ACK: Oh dear...

Did you not notice that I claimed that the BBC reflected the predominant political and the established scientific viewpoint rather than its own?

You've managed to illustrate my point earlier about being patronising.

I totally disagree that balance should supersede (sic) context

NO! The listener decides the context based on the balanced reporting. Seeking context over balance is propaganda.

ACK

I'm not sure I agree. Yesterday's news, for instance, was dominated (on the BBC) by the story that the awful murderer of Jo Cox was found guilty of her murder. Yesterday we had the Autumn Statement and the news that a mass murderer of gay men had been found guilty of their murders. But it was the Jo Cox story that dominated (certainly on the World at One on Radio 4, as the Autumn Statement was still ongoing at that point).

Don't get me wrong - the murder of Jo Cox was a terrible tragedy, and the murderer should never see the light of day again, so far as I am concerned. But the BBC basically used the opportunity to regurgitate the collateral stories they like to see given prominence (mainly the issues Jo campaigned for), which they had already done at great length at the time of her murder.

Personally, leaving out the Autumn Statement, on as objective basis as is possible, I should have thought that of two stories of murderers being found guilty on the same day, the one about the mass murderer was the bigger story, but not in the eyes of BBC news editors. And I suspect that the reason is that the BBC look on Jo Cox as "one of their own".

Justin Webb, by the way, in my opinion has completely lost the plot. I wish I could find the transcript, but a few days before Trump won the US Presidential election, he was actively describing Trump (I paraphrase from memory) as a racist, misogynist, sexist bigot. This was expressed, as part of an ill-considered rant from Webb, as fact, not opinion, or as reportage of someone else's statement. It was so OTT I was shocked. I suspect Trump could sue successfully for libel if he could be bothered.

Harry Passfield Did you not notice that I claimed that the BBC reflected the predominant political and the established scientific viewpoint rather than its own?
I totally disagree that balance should supersede context. For a brand new story perhaps (although I would argue that the significance of a brand new story can only be fully appreciated when it is related to other stories (ie its context)). Other items need to be related to earlier developments or to other related stories. News is for the viewer or listener, it needs to be made relevant by relating it to what they already know (or should know) in order to fully appreciate it.

stewgreen, English Law makes a distinction between murder and manslaughter based on intent, rather than consequences. Many in the BBC could be considered incompetent, but based on deliberate intent to deceive, mislead corrupt and abuse, how far do some have to go before facing criminal charges over misuse of Taxpayer funds?

Harry Passfield, the power of suggestion or providing plausible explanations for a sequence of coincedences, is something that Global Warming Alarmists have had a lot of practice and experience in. They couldn't find any verifiable science, so had to keep busy doing something.

ACK:

have you ever considered that he thinks he's just doing his job? Reporters and commentators not only have to present a news story but put it into context. The context that politics, the scientific establishment and the BBC (reflecting this input) have is that climate change caused by humans is real and poses a threat. So someone like Justine (sic) Web hears a story that might be "misinterpreted" and attempts to put it into the currently accepted context

I am well aware that journalists/interviewers have to play 'Devil's advocate' when interviewing but the line is so often crossed by certain people. Web, to my mind is one (and, fwiw, the worst interviewer, IMHO, on BBC who tries and fails at DA is Vine); there are many more.

But, I also take issue that the interviewer has to present the news story in a context defined by the BBC. The context is the story and what it's worth, especially in this case when discussing a science paper. Of course, it is different if the interviewee is espousing a particular POV: that has to be challenged for balance, but the Reading scientist was not pushing an agenda, that came from WEB and his BBC 'context'. To me, the key is 'balance', not 'context'.