…this story intrigued me slightly. The BBC have pulled a special about climate change, because they fear it would be against the BBC’s stance of impartiality.
Now, I’m not sure a TV special about climate change would have been particularly successful. I mean, Live Earth was hardly a runaway, world-saving success (though that could have been down to the frankly rubbish line up and mind-numbing hypocricy of several hundred celebs jetting round the world, just to be lit and amplifed and preach to the proles that they have to use energy saving lightbulbs and stop going on short haul flights).
But why is climate change an issue that is supposedly so politically sensitive that the BBC cannot be shown to accept it is real and highlight the dangers it poses? Nearly all scientists accept the climate is changing, and there’s general scientific consensus it’s down to human activity. This is not some political belief. It is what our scientists are telling us, despite what sadly very well-publicised “climate skeptics” would have us believe.
Since when has taking generally accepted scientific consensus been an issue of political partiality? Does this mean the BBC can’t make a programme about evolution any more, for example? It’s worrying stuff if taken to its conclusion.
I strongly believe that the BBC should hold true to its remit of political impartiality. But they have to be careful this doesn’t mean they never stick their neck out and say anything that could be mildly controversial, or they risk being bland, toothless and totally irrelevent.