Common sense prevails as BBC upholds Today programme climate complaint

Hugh Muir reports on the leaked decision by the BBC to uphold a complaint about an interview on climate change with Lord Lawson on the Today programme on 13 February.

Justin Webb interviewed both Lawson and Prof Sir Brian Hoskins, chair of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change at Imperial College London, about the link between climate change and the winter floods this winter.

Lawson wrongly claimed that it was not possible for scientists to connect the flooding to climate change, and then went on to falsely suggest that there was no evidence for an increase in any extreme weather events.

The BBC Editorial Complaints Unit has now concluded that the interview broke guidelines about the need to ensure due accuracy in its news programmes.

Although it has not yet formally announced the decision, I was told by e-mail on 4 June that it was planning to announce the verdict soon.

In a letter dated 13 May which outlined its provisional decision, Fraser Steel, the Head of Editorial Complaints, stated:

I have understood you to say that the interviews [sic] created a ‘false balance between climate scientists and climate change sceptics and as a result gave an inaccurate and misleading impression of the evidence. I have to say that I share your broad impression and I am therefore upholding your complaint.

He added:

As you have pointed out, Lord Lawson’s views are not supported by the evidence from computer modelling and scientific research and I don’t believe this was made sufficiently clear to the audience.

This represents a complete turnaround by the BBC which initially sought to justify the interview. Ceri Thomas, Head of Programmes at BBC News, defended the programme on the grounds that

Lord Lawson is not a scientist, but as a former chancellor of the Exchequer is well qualified to comment on the economic arguments, which are a legitimate area for debate.

However, listeners to Today heard Lawson use most of his air-time to dispute the science of climate change, and argue with Hoskins about the evidence.

The BBC should not have been surprised that Lawson made inaccurate and misleading statements about the science of climate change as he had done so in previous appearances on its programmes.

Furthermore, he was no doubt invited to participate in the interview on Today because he rejects the scientific evidence and chairs a campaign group for climate change ‘sceptics’, the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

This error of judgment is the result of a confused and muddled approach by some BBC programmes over how to cover climate change.

While BBC science and environment correspondents generally do an excellent job of reporting news about climate change, many of its presenter-led programmes mislead their audiences by attempting on occasion to be impartial between facts and fallacies.

In a report for the BBC Trust in 2011, Prof Steve Jones warned of the dangers of giving air-time to climate change ‘sceptics’. Although the BBC’s official response to the report appeared to accept his recommendations, David Jordan, the Director of Editorial Policy and Standards, told the House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology last July that the corporation had rejected Professor Jones’s suggestions about the coverage of climate change.

However, common sense now appears to be prevailing at the BBC with this recognition that the interview with Lord Lawson breached its editorial guidelines.

What is now needed is for an investigation by the BBC and BBC Trust into why the report by Jones has not been fully implemented, and to strengthen its editorial procedures such that the responsibility to achieve due accuracy in its news programmes is not sacrificed again for the sake of a muddled notion of impartiality between scientists and climate change ‘sceptics’.

Although this should not mean that ‘sceptics’ are banned from appearing on BBC news programmes, it does mean that editors should take into account the greater risk they create of inaccurate and misleading information being broadcast, and to take necessary precautions.

For instance, interviews with climate change ‘sceptics’ could be followed by commentaries by science and environment correspondents who could correct any errors.

And the BBC should also take into account that the views of climate change ‘sceptics’ are already hugely over-represented in media coverage, giving the public the false impression that there is no scientific consensus over the causes and potential consequences.