I really hope this works. I am glad we have the BBC here in the UK. I am also glad that they have these guidelines. Not because they necessarily result in optimal news coverage, but because it helps to keep the private broadcasters in line. It's shame there isn't an equivalent for print publications really, given the state of the UK press.
However, their coverage of climate change is frequently ridiculous, giving equal airtime to views "on both sides of the debate". In reality, when 99% of scientists in the field would say that the "opposing view" is just BS, there is no debate.
Just because science has to revise its facts now and then doesn't mean any random, baseless opposing view has merit. However this is the fallacy a lot of anti-science types seem to cling to. Up to now, the BBC has only been exacerbating that problem.
However, their coverage of climate change is frequently ridiculous, giving equal airtime to views "on both sides of the debate". In reality, when 99% of scientists in the field would say that the "opposing view" is just BS, there is no debate.
Just because science has to revise its facts now and then doesn't mean any random, baseless opposing view has merit. However this is the fallacy a lot of anti-science types seem to cling to. Up to now, the BBC has only been exacerbating that problem.