18 votes

BBC admits ‘we get climate change coverage wrong too often’

10 comments

  1. [6]
    ourari (edited ) Link
    A good example of false balance, and an attempt by one public broadcaster to mitigate it, albeit just in the environment beat. Interesting for media watchers, but probably too little too late for...

    A good example of false balance, and an attempt by one public broadcaster to mitigate it, albeit just in the environment beat.

    Interesting for media watchers, but probably too little too late for making a dent in the effects of climate change. See: Losing Earth: The Decade We Almost Stopped Climate Change | NYT.

    Side note: Is ~news the appropriate tilde to discuss journalism/media?

    8 votes
    1. [2]
      dubteedub Link Parent
      I usually post climate change stories to ~enviro

      I usually post climate change stories to ~enviro

      1 vote
      1. ourari Link Parent
        I understand, but the reason I posted this is the journalism angle, not the environmental one, hence my question :)

        I understand, but the reason I posted this is the journalism angle, not the environmental one, hence my question :)

        2 votes
  2. [2]
    EggOfReason Link
    The fact that they had “another view” on the climate change debate is just silly. It’s understandable that you might want several viewpoints as something political as, for example, Brexit. But...

    The fact that they had “another view” on the climate change debate is just silly.

    It’s understandable that you might want several viewpoints as something political as, for example, Brexit. But climate change is absolutely undeniable, and giving the microphone to those who challenge this is a troubling fact.

    4 votes
    1. ourari Link Parent
      It's understandable how they make this mistake if you look at it from the journalists' point of view. In an attempt to strive for a kind of objectivity they seek to represent all sides. (This...

      It's understandable how they make this mistake if you look at it from the journalists' point of view. In an attempt to strive for a kind of objectivity they seek to represent all sides. (This often gets reduced to 'both sides' for a whole host of reasons, but that's a different discussion.) So they seek out people with contrasting opinions. The unfortunate side-effect of this professional habit is that they lose sight of the fact that they may give weight and credibility where it is not due by choosing to amplify instead of ignore someone's voice.

      Glaring examples of this can be regularly found in the anti-vax 'debate'.

      3 votes
  3. nsz Link
    About time, I wonder what it was that changed their mind. I can't help but think it's a change in public sentiment, which is odd when you consider that it's them who should be informing the public.

    We urge broadcasters to move on, as we are doing.

    About time, I wonder what it was that changed their mind. I can't help but think it's a change in public sentiment, which is odd when you consider that it's them who should be informing the public.

    3 votes
  4. Lynndolynn Link
    Interesting that the Guardian article didn't include any climate denier's reactions to the news. Perhaps The Guardian is following suit. ;)

    Interesting that the Guardian article didn't include any climate denier's reactions to the news. Perhaps The Guardian is following suit. ;)

    1 vote