Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

BBC to Stop Inviting Guests with Marginal Views to Discuss Non-Contentious Scientific Issues

posted by azrael on Sunday July 06 2014, @10:42AM   Printer-friendly
from the flat-earth dept.

lhsi writes:

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This discussion has been archived.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
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by theluggage on Sunday July 06 2014, @02:31PM

    by theluggage (1797) on Sunday July 06 2014, @02:31PM (#64861)

    The whole point of editorial guidelines on impartiality

    This isn't about impartiality. This is about avoiding "bias by balance" where an over-rigid insistence on always presenting an opposing view means that, if you interview someone who says that two plus two is four, you have to scour the world to find someone who disagrees. Go read TFA: this is about the BBC inviting celebrity pundits and bloggers to argue with qualified scientists because they couldn't find any qualified scientists with opposing views.

    It wouldn't be so bad if it were a commercial network, but the BBC is a state broadcaster.

    So you'd rather let that nice Mr Murdoch decide what you are or aren't allowed to be told?

    Personally, I'm more worried about media-run states [bbc.co.uk] than state-run-media.

    Here we are debating a publicly available report on BBC policy. If the BBC wasn't a state broadcaster, subject to public scrutiny, a directive from the Big Cheese on who to interview would have been 'commercially sensitive information' and we'd be none the wiser.

    The BBC has many, many flaws, but at least we get to know what they are. With commercial media, we have to wait until one of them gets sent to jail [bbc.co.uk].

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=2, Interesting=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  
    Total Score:   5  

  • (Score: 1) by Jiro on Sunday July 06 2014, @06:39PM

    by Jiro (3176) on Sunday July 06 2014, @06:39PM (#64912)

    You do realize you just gave links to two BBC stories to support the idea that the BBC is better than other broadcasters? What next, will you quote the head of the NSA to explain why the NSA is really doing good work?

    Obviously it's going to be in the BBC's best interest to publish stories which make private broadcasters out to look bad, especially if the BBC can forcibly collect money from people who have no choice but to pay the BBC if they want to watch the private broadcasters.

    (And don't reply by saying "that really happened". The question is one of emphasis and bias. I'm sure the head of the NSA could name some good things that the NSA did that really happened--it's just that while true, dwelling on those would give a misleading overall picture of the NSA.)

    • (Score: 2) by theluggage on Sunday July 06 2014, @10:24PM

      by theluggage (1797) on Sunday July 06 2014, @10:24PM (#64982)

      You do realize you just gave links to two BBC stories to support the idea that the BBC is better than other broadcasters?

      So... did you expect me to link to one of the commercial sites I'd just slagged off? Although, now that you mention it, I did Google and surprisingly it didn't throw up any links to The Sun, The Sunday Times or Sky News (merely a glitch on Google, I'm sure). Just for completeness here's [independent.co.uk] a link from a news source other than the BBC.

      What next, will you quote the head of the NSA to explain why the NSA is really doing good work?

      Perhaps you could point out which bit of either of those stories involved the BBC promoting itself?

      Meanwhile here [bbc.co.uk] is the BBC dutifully reporting on one of its own fuckups. If this sort of thing had happened in a multinational media corporation, do you think they'd run stories on it (or is the private sector just infallible) ?

      • (Score: 1) by Jiro on Wednesday July 09 2014, @02:36AM

        by Jiro (3176) on Wednesday July 09 2014, @02:36AM (#66320)

        Although, now that you mention it, I did Google and surprisingly it didn't throw up any links to The Sun, The Sunday Times or Sky News (merely a glitch on Google, I'm sure).

        That's not a glitch on Google, that's because those sources don't have the incentive to over-emphasize such stories that the BBC does.

        Perhaps you could point out which bit of either of those stories involved the BBC promoting itself?

        It's a story about a private broadcaster doing bad things. You even used it yourself to show that private broadcasters do bad things. You seriously can't see how publicizing such a story benefits a state-owned broadcaster?

        Meanwhile here is the BBC dutifully reporting on one of its own fuckups. If this sort of thing had happened in a multinational media corporation, do you think they'd run stories on it (or is the private sector just infallible) ?

        Read carefully one of the related story titles. "BBC boss sacked over failed project". In other words, this is typical internal politics: now that they have a new boss, they publish things that make the old boss look bad. I would be very unsurrpised at a private company that, after firing its CEO or in the middle of an internal struggle whether to fire its CEO, publishes something saying how bad it is to be run by that CEO.