British Broadcasting Corporation White City, 201 Wood Lane, London, W12 7TQ

Telephone: 020 8743 8000 Email: ecu@bbc.co.uk

Editorial Complaints Unit

Mr C Chong

Email: chit.chong@dsl.pipex.com

Ref: CT/1400175

13 May 2014

Dear Mr Chong

Today, Radio 4, 13 February 2014

I am writing to let you know the provisional finding of the Editorial Complaints Unit on

your recent complaint about an interview on Today with Sir Brian Hoskins and Lord

Lawson. We have listened to the programme, given the programme-makers a further

opportunity to respond to the concerns you have made and considered whether there was a

serious breach of the BBC’s editorial standards.

I have understood you to say that the interviews promoted 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.

It is the position of the BBC Trust, the body which oversees the editorial standards of the

BBC, that there is general agreement that the scientific evidence shows the global climate is

changing and that the change is predominantly man-made; the BBC’s coverage should

therefore reflect this. As I am sure you are aware, the Trust commissioned Professor Steve

Jones to review the accuracy and impartiality of the BBC’s coverage of science in 20111

and concluded that on the key issue of “due impartiality” in that coverage “the Trust agrees

with Professor Jones that “there should be no attempt to give equal weight to opinion and

to evidence”. It went on to say “A ‘false balance’ (to use Professor Jones’ term) between

well-established fact and opinion must be avoided. This does not mean that critical opinion

should be excluded. Nor does it mean that scientific research shouldn’t be properly

scrutinised: as Professor Jones states ‘the expert is sometimes wrong’ and robust research

will stand up to this analysis”.

As you can see, the Trust does not say that minority views and opinions should be excluded

but it does suggest that such minority opinions and sceptical views should not be treated as

if it were on an equal footing with the scientific consensus. I am also mindful that the Trust

has previously stated that while critical opinion should be not be excluded, a false balance

should not be created between well-established fact and opinion.

1 http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/our_work/science_impartiality/science_impartiality.pdf

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. I note that he was introduced as “the founding chairman of the

Global Warming Policy Foundation which is an all-party think tank”, a description which I

don’t believe would have given listeners a clear understanding that he represents a minority

viewpoint. Furthermore, the implication was that Lord Lawson’s views on climate science

were on an equal footing with those of Sir Brian. Although I think it is probably reasonable

to assume that most listeners to Today will be aware that scientists and politicians are

generally in agreement about the evidence for climate change, programme-makers still have

a responsibility to ensure that guests who do not share that view are described appropriately.

As I have indicated, on this occasion I do not believe it was made sufficiently clear that

Lord Lawson’s views on climate change are not supported by the majority of climate

scientists and experts, and should not be regarded as carrying equal weight to those of

experts such as Sir Brian Hoskins. I certainly wouldn’t want to suggest that there are no

occasions when those expressing scepticism about climate change or its causes should be

invited to contribute to programmes (and the BBC Trust recognises this) but I do think it is

important to ensure that such views are put in to the appropriate context and given due

(rather than equal) weight. In fairness to the programme-makers, though, I should add that

they acknowledged at an early stage that Lord Lawson’s standing in the matter should have

been more clearly indicated, and that the discussion did not go in the direction they had

intended.

In conclusion, therefore, I am proposing to uphold your complaint. As my colleague Colin

Tregear explained in his letter of 31 March this is a provisional finding and so I’ll be happy to

consider any comments you may wish to make provided that you let me have them by 27

May. Alternatively, if you are content with the finding as it stands, let me know and I’ll

finalise it without further ado. In the meantime, I hope you’ll accept my apologies, on behalf

of the BBC, for the breaches of editorial standards which you identified, and my thanks for

giving us the opportunity of investigating your concerns.

Yours sincerely

Fraser Steel

Head of Editorial Complaints