SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Telegraph reports:
BBC journalists are being sent on courses to stop them inviting so many cranks onto programmes to air 'marginal views'.
The BBC Trust on Thursday published a progress report into the corporation's science coverage which was criticised in 2012 for giving too much air-time to critics who oppose non-contentious issues.
The report found that there was still an 'over-rigid application of editorial guidelines on impartiality' which sought to give the 'other side' of the argument, even if that viewpoint was widely dismissed.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
BBC to Stop Inviting Guests with Marginal Views to Discuss Non-Contentious Scientific Issues
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 30 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
In Tulsa, Oklahoma, it is against the law to open a soda bottle without
the supervision of a licensed engineer.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by umafuckitt on Sunday July 06 2014, @11:20AM
You are miss-representing the idea behind TFA and over-extrapolating a media issue to a scientific issue. The idea is to give less air time to media pundits who disagree with non-contentious scientific issues. So the hope, obviously, is we will not waste air-time with people telling us that Wifi causes cancer or that evolution is a myth. This is a BBC (media) initiative and it has nothing to do with the way the scientific establishment settles theories, or debates topics (marginal or otherwise). What the BBC chooses to air will not affect the advancement of science (unless they start arguing for decreased funding, etc).
In addition to the above, it's far from being a universal truth that advancement of science depends on marginal views. A lot of very significant theories were readily accepted almost immediately. Examples include Newton's laws, Einstein's relativity and his work on the photoelectric effect, and the structure of DNA. Of course it's true that contentious theories, such as evolution was initially, have later turned out to be correct. But not all contentious theories are marginal (evolution wasn't, as there weren't many credible options). It's also true that some initially marginal theories, such as continental drift, have later turned out to be correct. However, the vast majority of marginal theories are crackpot or wrong. These bloopers are forgotten about and what we end up remembering is the lone crusading marginal theory that turned out to be correct. These outliers are important to keep in mind, as they temper hubris, but we need to remember that a theory being marginal does not convey upon it an increased likelihood of being correct.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 06 2014, @11:47AM
Wow, 273 words in response to 33 words. That's a 727.27% return on investment for such an obvious troll. Would you be available to participate in a study on gullibility?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by umafuckitt on Sunday July 06 2014, @11:53AM
The trolling wasn't on my mind when I responded. The "marginal theories drive science" line was on my mind. That is something that is often echoed (not by trolls) and isn't really correct. That's why I felt the comment warranted a response.
(Score: 1) by Horse With Stripes on Sunday July 06 2014, @12:15PM
Wow, a 30 word troll to an informed and thoughtful response. No wonder trolling on the internet is so prevalent; it takes very little effort.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by aiwarrior on Sunday July 06 2014, @01:46PM
Actually it is one of the wonders of sites like this one. The poster goes beyond the simple reply, he creates a a small text about a subject, that completely stands on his own.
I for one enjoyed his effort and maybe you did too. He debunks a thesis with facts and arguments assembled in a way that should satisfy a philosopher - knowledge lover - just for the sake of it.
Probably in your own social circle people take crackpot theories as so absurd that anybody defending them is regarded as being joking. Well, I invite you to search out for other circles, you will learn a lot. I would tell you where to start in my culture but I do not know yours.
Cheers
(Score: 1) by Horse With Stripes on Sunday July 06 2014, @02:15PM
My post was regarding the 'troll' and post he was trolling. It had nothing to do with "crackpot theories", nor was it supporting the BBC's position, umafuckitt's position, or the subject of this story. If you're equating the quality of umafuckitt's post with agreeing with its content then maybe you need to search out other circles because frankly, you will learn a lot. Your assumptions about my position are simply that: assumptions.
The inability to separate quality from content often results in "mod down - I disagree".
(Score: 3, Interesting) by elgrantrolo on Sunday July 06 2014, @12:02PM
The idea is to give less air time to media pundits who disagree with non-contentious scientific issues. So the hope, obviously, is we will not waste air-time with people telling us that Wifi causes cancer or that evolution is a myth.
With Airtime being scarce and internet TV being apparently limitless, maybe the BBC could stop their existing work from being wasted. They can't prevent people from having weird ideas (no matter if good or stupid) and probably end up interviewing people whose contribution to any debate may not be that great. Instead of deleting stuff, they might as well use this kind of editorial criteria and store the X-file kind of stuff where it can be used later on. It is the respectful thing to do and would probably inspire new generations of comedians.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by umafuckitt on Sunday July 06 2014, @01:49PM
I don't know that it's an either/or scenario. I do, however, know that when an authority figure or expert enters into a debate with crackpots, the crackpot position is given legitimacy and this strengths it in the eyes of public. I'm pretty sure there have even been studies on the effect. Thus, it seems pretty important that obviously stupid ideas are not given air time. Look what happened with the MMR/autism bullshit: kids actually died of preventable diseases as a consequence of scientifically illiterate reporters believing whatever they read and reporting it.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Sunday July 06 2014, @09:18PM
"internet TV being apparently limitless"
Unfortunately cameraman, editor, producer, stagehand, interviewer, and stage time is highly limited, unless they just start syndicating freely posted youtube rants as their own.
"would probably inspire new generations of comedians."
We have CSPAN and FOX News for that.