UPDATE BELOW:
From the London Daily Mail:
BBC slammed by listeners and criticised by its own compliance unit after Radio 4 Today programme gave 'undue prominence' to climate change sceptic
The BBC's Editorial Compliance unit has blasted its flagship Today programme over its failure to provide balance on a debate on climate change.
The show's editorial team was found to have given minority views and opinions 'equal footing' to those of the scientific consensus.
The programme, broadcast in February during the major flooding crisis featured climate change scientist Sir Brian Hoskins from Imperial College London who was debating the issue with a founder of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which is sceptical as to its impact.
The main complaint for made by former Green Party councillor and low-energy specialist Chit Chong who said the BBC acted irresponsibly in allowing the debate to consider the existence of climate change.
Speaking today Mr Chong said: 'Dismissing climate change today is the same as trying to argue that smoking is not harmful. The science has proved the existence of climate change.
'By broadcasting programmes that question the existence of climate change, the BBC is confusing people, allowing them to deny what is actually happening. It is not responsible journalism.
Looks like someone needs to be sent to the re-education camp. The more data show 17+ years of global cooling, the more neurotic the warmists become.
UPDATE: I had my tongue firmly in cheek when I talked about sending people to the re-education camp.
Just found this at the UK Telegraph:
BBC staff told to stop inviting cranks on to science programmes
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.
Some 200 staff have already attended seminars and workshops and more will be invited on courses in the coming months to stop them giving ‘undue attention to marginal opinion.’
A bit more:
The Trust said that man-made climate change was one area where too much weight had been given to unqualified critics.
Emphasis mine...
Good God! Talk about blatant media bias.
