Oh my gosh, that title sounds so boring! I know, I'll do what I can to sex it up with lolcats!Last month the BBC came out with a report regarding accuracy and impartiality in the coverage of science. The research done to see how the BBC was doing was conducted by Steve Jones, Professor Emeritus of Genetics at University College London and other content analysis by the Science Communication Group at Imperial College London.
Wait a sec. Why do we care, especially if we're not in Britain? The first reason is that news gets spread around and we all have access to BBC programming and content. I, for one, watch a lot of BBC America because I've found it to be better than a lot of the basic stations here in the US (especially the comedy). Also when I hear something going on in the world, the BBC is one news source I turn to when I want the facts without a lot of noticeable spin.
It seems that I'm not alone. From the findings in the report:
"For the purposes of this project science was defined to include not just natural sciences but also coverage of technology, medicine and the environment relating to the work of scientists."
The UK produces a tenth of the world’s scientific research (though it makes up just 1% of the global population) and is the largest research contributor after the US and Japan. A third of the UK’s GDP is produced by science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. There is a demonstrable
public appetite for more information about science, and its policy, social and ethical implications, and most people glean this information from the media. In Professor Jones’ view, the importance of science to the UK, the public’s interest in it, and the role of the BBC in “fostering a scientifically literate society” all underline the huge importance of the organisation’s science coverage.
...Professor Jones makes it clear that, overall, BBC science content is of a very high calibre, has improved over the past decade and outstrips that of other broadcasters both in the UK and internationally. It is commended by a number of external scientific bodies for its accuracy, diverse appeal and inclusion in a wide variety of programmes...... the researchers found no significant factual inaccuracies in the coverage that they analysed. They also found science coverage spread across a wide range of BBC content, in both news and non-news and specialist and non-specialist output.
So the report found that generally the BBC is doing a good job and is better than most with science coverage. They found a few weaknesses, one of which is very interesting, mainly that they have been "over-rigid" on their impartiality and have given "undue attention to marginal opinion."
And isn't this a huge issue!? The BBC might be guilty of being over-rigid, but America excels at this. Usually the platform is full of fringe believers in one form of nonsense or another. Then there will be a lone scientist, doctor or skeptic who will get one brief moment to express some sense, after which he is usually dismissed, attacked and shouted down. The report usually ends on the True Believer and his touching anecdotal story, which is all anyone remembers.
