Wednesday, March 27, 2013

BBC Complaint over David Rose Article: Round Two

Following on from this post here complaining about the misinformation in a piece in the Mail on Sunday by David Rose, I have had an article back from the BBC. 

As a rule, the first letter back from an organisation is always a fob-off. The real nittly gritty starts with subsequent rounds of correspondence.

If you heard the Today programme plug for Rose's article, you can go to
and add your voice. 

Anyway. Ding-ding, Round Two

Dear Paul Graham

You say " I understand you believe the inclusion of a news item on the programme regarding climate change was inappropriate as you feel it was without scientific substance."

It was not a news item. It was drawing attention to an article in the MailOnline./Mail on Sunday which was otherwise obscure. Thousands of items are in papers all the time - why was this one given salience?

You say "we also offer time to the dissenting voices". You do not offer time to flat earthers, creationists and 9/11 truthers.

I want to know Who and Why.
Who took the decision to give salience to this distortion in the Mail, and why did s/he take the decision?

I also ask that you publish a balancing piece on Today, with a scientist or campaigner explaining the pause in increase of surface temperature warming.

In the interests of balance, you might also like to carry  an piece relating the recent bad weather to the aberration of the jet stream, the blocking high and the arctic snow melt. This page is very informative, especially the video:

Thank you.

No comments: