BBC to reduce deniers coverage

[polarbear]

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..

Good, it is absurd to give them equal time, or any forum at all. We shouldn't do that for flat earthers, either.

What do you care, you don`t watch the BBC either and get your "information" from CNN.
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.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What do you care, you don`t watch the BBC either and get your "information" from CNN.

Why would you make sure an assumption? Answer: because you like to make low hanging fruit for yourself.

And to answer the question you answered yourself in order to soothe yourself:

I already answered your question in my first post of this thread. So stop wasting my time.

 

[polarbear]

What do you care, you don`t watch the BBC either and get your "information" from CNN.

Why would you make sure an assumption? Answer: because you like to make low hanging fruit for yourself.

And to answer the question you answered yourself in order to soothe yourself:

I already answered your question in my first post of this thread. So stop wasting my time.

It wasn`t an assumption. It`s pretty clear that this forum is your soother on average 30 times per day according to your stats.

 

[Coyote]

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..

It is like giving a platform to Creationists, Flat Earthers and Alien Abductees.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What do you care, you don`t watch the BBC either and get your "information" from CNN.

Why would you make sure an assumption? Answer: because you like to make low hanging fruit for yourself.

And to answer the question you answered yourself in order to soothe yourself:

I already answered your question in my first post of this thread. So stop wasting my time.

It wasn`t an assumption. It`s pretty clear that this forum is your soother on average 30 times per day according to your stats.

Yes, whine away...get it all out of your system...I'm sure it's very frustrating to be on the wrong side of science and of history...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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..

Good, it is absurd to give them equal time, or any forum at all. We shouldn't do that for flat earthers, either.

What do you care, you don`t watch the BBC either and get your "information" from CNN.
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.

lol

‘Liberal agenda.’

Too funny.

Conservatives are at their most ridiculous when propagating their idiotic lies.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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..

It is like giving a platform to Creationists, Flat Earthers and Alien Abductees.

It’s more like giving credence to creationists, flat earthers, and alien abductees – all of whom are at liberty to express their ignorance and idiocy, along with those hostile to the fact of climate change, where there are ample means of communication for them to do just that.

Just as news organizations are at liberty to report on factual news accounts and events, and not report on that which is devoid of fact, such as the nonsense of denying the fact of climate change.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Orwell tried to warn people that the crazy left wingers will censor opposing views.
Liberals are a threat to freedom and democracy.

Hey, lying bitch, it is not the left wing that is trying to shut down the press. It is the treasonous fat senile old orange clown. Shutting down the press is the first desire of a Fascist. And it is not the left wing that has a leader whose speeches are measured in lies per minute. It is not the left wing that is kissing Putin's ass. You 'Conservatives' are condoning treason, indeed, reveling in it.

So that's what you got out of the OP ? Damn you are getting senile ...


Let's go slow for you, the BBC is trying to limit speech which it is in their right according to British law.


.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Dumb fuck, that was Iran's money that we froze when they took our embassy. Yes, every time the treasonous fat senile old orange clown states 'Fake News', he is trying to censure the press. And, no, Trump does not love American, he loves only Trump.

So why didn't he wire the millions of dollars instead of sending it by cargo plane on pallets of money????


Are you that fucking naive to think it was the same cash 40 plus years later?

.

 

[Wyatt earp]

What do you care, you don`t watch the BBC either and get your "information" from CNN.

Why would you make sure an assumption? Answer: because you like to make low hanging fruit for yourself.

And to answer the question you answered yourself in order to soothe yourself:

I already answered your question in my first post of this thread. So stop wasting my time.

It wasn`t an assumption. It`s pretty clear that this forum is your soother on average 30 times per day according to your stats.

Yes, whine away...get it all out of your system...I'm sure it's very frustrating to be on the wrong side of science and of history...

And lucky for you, we will be dead for 500 years before it's proven your statement is true or false



.

 

[Darkwind]

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..

There is no common sense in blocking opposing viewpoints..

That isnt what it is about. Its about not giving cranks a platform to spout unsubstantiated crap.

Then you are denying the wrong side.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

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..

It is like giving a platform to Creationists, Flat Earthers and Alien Abductees.

I think that this was the trigger.
I won’t go on the BBC if it supplies climate change deniers as ‘balance’ | Rupert Read

I have had a lot of dealings with the BBC over the years and generally found them to be professional and thorough in their approach. This tends to lead to a cautious and conservative way of doing business.

It also leads to them giving more weight than deserved to both sides of an argument. But at some stage there is a tipping point and this looks to be it.

I am not the BBCs biggest fan but ,having dealt with all the UK news organisations, they are the most thorough and methodical outlet for news.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Let's go slow for you, the BBC is trying to limit speech

No, and what a dumb thing to say. A news outlet denying a forum to freaks with beliefs so deviant from demonstrable facts is not "limiting speech". The freaks can still say anything they want...they just don't get the global BBC forum to do so.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

And lucky for you, we will be dead for 500 years before it's proven your statement is true or false

Wrong, it is already proven. I'm not sure where you get your facts on this topic, but you really need to step outside the bubble once in a while.

 

[percysunshine]

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..

So the BBC is kind of like the Catholic Church.

The Protestant Reformation is history?

Chuckle

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So the BBC is kind of like the Catholic Church.

Sure, if you toss out the idea of "facts".

 

[SSDD]

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..

Good, it is absurd to give them equal time, or any forum at all. We shouldn't do that for flat earthers, either.

There is ample evidence that the earth is not flat...there is no evidence, however, that human activities are altering the global climate. Do feel free to prove me wrong by posting some...or don't and meekly accept that I am right.

Completely false an embarrassingly absurd, of course. Sorry denier...you are correctly inevitably being sent to the "freak corner", with the Bigfoot hunters and UFOlogists. Enjoy!

I can't help but notice that the best you can do is deliver a completely impotent response...inferring that there is plenty of actual data supporting the AGW hypothesis over natural variability but not being able to provide any of it...typical of you cultists...claim on top of claim on top of claim but no actual data to support any of them.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I can't help but notice that the best you can do is deliver a completely impotent response..

Funny, that would seem to be most true of impotent deniers like yourself. Why are you here, shouting into am echo chamber? Why are you not producing science to challenge the accepted theories?

No, you cackling fools are not presenting any actual challenge to the mountains of science or the accepted theories. Talk about "impotent".... You are losing your forums to spread you ignorant nonsense. You are producing no science, much less the mountain you would need in order to present an actual challenge to the accepted theories. Your public representatives are being ridiculed and discredited and paid to lie by the fossil fuel industry. Your loudest footsoldiers (like you) are relegated to soothing each other in fringe forums on the internet, like this one.

No, I think the impotence is all yours. Check the scoreboard....you are the one on the wrong side of science and of history. And your big plan? Shout at strangers and nonscientists on the internet. Haha...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Orwell tried to warn people that the crazy left wingers will censor opposing views.
Liberals are a threat to freedom and democracy.

Hey, lying bitch, it is not the left wing that is trying to shut down the press. It is the treasonous fat senile old orange clown. Shutting down the press is the first desire of a Fascist. And it is not the left wing that has a leader whose speeches are measured in lies per minute. It is not the left wing that is kissing Putin's ass. You 'Conservatives' are condoning treason, indeed, reveling in it.

So that's what you got out of the OP ? Damn you are getting senile ...


Let's go slow for you, the BBC is trying to limit speech which it is in their right according to British law.


.

This is as ignorant as it is wrong.

Only government has the authority and capability to limit speech, through punitive measures and force of law.

Private entities have no such authority; one cannot be ‘arrested’ by the BBC and ‘tried’ in a BBC court.

And again, there are ample other means of communication available to those so ignorant and stupid as to deny the fact of climate change – no one’s speech is being ‘limited.’

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“I won’t go on the BBC if it supplies climate change deniers as ‘balance’”

Correct.

Opposing views on an issue merit balance when both sides can support their position with facts and objective, documented evidence; those hostile to the fact of climate change can provide neither.