Why do they need to lie?

The BBC and impartiality

The guidelines which govern what stance the BBC may take on any issue is clear. The BBC is ‘forbidden from expressing an opinion on current affairs or matters of public policy other than broadcasting’.¹ In other words: just report the news, don’t try to manufacture it.

Mid-way through January 2009, after a heavy bombardment by Israel which left many of Gaza’s citizens homeless, British TV stations broadcast appeals on their behalf. But the BBC declined to broadcast the Gaza appeal, saying it did not want to compromise its impartiality.

But that impartiality, it seems, does not extend to ‘climate change’.

Barak Obama was elected the forty-fourth President of the United States concurrently with the row over the Gaza appeal. The BBC’s current affairs programme, Newsnight, discussed the implications of the new president’s inaugural speech for science in general and global warming in particular. The programme began with Newsnight’s science editor, Susan Watts, presenting this sound bite from the speech:

‘We will restore science to its rightful place, [and] roll back the spectre of a warming planet. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories.’²

Referring to that sound bite, Watts then started her report:

‘President Obama couldn’t have been clearer today. And for most scientists his vote of confidence would not have come a moment too soon.’

‘In the eight years of the Bush presidency, the world saw Arctic ice caps shrink to a record summer low, the relentless rise of greenhouse gas emissions, and warnings from scientists shift from urgent to panicky.’

Unless you had listened to the new president’s speech or read a transcript of it, that statement would seem to imply that the Barak Obama had man-made global warming firmly in his sights. Except that President Obama didn’t actually say what Newsnight attributed to him. Those words were spliced together by a Newsnight sound engineer from three sentences which were six paragraphs apart. The opening ‘quote’ starts with piece of a sentence in paragraph 16, goes on with part of another sentence in paragraph 22 and finishes with part of a third sentence back in paragraph 16.³

Paragraph 16 does not mention global warming; it is about building new jobs, roads, bridges and communications infrastructure. ‘Restoring science’ is concerned with lowering costs; the reference to harnessing the sun, wind and soil is about energy security. Even ‘and roll back the spectre of a warming planet’ in paragraph 22 seems divorced from any worry about a threat of global warming: this paragraph is about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. That part of the ‘quote’, in context, is:

‘With old friends and former foes, we will work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat, and roll back the spectre of a warming planet. We will not apologise for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents . . .’

In fact, the only part of the speech which might be interpreted as referring to global warming is towards the end of paragraph 4 and even then it seems to have been tacked on as an afterthought:

Paragraph 4: ‘That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood. Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred. Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age. Homes have been lost; jobs shed; businesses shuttered. Our health care is too costly; our schools fail too many; and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet.’

Don’t forget that President Obama did not say all this off the cuff; it was a carefully prepared speech. Doubtless, every word would have been weighed; it would have been honed to perfection by experts. So one thing is clear: BBC Newsnight reported what it wanted Obama to say, not what he really did say. How impartial is that?

Conclusion

There are two points to be made:

Firstly, it should be obvious, that such facts as disappearing Arctic sea ice and species being at risk, even if true, are entirely irrelevant to illuminating the causes of any warming.

Therefore, claims that global warming is man-made by relying by such observations are emotive, meaningless and misleading.

Secondly, it is true that the examples I've given were not published by the IPCC but by pressure groups and news media, perhaps with an agenda of their own. But, if the IPCC’s argument and the evidence for man-made global warming is as strong as it is made out to be, and if all scientists are agreed that the evidence for man-made global warming is overwhelming and that there is no longer any debate about our harmful effect on the world in which we live, why do they have to make up stories that are so obviously false?

References

1. http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/edguide/impariality/

2. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/7841946.stm

3. Barak Obama’s inaugural speech.

Paragraph 16

‘For everywhere we look, there is work to be done. The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act – not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology’s wonders to raise health care’s quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age. All this we can do. And all this we will do.’ (Emphasis added for clarity)

Paragraph 22

‘We are the keepers of this legacy. Guided by these principles once more, we can meet those new threats that demand even greater effort – even greater cooperation and understanding between nations. We will begin to responsibly leave Iraq to its people, and forge a hard-earned peace in Afghanistan. With old friends and former foes, we will work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat, and roll back the spectre of a warming planet. We will not apologise for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.’ (Emphasis added for clarity)

The Independent published the full text of President Obama’s speech.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

Last updated 7 March 2009