BBC to Review Bias in Climate Change Coverage
The BBC has launched an internal investigation into the woeful shortcomings of its climate coverage. Did the Director-General read Paul Homewood’s article documenting 50 instances when the BBC has published or broadcast climate misinformation? The Telegraph has more.
The broadcaster has decided to review its climate and energy policy reporting after a string of controversies. It has been forced to make a series of corrections, with some programmes being removed altogether.
It comes with the BBC at the centre of a bias row after the Telegraph published a leaked letter, which had been sent to members of the BBC board by Michael Prescott, a former standards adviser.
He wrote of his “despair at inaction” by executives over widespread evidence of skewed reporting. …
Now the broadcaster will face fresh scrutiny on its climate coverage, with its Editorial Guidelines and Standards Committee deciding to carry out a “thematic review” of its coverage of “energy policy in the UK and climate change”.
This would make it the latest in a series of reviews on impartiality carried out by the BBC in recent years.
They are part of its 10-point impartiality plan which was introduced in 2021, following an inquiry into the scandal surrounding the 1995 Panorama interview with Diana, Princess of Wales, involving Martin Bashir. …
Earlier this year, the BBC quietly edited an episode of Question Time after allegedly making a false claim about Net Zero. The corporation has defended the move, saying it is “normal practice to edit the programme before broadcast for audience clarity”.
Last year, a complaint was upheld when a BBC News article presented as fact the claim that “human-induced climate change made recent extreme heat in the US South-West, Mexico and Central America around 35 times more likely”.
In May 2022, Justin Rowlatt, the BBC’s Climate Editor, was found to have made misleading claims about extreme weather in a Panorama documentary.
In October 2020, Ofcom upheld a complaint by the National Farmers’ Union about the documentary Meat: A Threat to our Planet? and the documentary was later removed from BBC iPlayer.
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
When your journalism favours reporting opinions rather than facts then skewed reporting slides past without causing any concern. It’s not censorship – just the ‘wrongthink’ not getting any attention. Censorship by omission as it were.
Are BBC executives not subject to performance reviews. Is fraudulent reporting not a cause for dismissal or final warning. What is the point of a biased organisation reviewing its own failures.
In the case of climate crisis the BBC wilfully adopted an extremist political position when it invited committed campaigners to advise it. Since then sceptics have been denied a fair hearing.
Lessons will be learned
I would much rather they carried on exactly as they are so that it’s much easier for the next Reform government to get rid of the licence fee and ideally privatise it completely, and abolish Ofcom in the process. The state has no business being involved in a media empire nor does it have any business regulating media content. The public may be in part a bit dim but we know where the bloody off button is
If we are to have broadcast licenses why not give the public the right to litigate. Make bias a ground for damages and injunctions.
BBC climate claptrap goes back at least two decades. Christopher Booker in 2015 looking back to a meeting of BBC execs in 2005:
“BBC’s climate change stance in brazen defiance of the law…”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11456612/BBCs-climate-change-stance-in-brazen-defiance-of-the-law.html
“…When it comes to climate change, the BBC’s coverage is quite deliberately one-sided.”
All on the advice of “scientific experts,” made up of “a room full of rabid climate activists.”
Defund the British Broadcasting Commentariat.
A thermatic review surely.
Nice one!
The BBC can review whatever they want to review, find whatever conclusions it wants to find, apologize, whatever.
They are way, way past the point where I would consider them anything but a cultural Marxist propaganda outlet.
The ship for “oops, we made a mistake, sorry” sailed many decades ago. Like a prostitute who has spent the last 30 years in a brothel servicing clients now admitting that she was guilty of an act of impurity last week, just once.
It’s not just climate change or Panorama or whatever.
It’s everything.
Every drama where a white male is always the villain.
Every news report where the Islamic terrorist is just a mentally disturbed individual.
Every “talent show” where the most diverse person is the winner before the first episode.
Every documentary that quietly glosses over the 100 million people that communists killed in the last century.
The BBC does not deserve to survive.
That’s why I stopped watching it decades ago.
Flicking through the TV mag I see something interesting on BBC but then the alarm bells go off. Could the BBC be trusted to make an honest programme on this? No, so move on to the next page.
The world’s best funded political campaigning organisation, masquerading as a purveyor of news and entertainment.
Nothing will change.
True given that their impartiality plan of 2021 must have had lots of exceptions such as lying about climate change, faking footage of Trump and issuing pro Hamas terrorist propaganda.
They will triple down on the climategeddon propaganda. ‘We are not doom mongering enough’ will be their conclusion.
U missed the 1 million gallons of whitewash.
Senior BBC staff are required to follow the corporation’s stance on “Climate Change”. From a former staffer, I understand they must sign their agreement – or face dismissal.
David Bellamy was a dissenting voice, was sacked by the BBC and continues to be rubbished for speaking out. In the sordid little BBC world of Saviles, Edwardses and Boughs (among others), Bellamy was a hero.
Looks like President Trump’s win with the BBC has garnered attention from the BBC! Geoengineering, chem trails, weather manipulation by DARPA, DOD, HAARP, DEWS, May actually now get some coverage. The poor brainwashed will perhaps wake up. Grey rainy days, summer droughts, severe downpours, hurricane force winds, crop failure due to “ climate change” may just be a thing of the past if the BBC starts to tell the TRUTH on climate change.
The truth would be something like this “There are no scientists experts or modellers who know what the climate will do in the next 50 or 100 years, and anyone who says otherwise is a fraud”
“An Internal Review”. Is that some kind of joke? That would be like getting Goering and Speer to shake down the judges at Nuremburg.——-But one thing their climate change bias reveals is that it isn’t about science, it is about POLITICS, something most on here have known since the start. If it were all about science there would be no need to deceive, lie and pretend there is only one explanation for some alleged problem for which no real empirical evidence exists. —–You would not misinform the public about black holes or evolution would you? NO. Because these are not Politicised. No government makes public policy based on what is supposed to be true about black holes, but climate change policies are a whole framework of governance now. You can do nothing at all now unless you take the alleged effect on climate into account. It is a complete eco socialist scam, and that is why the left wing biased BBC have become climate activists.
Trust us, we can investigate our selves.