A double standard for climate versus economic reporting
by David Atkins
Kudos to the BBC for doing the right thing:
Good news for viewers of BBC News: you’ll no longer be subjected to the unhinged ravings of climate deniers and other members of the anti-science fringe. In a report published Thursday by the BBC Trust, the network’s journalists were criticized for devoting too much air time (as in, any air time) to unqualified people with “marginal views” about non-contentious issues in a misguided attempt to provide editorial balance.
“The Trust wishes to emphasize the importance of attempting to establish where the weight of scientific agreement may be found and make that clear to audiences,” the report reads. “Science coverage does not simply lie in reflecting a wide range of views but depends on the varying degree of prominence such views should be given.” So far, according to the Telegraph, about 200 staff members have attending seminars and workshops aimed at improving their coverage.
To illustrate the ridiculousness of having one fringe “expert” come in to undermine a scientific consensus, the report points to the network’s coverage of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which in September released a report concluding, with 95 percent certainty, that man-man climate change is happening. As was their due diligence, BBC reporters called a dozen prominent U.K. scientists, trying to drum up an opposing viewpoint. When that didn’t happen — probably because 97 percent of scientists agree that man-made climate change is happening — they turned instead to retired Australian geologist Bob Carter, who has ties to the industry-affiliated Heartland Institute.
One of the hardest lessons journalism has had to learn over the last couple of decades is that sometimes truth doesn't require balance.
But then, it's not as if journalism doesn't accept some things as truth. It has been difficult to find almost anyone in mainstream economic reporting who called into question the necessity of austerity to deal with "dangerous" deficits.
Isn't it odd that journalism has taken so long to simply report established climate science consensus as fact rather than debate, while allowing little challenge to supply-side fairy economic orthdoxy? It's almost as if the interests of the very wealthy were served by the double standard.
.