- Bishop Hill blog

Richard Black's article about the Heartland documents is one of many that are now being closely scrutinised to see whether they comply with normal journalistic practice. In particular, as I pointed out the other day, Black's article appears to have been published after the Heartland Institute issued its notice that one of the documents was a fake. The timing difference may have been quite small, although if someone can determine exactly when the press release was issued, I'd be interested. However, whether there was adequate validation of the source is also an interesting question.

The original version of the article said this:

The institute hasn't yet confirmed the documents are genuine - but equally, it hasn't said they're not, and it's had long enough (more than 12 hours, at the time of writing) to take a look.

Well, perhaps. But what the BBC editorial guidelines say is this:

Where appropriate to the output, we should:

gather material using first hand sources wherever possible

check and cross check facts

validate the authenticity of documentary evidence and digital material

corroborate claims and allegations made by contributors wherever possible.

and this

3.4.1 We should try to witness events and gather information first hand. Where this is not possible, we should talk to first hand sources and, where necessary, corroborate their evidence. We should be reluctant to rely on a single source. If we do rely on a single source, a named on-the-record source is always preferable.

or this

3.4.6 We should only broadcast material from third parties who may have a personal or professional interest in its subject matter if there is a clear editorial justification. The material should be labelled. This includes material from the emergency services, charities, and environmental groups.

It does look to me as if Black has broken BBC guidelines here. But there's it's actually worse than this. Take a look at this quote from Chris Rapley.

Chris Rapley, a climate change scientist at University College London, described the project as "brain-washing".

"This strikes at the very roots of truth and freedom in a democratic society, something I would have felt the American people would find abhorrent," he said.

(As an aside, we should note Rapley's struggles with grasping the intracacies of Americans' approach to "truth and freedom", which Lucia has been ridiculing here. I don't know about you, but I always found the First Amendment pretty easy to understand.)

The source of this story appears to have been the Science Media Centre (who else?). They appear to have issued a press release quoting "expert reaction" to the Heartland affair - Bob Ward, Trevor Davies of UEA, Dave Reay (who, IIRC was the guy who ran the campaign against the Great Global Warming Swindle) and Chris Rapley. Strangely, the press release is not on their website, but can be seen on the website of the New Zealand Science Media Centre here.

It is noticeable that all those quoted are careful to caveat their statements with reference to the doubts over the reliability of the disclosures. Rapley's words were

“Assuming that the leaked documents are genuine, the most chilling revelation is the campaign to brainwash American children..."

It's therefore strange to see that this carefully worded caveat didn't find its way into Black's story. To the BBC man, was is enough to assume that they were real:

All the indications are that the documents are real - which gives us an unusually frank look into how lobbying against action on climate change actually works, and who funds it.

The Editorial Guidelines also state that:

Our audiences should not be able to tell from BBC output the personal prejudices of our journalists or news and current affairs presenters on matters of public policy, political or industrial controversy, or on ‘controversial subjects’ in any other area. They may provide professional judgements, rooted in evidence, but may not express personal views in BBC output, including online, on such matters.

The idea that Richard Black adheres in any way to the BBC's editorial guidelines seems completely risible to me. As far as I can see BBC management let him do his own thing, and the BBC Trust don't care one way or the other.

(H/T to a reader for alerting me to this line of thought).