What do you care, you don`t watch the BBC either and get your "information" from CNN.Good, it is absurd to give them equal time, or any forum at all. We shouldn't do that for flat earthers, either.No more BBC platform for climate change deniers? It’d be about time | Richard Black
From time to time the BBC gets itself into an awful mess over climate change. Unnecessarily so, given that it has visited and revisited principles of good coverage, repeatedly arriving at more or less the same conclusions.
Back in 2007, a report for the BBC Trust, then the corporation’s regulator, concluded that the old bipolar world of “the climate change debate” had gone. The working model had to change, as the title put it, From Seesaw to Wagon Wheel : “the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus. But these dissenters (or even sceptics) will still be heard, as they should.” Four years later, the Trust’s review of accuracy and impartiality in science coverage , commissioned from geneticist Professor Steve Jones, reached very similar conclusions.
Both reports were accepted by BBC managers. Both contain much that is common sense. And then there are the editorial guidelines, which are very clear that the guiding principle is “due impartiality”, rather than equal weight.
Everyone is entitled to a point of view but it should be backed by facts to get a plaform..
Even if the BBC is redacting all liberal agenda criticism like CNN they (both) can`t avoid photobombing themselves with the black blotches that are supposed to hide the inconvenient truth.
Not long ago the BBC bragged about the billions of Euros spent in the EU on climate change.
Now after Brexit they are interviewing only those who say how bad that will be.
Like for example the European Space agencies Gallileo GPS system. It was news to me that the cost went up from 10 billion Euro`s to 20 Billion and now it is uncertain if it can have all the satellites that are needed by 2020. Meanwhile Europe has to depend on the US GPS system and the only other alternative would be the Russian system. But all the while they blew 40 billion per year on climate change issues.
Had Stephen Sackur mentioned that in the "Hard Talk" interview I watched he would have been Stephen the Sacked instead of Sackur when the BBC was lamenting Brexit.