5 ms·

Do you at least appreciate the irony of the BBC here saying we shouldn't give contrary opinions a stage as a way of ensuring integrity?

hunglee2 4y ago
yes indeed I do, BBC itself started for PR purposes, I believe BBC Worldwide retains it as its core purpose
- Angostura 4y ago
  The BBC was started with the core mission to 'Inform, educate, entertain.' The BBC World Service - funded by the Foreign Office, rather than from the core BBC license fee funding, did indeed have soft-power as part of its remit.
Barrin92 4y ago
The BBC as a public broadcaster isn't in the business of hosting contrarians for profit but to broadcast factful news, so.. not really. The opinion of scientists qualified to speak on the question of CC matters, letting literal oil lobbyists speak is like asking the fox if we should keep the door to the henhouse open.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- jamessb 4y ago
  > The BBC as a public broadcaster isn't in the business of hosting contrarians In the past, the BBC certainly has been in the business of "hosting contrarians", though perhaps with the misguided intention of providing balance rather than attracting viewers. For example, OFCOM found them to have broken broadcasting standards by allowing Lord Lawson (a well-known climate change denialist) to make false statements on the Today Program [1, 2] without being challenged or corrected. This happened despite a complaint being upheld about a previous appearance of the same guest on the same program [3]. [1]: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-43699607 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-43699607 [2]: https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0012/112701/issue-351-broadcast-on-demand-bulletin.pdf https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0012/112701/... [3]: https://web.archive.org/web/20140901181614/https://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/comp-reports/ecu/today13022014 https://web.archive.org/web/20140901181614/https://www.bbc.c...
  - headsoup 4y ago
    Weird though that it's perfectly fine to host false statements so long as they're on the correct 'side.' Those become honest mistakes or 'the science changed,' etc. This helps no one, as does not allowing opposing opinions/'science' just because, especially if controversial. As long as the journalists are ensuring they do enough diligence to not present blatant lies or propaganda, it should not matter which 'side' is presented, journalism is supposedly (?) about presenting honest data and information for the viewer/consumer to form their own opinions on. If someone somehow forms the opinion that climate change isn't a thing, then present better arguments and information and debate with honesty and integrity. It's not as loud and might not get the internet clicks, but it will shine through better in the end, much as it doesn't seem to in the moment. Don't let the fear/threat of trolls block being challenged by opposing ideas.
    - simiones 4y ago
      > If someone somehow forms the opinion that climate change isn't a thing, then present better arguments and information and debate with honesty and integrity. If you're not already climate scientist, or willing to seriously read up on the literature, then you have no chance of understanding and judging for yourself arguments about the field - this is true for most fields requiring advanced mathematics and statistics. You are deluding yourself if you think you can listen to two climate scientists debate a point and accurately assess who has the better argument; not that this may even be true if you are a climate scientist, as you often need to run your own experiments or at least verify equations and statistical models before making up your mind. The purpose of journalism is exactly to process facts to the public at a level where they can be understood by most people reading/watching them. The proper way to do science journalism is two steps removed from the raw scientific discussion: you ask scientists in the field about the mainstream opinion, about how strong the consensus is, about plausible non-mainstream opinions; maybe you check with a few people close to the field but outside of it to see what are opinions about the field itself in the larger academic context. If you can, you also get information about consequences of these theories in terms that can be understood by a non-expert audience (such as time dilation and the way it is used in GPS satellites for special relativity). Then, you present to the public a condensed version of this information. What you don't do is ignore all of this burden of journalistic research and just bring some scientists that are for or against a theory and let them make some random simplified meaningless arguments to the public to see who has the slicker tongue and nothing else.
- headsoup 4y ago
  So here contrarians are mutually exclusive with facts?
simiones 4y ago
Integrity in news reporting has nothing to do with presenting every possible view as legitimate. A news report about the Earth that invites both physicists and flat earth loonies is not in any way better than one that doesn't even mention the flat Earth "theory". You are actively misleading the public when inviting climate change deniers to a discussion about climate change.
- silverpepsi 4y ago
  Here's a challenge I bet your little principle can't sustain: find a major long standing theory in human history that turned out to be wrong. Then apply your idea . The desired outcome for a rational principle would be that the truth and reality bubbles efficiently to the surface instead of gets burried and is taboo and something people are ostracized for promoting. I have yet to hear a principle that can deliver this outcome.
  - Beldin 4y ago
    Like Newton's gravity? Its replacement bubbled efficiently to the surface...
  - simiones 4y ago
    For pure scientific debates, I'm all for inviting any scientist with some amount of credentials to the table. But for public policy debates, I think the track record is exactly the opposite: for every major public policy issue that required scientific knowledge, inviting the reactionary types dug out by the sleazy PR industry has done a dis-service to the public. We've seen this with tabacco, with led, and with global warming in just the last century.
    - headsoup 4y ago
      Define 'some amount of credentials' and I'll bet I can find you scientists with them that support the thing you say is loony.
      - 4y ago
chess_buster 4y ago
The opinion of 10,000 men is of no value if none of them know anything about the subject. --Marcus Aurelius
- headsoup 4y ago
  But then the question must be asked who then gives them an opinion?

hunglee2 4y ago

yes indeed I do, BBC itself started for PR purposes, I believe BBC Worldwide retains it as its core purpose

Angostura 4y ago
The BBC was started with the core mission to 'Inform, educate, entertain.' The BBC World Service - funded by the Foreign Office, rather than from the core BBC license fee funding, did indeed have soft-power as part of its remit.

Barrin92 4y ago

The BBC as a public broadcaster isn't in the business of hosting contrarians for profit but to broadcast factful news, so.. not really. The opinion of scientists qualified to speak on the question of CC matters, letting literal oil lobbyists speak is like asking the fox if we should keep the door to the henhouse open.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
jamessb 4y ago
> The BBC as a public broadcaster isn't in the business of hosting contrarians In the past, the BBC certainly has been in the business of "hosting contrarians", though perhaps with the misguided intention of providing balance rather than attracting viewers. For example, OFCOM found them to have broken broadcasting standards by allowing Lord Lawson (a well-known climate change denialist) to make false statements on the Today Program [1, 2] without being challenged or corrected. This happened despite a complaint being upheld about a previous appearance of the same guest on the same program [3]. [1]: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-43699607 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-43699607 [2]: https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0012/112701/issue-351-broadcast-on-demand-bulletin.pdf https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0012/112701/... [3]: https://web.archive.org/web/20140901181614/https://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/comp-reports/ecu/today13022014 https://web.archive.org/web/20140901181614/https://www.bbc.c...
- headsoup 4y ago
  Weird though that it's perfectly fine to host false statements so long as they're on the correct 'side.' Those become honest mistakes or 'the science changed,' etc. This helps no one, as does not allowing opposing opinions/'science' just because, especially if controversial. As long as the journalists are ensuring they do enough diligence to not present blatant lies or propaganda, it should not matter which 'side' is presented, journalism is supposedly (?) about presenting honest data and information for the viewer/consumer to form their own opinions on. If someone somehow forms the opinion that climate change isn't a thing, then present better arguments and information and debate with honesty and integrity. It's not as loud and might not get the internet clicks, but it will shine through better in the end, much as it doesn't seem to in the moment. Don't let the fear/threat of trolls block being challenged by opposing ideas.
  - simiones 4y ago
    > If someone somehow forms the opinion that climate change isn't a thing, then present better arguments and information and debate with honesty and integrity. If you're not already climate scientist, or willing to seriously read up on the literature, then you have no chance of understanding and judging for yourself arguments about the field - this is true for most fields requiring advanced mathematics and statistics. You are deluding yourself if you think you can listen to two climate scientists debate a point and accurately assess who has the better argument; not that this may even be true if you are a climate scientist, as you often need to run your own experiments or at least verify equations and statistical models before making up your mind. The purpose of journalism is exactly to process facts to the public at a level where they can be understood by most people reading/watching them. The proper way to do science journalism is two steps removed from the raw scientific discussion: you ask scientists in the field about the mainstream opinion, about how strong the consensus is, about plausible non-mainstream opinions; maybe you check with a few people close to the field but outside of it to see what are opinions about the field itself in the larger academic context. If you can, you also get information about consequences of these theories in terms that can be understood by a non-expert audience (such as time dilation and the way it is used in GPS satellites for special relativity). Then, you present to the public a condensed version of this information. What you don't do is ignore all of this burden of journalistic research and just bring some scientists that are for or against a theory and let them make some random simplified meaningless arguments to the public to see who has the slicker tongue and nothing else.
headsoup 4y ago
So here contrarians are mutually exclusive with facts?

simiones 4y ago

Integrity in news reporting has nothing to do with presenting every possible view as legitimate. A news report about the Earth that invites both physicists and flat earth loonies is not in any way better than one that doesn't even mention the flat Earth "theory". You are actively misleading the public when inviting climate change deniers to a discussion about climate change.

silverpepsi 4y ago
Here's a challenge I bet your little principle can't sustain: find a major long standing theory in human history that turned out to be wrong. Then apply your idea . The desired outcome for a rational principle would be that the truth and reality bubbles efficiently to the surface instead of gets burried and is taboo and something people are ostracized for promoting. I have yet to hear a principle that can deliver this outcome.
- Beldin 4y ago
  Like Newton's gravity? Its replacement bubbled efficiently to the surface...
- simiones 4y ago
  For pure scientific debates, I'm all for inviting any scientist with some amount of credentials to the table. But for public policy debates, I think the track record is exactly the opposite: for every major public policy issue that required scientific knowledge, inviting the reactionary types dug out by the sleazy PR industry has done a dis-service to the public. We've seen this with tabacco, with led, and with global warming in just the last century.
  - headsoup 4y ago
    Define 'some amount of credentials' and I'll bet I can find you scientists with them that support the thing you say is loony.
    - 4y ago

chess_buster 4y ago

The opinion of 10,000 men is of no value if none of them know anything about the subject. --Marcus Aurelius

headsoup 4y ago
But then the question must be asked who then gives them an opinion?