September 27, 2012

More from the Impartial Harrabin

According to NASA the Arctic has lost more sea ice this year than at any time since satellite records began in 1979, Roger Harrabin told us in August:
Scientists involved in the calculations say it is part of a fundamental change.
And he concluded:
Warmer seas could lead to more melting of Greenland's ice cap which would contribute to raising sea levels and changing the salinity of the sea, which in turn could alter ocean currents that help govern our climate.
But then this month NASA added that an arctic cyclone had "wreaked havoc on the Arctic sea ice cover".

I couldn't see an update to Roger Harrabin's report on the BBC website, or a new report covering this. So, I asked in a tweet, would he (and BBC's Newsnight, but let's leave them to one side) update their alarmist reports now?

Roger tweeted back, "See my Twitter feed to check your facts". And indeed he'd tweeted a reference to evidence given by the Met Office to MPs, so that would have been visible to anyone taking the trouble to follow him on Twitter.

But that's for enthusiasts. So I asked, "See no link to any updated report? Original report on BBC news website still stands?" - which just brought the reply "See tweet on met office and arctic".

Which wasn't what I'd asked. On the BBC news website, the original alarming story stands.

We also now know that Antarctic sea ice set another record in September: the most amount of ice ever recorded. I didn't notice that in a BBC report from him either.

So what the Impartial Harrabin has done is to put up the initial finding - with alarming gloss - and then not update it. There's been some updating, but evidently only in a tweet.

Thus is the veneer of impartiality maintained. But the alarming "news" gets full exposure. Some later less alarming news has to make do with a tweet.

This is not balanced coverage.

1 comment:

A K Haart said...

Harrabin must surely have known about the effects of the Arctic storm well before the sea ice minimum broke as a story. Everyone else interested in these matters certainly knew.

As far as I can see, the two stories were separated deliberately, the earlier storm event being reported after the sea ice minimum had been hyped.

As you say, the Antarctic was just ignored.