenge inaccurate and misleading claims made by bloggers, activists and politicians who" reject and deny the findings of conventional science on ideological grounds ".

"The BBC is required by law to not sacrifice accuracy of impartiality in the coverage of controversial scientific issues such as climate change. Still it is well known that there are particular BBC presenters and editors that allow self-proclaimed climate ' skeptics ' mislead the public with claims unfounded and inaccurate, "he said.

View the original article here