A few days ago, I got my annual invitation to appear on a BBC TV current affairs programme. The researcher opened with a gotcha question. Here it is, verbatim: "You say climate change is getting worse. But the ozone hole is smaller than it was before!" Thread/
This level of ignorance is, in my experience, quite normal among the BBC's NCA researchers. I had to explain to one what CO2 was and, to another, how to calculate percentages. And it goes all the way to the top: John Humphrys, for example, revels in his scientific illiteracy.
Just imagine if they knew as little about politics as they know about the issues that might determine human survival. They would be out of the door within minutes. But a total absence of scientific knowledge seems entirely acceptable, across the media.
The BBC is, quite rightly, concerned about a lack of diversity among their staff: too few women, working class people or people of colour. But one aspect of diversity it seems happy to overlook: where are the science graduates?
The media's institutional ignorance about scientific (in particular, environmental) issues allows it to ignore the most important topics on Earth, while focusing on political trivia. It doesn't know how much it doesn't know.
That interview? It got cancelled, of course. They almost always do.
Because Brexit
Because Theresa May
Because it cannot see beyond the tiny pool of issues it understands and obsesses about.
Because Brexit
Because Theresa May
Because it cannot see beyond the tiny pool of issues it understands and obsesses about.
