Writing recently about the BBC’s decision not to go ahead with a climate change special, Peter Horrocks observed:
BBC news programmes and our website of course reflect alternative views but we do not balance these views mathematically as that is not our judgement about where the argument has now reached.
The obvious reply (I only do obvious) is, why not? Why don’t you balance these views mathematically? You poll people and analyse the results mathematically. You analyse ratings mathematically.
Surely the BBC could keep track of its output sufficiently to give a rough balance to the weight of its coverage, or at least a running total reflecting the balance of coverage given to different opinions on some of its platforms, be it TV, radio etc.
This wouldn’t stop people making editorial judgements (after all online journalists already know which stories are getting most attention and TV editors spend time looking at viewing figures), but it would provide some ready reckoning on where the balance was being struck. 60/40 is, after all a long way from 95/5.
Of course, it wouldn’t stop BBC motoring advocate/journalist (is he still a journalist? he was when I met him…) Jeremy Clarkson being “bored by the BBC’s hysterical climate change reporting.”
Still, thank goodness for impartiality! But, hang on – if it’s not the BBC’s job to save the planet, is it the BBC’s job to sell motor cars, or cheerlead for the automobile industry? Oh dear, I guess I still don’t get it…maybe a full page ad in Top Gear magazine might clear things up.
3 responses to “BBC impartiality and climate change”
Adrian, These silly and awkward efforts to achieve balance or avoid lack of balance are only necessary in situations where the government controls (BBC) or heavily regulates competition (US) in news. The solution is near, as the Internet-converged media will achieve fairness through consumers’ own choices among multitudes of outlets. (Steve Boriss, TheFutureOfNews.com)
I have half your optimism Steve! But, whilst we’re still taxed, I think it’s important to hold the BBC’s editorial ideology to account.
Adrian,
Leaving aside the arguments about impartiality,the cynic inside me suggests that the decision,far from being influenced by the comments of Peter Horrocks, may have more to do with the poor ratings the corporation got for Live Earth.