麻豆官网首页入口

I think one of 麻豆官网首页入口's problems is that it attracts and hires people who want to change the world. That is not a reporter's job. Commentary on the other hand can be presented IF it is backed up by strong evidence and is intellectually honest enough to present opposing views it disagrees with if they are from respected sources.

"So what constitutes impartiality on this issue. Should we, every time the issue of climate change is raised, include someone like Myron Ebell from the US Competitive Enterprise Institute, who argues that while climate change may be happening there's no evidence that it's caused by human activity and absolutely no need to reduce carbon emissions?"

No I think picking an extreme point to make an argument look rediculous is unfair. I think what 麻豆官网首页入口 should do is not merely give a platform for those it agrees with to pontificate unchallenged, a normal 麻豆官网首页入口 practice but to present or at least mention that there are alternative points of view from credible scientists who take issue with the presumptions of the guest or interviewee. Not every discussion has to be an in depth debate but so far any real debate of climate change on 麻豆官网首页入口 has been rather scant as far as I can tell.

By taking the basic positions of the majority of scientists on climate change as a given axiomatic truth and then presenting what is clearly a political, not a serious scientific and economic examination of the possible courses of action and their consequences, 麻豆官网首页入口 deliberately misleads its audience in what are surely very complex issues with drastic implications. This seems to be an across the board position of those advocating action to deal with climate change no matter what their other political views. In an interview last weekend on BookTV shown on C-Span2, Christopher Hitchens, the ostensibly conservative right wing half of a pair of Hitchenses (his brother Peter is the left half of the set of bookends) spoke out on climate change saying what does it matter if we act on the assumption that climate change is man made and we turn out to be wrong, what harm could it do? Well for one it could needlessly throw the world into a universal economic depression it would not recover from. And for another, it would likely result in condemning people around the world to mass starvation as energy consuming agribusiness in places like the US which much of the world depends on to eat would have to be sharply curtailed. The flaw in 麻豆官网首页入口's presentations is not merely that they are political, it is its glibness refusing to grasp the significance of what is being said and what is being proposed. It reduces discussion to trite practiced mantras instead of well reasoned arguments and backs them up with anecdotal evidence. Superficial and biased, this is the sad current state of affairs of much of 麻豆官网首页入口's efforts.

6th September 2007

The problem of climate change is a priority issue facing the international community. However, like other problems faced in the world today, these issues are discussed only by a limited number of people, despite the fact that a lot more people have a genuine interest in life. Climate change and other issues will continue to be discussed by intellecutals, politicians, and members of the business community, but will the interests of the people in general be truely expressed; are the democratic mechanisms in place really expressing the sovereign good? The question arises whether truely "concrete" universal social interests are expressed via the state (however contentious a concept of the state may be), as opposed to an abstract universalism, which, in reality, only expresses the interests of a spurious individuals, and, furthermore, any number of a plurality of issues which may be deemed to lie in the public interest. Even if pluralism does express genuine interests, which are therefore perfectly valid, one has to question as to what the political objectives of social movements are. To clarify the argument, let us consider the problem of social justice, which may entail a recognition of the working class as being equal, in principle, to other social classes. However as far as this may be expressed politically, depends on how the key protagonists of political action play their cards; the state, it may be argued, is the legitimate seat of of sovereignty, and as such, the interests of the "people", the good of the people (and by extension, the world in general; biosphere, planet, economy, "environment", etc.). The only way that this "good" may possibly be realized, is by subordinating other interests to this social goal; "freedom" by definition, implies a necessary recognition of the interests of society as a whole, not simply sectional interests of one social group or another. To fight for sectional interests, may well be legitmate, and protagonists may justifiably suppport these interests (i.e. conservative, liberal, labour, communist parties, etc.), but to fight for such issues, at the expense of the social good, is contrary to freedom, and reactionary. Socialists perhaps should argue this theoretical position tooth and nail, by polemic, discussion, and logical debate, if they get the chance.

There are better ways to convince Joe Public that Global Warming (or Climate Change as you like to call it after the dreadful summer we've had in the UK) than having hypocritical bandwagon jumping celebs or untrustworthy MP's shoving it down our throats, day in, day out.

Not once have I seen an intelligent programme on the 麻豆官网首页入口 detailing the pros and cons of the more credible scientific theories contributing to the whole debate. (麻豆官网首页入口 Breakfast doesn't count - see use of the word 'intelligent')

I was suprised to hear of the 麻豆官网首页入口`S decision not to go ahead with the planet relief programme.
It seems possible to me and a growing number of others that soon climate change and other enviromental degradtion will be the only issue and will unfortunately dominate over all else.
I`m suprised then that the 麻豆官网首页入口 isn`t ahead of the game with this-the old rules of impartiality etc don`t really apply with such a huge issue.
I heard someone else comment on radio 2 today that the 麻豆官网首页入口 does charity programmes for children-when climate change will affect our children and theirs in ways we probably can`t even begin to imagine today.
I understand if there`s also other reasons why this has been cut but in general I think there should more information given via TV as from where I`m sitting most of us are carrying on the same-driving flying
unnecessarily -internal and short haul flights etc-its not just about light bulbs sadly!

While this particular idea does seem to have been ill-thought-out I don't buy the "impartiality" angle.

There is clearly a difference between reporting and campaigning, but most of us are not idiots and can tell the one from the other.

麻豆官网首页入口 TV (and to a lesser extent radio) is in fact full of content which could be and is questioned on grounds of "partiality" by people from all political viewpoints. Coverage of the Palestinians and Israel springs particularly to mind.

However, I don't mind programmes with a trenchant point of view so long as it is clear what that POV is, and the opposing POV also gets fair coverage where relevant.

It also helps when the people putting across the message are experts in the particular field, not "celebrities".

And as Joss Sanglier also comments, what about Comic Relief and all the "save the blue whale" type programmes? No concerns about impartiality over those!

It should be possible to discuss almost any subject on air provided the sides concerned are properly balanced. Therein lies the rub and the problem that many people have with the media, including the 麻豆官网首页入口. It is this matter of gratuitous comments and opinions that is so infuriating
A good example occurred shortly after 6.00 hrs. this morning. I had the 麻豆官网首页入口 news on in the background and heard someone, James Westwood I think, comment that a 10 year plan the Government had in mind for children sounded Stalinesque. It is not for the 麻豆官网首页入口 journalists to give that sort of opinion. Get a debate on air if appropriate.

As someone who does believe that CO2 concentrations affect climate I don鈥檛 really object to the Planet Relief day being cancelled. Most people would see it as yet another 鈥榙ull but worthy鈥� day of programming and from what I鈥檝e seen it wouldn鈥檛 have been that inspiring.

A mass switch-off? Not a great idea (you can see the headlines now) and I suspect many would switch over, not switch off. It also plays straight into the hands of those who claim the aim is to get us all 鈥榣iving back as humans did in the Stone Age鈥�. The idea sounds like the result of a brainstorm of people trying too hard to find one of those 鈥榮omething everyone can participate in鈥� activities. And a day of Ricky Gervaise trying not to sound too smug whilst surrounded by celebs鈥� Purlease, it鈥檇 be like a 14-hour long episode of Extras.

Two thirds of the 麻豆官网首页入口鈥檚 charter remit is to 鈥渋nform & educate鈥� . There is a real need to examine and explain the science of climate change. Too many people, scientists included, believe that the public (inc. journalists) fully grasp the issue and have a basic scientific grounding. This clearly isn鈥檛 the case and one reason so many counter theories and claims abound in the blogsphere. Concentrating on the factual could cover many different aspects of the topic. Past climates and climate change could involve historians and archaeologists and well as earth scientists; the present day could examine the chemistry, physics, what the difference is between weather and climate, how earth鈥檚 atmosphere works and much more. Energy alternatives: look at how the energy companies and car manufacturers are investing huge sums in emerging technologies. Energy efficiency in the home, that鈥檚 personal finance.

By all means examine the many counter claims and hypothesises, but subject them to scrutiny. ( The Great Global Warming Swindle was a polemic produced by a journalist with a political agenda. It played well to its intended audience, but science it wasn鈥檛.) And if claims don鈥檛 live up what their proponents say then report that.

It would be useful to have some science reporters with a science background; it鈥檚 obvious that on occasions the role has landed on the desk (鈥榟ey, you are doing science this week鈥�) of people who struggle with subjects they report. This is an important topic; how it is covered should become a long-term strategy involving history, science, technology, current affairs & politics. Examine it in detail. If nothing else we are living through a major real world, real time experiment.

It would also be useful to acknowledge that the climate debate is value driven. It鈥檚 interesting that just about all the sceptics share a similar political ideology; but that is the role 鈥榗onservatives鈥� play in such debates; to resist new ideas and prevent any activity based on such ideas. This is the political debate that needs be brought into the open. Should we act or not? How concerned are we about peoples living in third world countries? Are we planning for when oil and gas reserves eventually do begin to run out? What are the options facing us? Should the state act or should it be left to individuals?

In many ways it鈥檇 help the debate along if a political party said 鈥� 鈥極K, global warming is happening, humans are responsible - but let鈥檚 do nothing, we鈥檒l probably be OK鈥�. Because behind all the spurious science arguments that are put up this is the real debate struggling to get out. That might be a debate the 麻豆官网首页入口 could help along; perhaps staging a 鈥榟ypothetical scenarios鈥� debate between leading lights of the main camps.

PS: Earth science has always been contentious. 200 years ago the heated argument was between uniformitarianists and catastrophists. The idea that the Earth was older than 6,000 years upset many. (As for species evolving through natural selection!) Louis Agassiz鈥檚 later theory that great ice sheets had shaped present day landforms was hugely controversial. James Croll鈥檚 hypothesis that ice ages followed regular cycles took another 100 years to become established.
At it has with all the above, at some point the 麻豆官网首页入口 has to make a judgement as to what is speculative and what is largely accepted as fact.

Human induced climate change has become the New Puritan's religion of choice.

Irrespective of whether you believe the science or not, the best industrial and economic approach to the issue of by no means as clear cut as the likes of 麻豆官网首页入口 and the the other eco-evangelists would have us believe. By degrading their coverage to trite soundbites for the yoof audience, the 麻豆官网首页入口 is failing totally in its remit to be impartial and objective.

Cancelling Planet Relief is a step in the right direction, albeit for the wrong reasons. Can I suggest it is replaced by a series of serious programs looking at the subject in depth, giving a range of opinions about causes, effects and possible solutions. OK it probably won't engage with the "average" viewer, but better that than pandering to glassy-eyed, pseudo-religious fanaticism. There is more than enough of that in the world as it is - let's get back to the Age of Reason.

Joss - Rather than have a whole day based on climate change wouldn't it be better to have a program lasting an hour or two with a neutral presenter and a number of experts from each side of the AGW debate?

Surely that would be a better way of "Educating" than the constant brainwashing the lesser educated section of the populace have to endure?

The idea that airing a programme such as Planet Relief would in some way jeapardise or contradict any journalist's - or, indeed, the 麻豆官网首页入口's - commitment to impartiality is bizarre. The IPCC report issued this year, compiled by approximately 2,000 scientists and sanctioned by governments worldwide, demonstrates just how strong the consensus on this issue truly is. The fact that certain corporations and governments have successfully been able frame global warming in the context of an "argument" with two balanced sides, the conclusion of which is yet to be decided, shows how desparately we need a programme like Planet Relief.