Climate change is always reported as two opposing views — one side who *believes* and the other side that *does not believe*. Treating a science topic (it isn’t a *belief* topic) as though it was a political topic is one of the worst journalistic offences we are subject to, and we are subject to quite a few of them throughout the day. John Oliver takes note that this topic is always addressed as one for and one against, as though there was an equal amount of scientific evidence that climate change does not happen. He brilliantly works at a fairer debate — one that weights the conversation towards the evidence — hilarious:
In other climate change news, the BBC is training their journalists to stop reporting false balance in their science stories.
“The Trust wishes to emphasise the importance of attempting to establish where the weight of scientific agreement may be found and make that clear to audiences,” wrote the report authors.
“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.”
The Trust said that man-made climate change was one area where too much weight had been given to unqualified critics.
In April the BBC was accused of misleading viewers about climate change and creating ‘false balance’ by allowing unqualified sceptics to have too much air-time.
In a damning parliamentary report, the corporation was criticised for distorting the debate, with Radio 4’s Today and World at One programmes coming in for particular criticism.
The BBC’s determination to give a balanced view has seen it pit scientists arguing for climate change against far less qualified opponents such as Lord Lawson who heads a campaign group lobbying against the government’s climate change policies.
Right!
