Media (Lack of) CC Coverage

[wili]

Apologies if there is already a thread on this, but I couldn't find it. Mods, please feel free to merge with any relevant existing thread.

Climate change is the story you missed in 2017. And the media is to blame

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/dec/07/climate-change-media-coverage-media-matters

Some of Trump’s tweets generate more national coverage than devastating disasters. As the weather gets worse, we need journalism to get better

makes disasters like hurricanes worse, or how Donald Trump threw paper towels at Puerto Ricans?

If you answered the latter, you have plenty of company. Academic Jennifer Good analyzed two weeks of hurricane coverage during the height of hurricane season on eight major TV networks, and found that about 60% of the stories included the word Trump, and only about 5% mentioned climate change.

[TerryM]

Wili
There was a study some years ago where they tested various groups based on how many hours they watched various newscasts. They determined that the more Fox News one watched, the less you knew about the worlds news.
Based only on my own very tiny sampling of American newscasts, I'd guess that if the test was repeated today, we'd find that watching any of the newscasts lowers one's understanding of the world around him.
Terry

[GeoffBeacon]

Wili

Thanks for this topic. I've now done some posting on the Guardian site, including

Is there a legal remedy to the BBC's silence on climate change?

Will our BBC ("Inform, educate and entertain") begin informing and educating on climate change - e.g. Alongside the BBC's reporting of Californian wildfires? Or will the BBC keep up the attitude they showed in 2007 when they cancelled the Planet Relief Programme?

See BBC drops climate change special

    Asked whether the BBC should campaign on issues such as climate change, Mr Horrocks told a session at the TV festival: "I absolutely don't think we should do that because it's not impartial. It's not our job to lead people and proselytise about it."

    Barron added: "It is absolutely not the BBC's job to save the planet. I think there are a lot of people who think that, but it must be stopped."

So they don't proselytise but what about "inform and educate"?

Is there a legal remedy?

I wonder if Judicial Review is possible?

[crandles]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-42400653

Ofcom to investigate BBC climate change interview

The BBC admitted it should have challenged him[Lord Lawson] and that the interview had breached its "guidelines on accuracy and impartiality".

Although the BBC upheld the complaints again, one listener referred the matter to Ofcom, saying the BBC hadn't taken sufficient action.

That prompted the regulator - which took over responsibility for overseeing the BBC's editorial standards in April - to investigate whether the interview broke its broadcasting code.

Ofcom said: "We are investigating whether this interview, which followed a similar interview in 2014, breached our rules on due accuracy and due impartiality."

Sorry if this is wrong thread and more appropriate one exists on this Aug 2017 Radio 4's Today program.

[Neven]

A BBC spokeswoman said: "We have already acknowledged that we should have challenged some of Lord Lawson's statements more robustly.

No, you should never ever have him or any of his ilk on your channel. As soon as you let him on, you've failed. British phlegm and politeness... 

[TerryM]

A BBC spokeswoman said: "We have already acknowledged that we should have challenged some of Lord Lawson's statements more robustly.

No, you should never ever have him or any of his ilk on your channel. As soon as you let him on, you've failed. British phlegm and politeness... 

At least there is someone tasked with trying to keep them honest.
Terry

[Paddy]

Foil Arms and Hog did a fairly nice little sketch on media "balance on such issues: