The BBC's problem is their foolish belief that impartialty could be satisfied by 'balance'.
'Balance' was ushered in to allow the politically motivated to dispute Climate Change.
Hence we had the (unqualified) Nigel Lawson being given equal airtime as climate scientists who knew what they were talking about.
The blustering Right funded by fossil fuel producers found this 'balance' to be very effective.
Pushed a little further, any criticism of Right wing policies, or continued fossil fuel use is now criticised as a 'lack of balance' or the BBC failing to be impartial.
Hence we had the (unqualified) Nigel Lawson being given equal airtime as climate scientists who knew what they were talking about.
But they didn't know what Nigel Lawson was talking about, so you had to get Nigel Lawson, because only Nigel Lawson knew what he was talking about. Right?
The BBC's problem is their foolish belief that impartialty could be satisfied by 'balance'.
'Balance' was ushered in to allow the politically motivated to dispute Climate Change.
Hence we had the (unqualified) Nigel Lawson being given equal airtime as climate scientists who knew what they were talking about.
The blustering Right funded by fossil fuel producers found this 'balance' to be very effective.
Pushed a little further, any criticism of Right wing policies, or continued fossil fuel use is now criticised as a 'lack of balance' or the BBC failing to be impartial.