Hi. Welcome to the blog for my IB English B class at Jur Hronec High School in Bratislava, Slovakia. Below you will find links to other websites and discussion questions. My students are required to comment on one of these postings every month and also respond to each other's comments. Feel free to add your two bits, but be aware that all comments are monitored before being posted.
Friday, March 4, 2011
When is balanced reporting inaccurate?
Here is an item tackling global climate change and, more specifically, how the media deals with this issue. When does an effort to be impartial and give both sides a chance to talk turn into misinformation about an issue? If the vast majority of scientists believe that global warming is happening and that it is caused by human activity, but some people (and a few scientists) disagree, what should the media’s role be? Do you agree with this writer?
I think there is no way the BBC can really control the trueness of their programs. In particular, if they invite an expert they would need another expert to supervise him and check on him whether he is not talking some misleading facts. I think that everybody would agree that this is impossible. Further, the other way to eradicate misleading information from TV screens is to propagate only mainstream ideas supported by vast majority and neglect the accusations of minority for not giving them part in TV. However, this brings also negatives and the mainstream view can vary from time to time as for example the ice age problem or in the science community the problem of superconductivity. By presenting only the mainstream view we literally put blindfolds before our eyes and we avoid all doubt. I think if one is solving a problem one must have some doubt present. Only by doubting we can prove that our view and belief is correct. Therefore, I think that impartiality of TV programs and generally of media should be conserved even if necessary on expanse of trueness of information. I am not suggesting allowance of lies and false theories on TV. I am just pointing out that this is the only solution to conserve doubt. In addition, one must every time count with the possibility of false information in media. We cannot have an absolute precise media airing only 100% true facts.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of preventing this disinformation is to allow experts talk in media, also experts of different opinions, and we can hope that they will not lie to us, and if yes there are other experts to doubt them as for example in the case of this article where Bob Ward noticed the inaccurate information. In this case, it would be best if Mr. Ward would contact BBC, and BBC would allow him to talk in show or they will arrange another session. You may think that this will lead to numerous repetitions of the same discussion. I say no, expert do not lie or tell false information on purpose. Automatically when they do so, they lose their expertise and nobody will take them as experts no more, and further, of course every accusation has to be supported with facts
Mojmir
On one hand I think that the TV should be responsible for the trueness of the information they provide, but on the other hand I think it becomes too complicated to check all statements of people that express their opinion on a certain topic in a debate. If there is some scientist or other expert talking about something, how would they check all the information he says? It can be done if the producers provide him a script he should read, but then other question will arise. Why do they need an expert there if he will only read a text someone else wrote him? Therefore I don’t think that something such as perfect and complete information control is possible in real life. However, I think it is possible to control the information to an extent. It really annoys me when I watch some Slovak news and suddenly the presenter says something really stupid or let’s say inaccurate. And it can be easily avoided as the show is not broadcasted live and the editors have a lot of time to check the information.
ReplyDeleteI don’t want this to sound like I want the media to show only one opinion on a certain topic. What I want to say is that if something is scientifically proved it should be also presented as a real deal and not as a theory of a crazy old scientist. I welcome different ideas and views on the topics where no exact answer exists and also on phenomena’s that have not been explained yet. In many cases it is beneficial to know many different opinions on a certain topic. It is necessary to differentiate between giving multiple opinions on topics like “how was universe created” or “what is the meaning of life”, but I consider it inappropriate if people discuss facts that are or can be easily verified. Then I consider it a lie and it really annoys me when see it on TV or any other media. As I said there is no way to guarantee 100% trueness of the provided information, but I think the situation can be easily improved if the people really wanted.
A very interesting article, which only shows us, that even such a channel like BBC which is considered to be trustworthy can feed us with misinformation and inaccurate information.
ReplyDeleteIt is understandable, that controlling the accuracy of information in the programs seems rather impossible. The only way how to get rid of misleading people is to present the fact as an opinion or a theory. This way, people would understand that the information they see or hear from BBC’s programs may not be completely true and might be based on theoretical assumptions. Of course it should not happen, that BBC or any other channel broadcasts a program, in which all the facts presented are pure assumptions of people who had not done any research.
It is, however, difficult to state what is an absolutely accurate and true fact. Experts have often fed us with information which they considered to be completely true, but turned out to be trash. Many of misleading facts stated by scientists became ‘public truth’ and after new facts have been presented, people then could not know what they should believe in.
People often consider the credibility of a program by its popularity but also the way how the program explains the information. I personally consider BBC a reliable source of information and believe that most of the content is rather true or very close to truth. This might be caused by the fact that BBC has become one of the most successful news and information channel in the world with the best experts being presented daily and is generally considered credible. The sad thing is that we can never be sure whether or not the facts and theories presented in the program are trustworthy, because even the most respected and credible experts often come to an inaccurate theory.
@mojmir:
ReplyDeleteI basically agree with your opinion on this topic. Like you, I believe that inviting a single expert cannot guarantee the viewers validity of information provided, even if the expert represents a whole team. The opinions of experts, as you said, differ, and looking for the ultimate truth takes a long time. Like you, I also think that if various experts from the same area are invited to television programs to present their opinions, it can provide viewers with different points of view at the problem. Then they can decide what to believe by themselves without being biased from TV offering only one opinion.
However, I think you should look at this problem also from the practical point of view. Do you think that television channels like BBC would be willing to spend more money to make two or three discussions on the same topic just to reach objectivity of the information? I daresay I truly doubt that. You are presenting a solution of the problem of the validity of information aired by televisions, but you assume that the television channels’ main goal is providing their viewers with the truth. Unfortunately, this is mostly not the case. As far as I am concerned, the televisions primarily want to cause a sensation or controversy, not provide truth. At least the good earning ones. Therefore, I am afraid, we cannot count on them thrillingly taking steps to avert airing misleading information anywhere in the near future, if ever.