Breadcrumbs
- Home
- Research staff
- Research staff blog
- BBC to hold review of science coverage, your thoughts?
BBC to hold review of science coverage, your thoughts?
06 January 2010
By julian Roberts
while browsing the interwebs, i came across this article on the BBC
this really is about time, im not sure about anyone else here but the science to me seems to be very biased in its coverage. perhaps a bit more impartiality is needed, as well as some better education. some of the articles are far too dumbed down (or is this just me?)
am interested to know what others think!
Comments Subscribe by RSS
Please
log in to post a comment.
Elizabeth Dodson07 January 2010 at 11:14 AM
permalinkreport this comment
I agree and hope the review has a positive effect. There are a lot of findings reported without enough context to know whether the research behind them had any value. This is seen across the media, but we should at least be able to trust the BBC - otherwise what is the point of it being publically funded? There are many critiques out there of individual stories presented as fact - but these are some of my favourites: http://bamboobadger.blogspot.com/2009/02/invading-poll-land.html http://www.badscience.net/2007/11/free-energy/ http://www.badscience.net/2007/05/so-simple-a-child-could-spot-it/
Sarah Davies10 January 2010 at 08:00 PM
permalinkreport this comment
First of all, thanks for the word 'interweb' - a personal favourite which doesn't get used enough ;-) And thanks for the pointer to what the Beeb are up to, too. I don't use the BBC much for news, but from what I've seen they've always seemed pretty good. You say you find it biased - in what way?
Simon Smith13 January 2010 at 04:26 PM
permalinkreport this comment
"For the purposes of the review, "science" will be defined to include not just the natural sciences but also those aspects of technology, medicine and the environment that entail scientific statements, research findings or other claims made by scientists." (http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/news/press_releases/january/science_impartiality.shtml) Does that mean the review will not cover social sciences? That would be a great shame. The same article goes on: "The review will assess news and factual output that refers to scientific findings" I hope that it will assess not just the impartiality of the outputs, but also the process - i.e. how journalists communicate with scientists. That would be an area where it could perhaps come up with some really useful recommendations. Apparently details of the review process will be given in the spring. I hope there is an opportunity to have an input.