THE BBC has been accused of “false balance” reporting in an article on North Sea oil and gas.
Professor Rebecca Willis, of Lancaster University, criticised the broadcaster for stating that “environmental groups” have said any new oil and gas fields would take the UK over its carbon budget limits.
However, Willis pointed out that it wasn’t just climate change activists, but the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the International Energy Agency (IEA) and the independent Climate Change Committee (CCC), as well as numerous scientists and experts.
READ MORE: Mike Russell: SNP's plan for independence is 'not complicated'
The BBC piece claimed that the UK is at risk of being “starved” of North sea energy and leaving it reliant on imports, a claim made by a major oil and gas producer.
Gilad Myerson (pictured below), executive chairman at Ithaca Energy, claimed Keir Starmer’s plan to ban licenses for any new North Sea development if Labour wins the next General Election would threaten the UK’s energy security.
Ithaca tripled its pre-tax profits in 2022, from $763 million in 2021 to $2.24 billion last year.
It comes as the UK Government is set to sign off a number of oil and gas licences in the North Sea, potentially over 100, including the controversial Rosebank development.
We previously told how a Scottish Government minister said that stopping all future activity in the North Sea would be "wrong" after Starmer publicly announced Labour's energy plans.
The BBC article, published on Tuesday June 27, read: “Environmental groups say any new oil and gas fields in the region would take the UK over its carbon budget limits.”
After being contacted by The National, the BBC updated the line to read: "Environmental groups and scientists ... "
Carbon budgets restrict the total amount of greenhouse gasses the UK can emit over a 5-year period.
However, Willis took to Twitter to accuse the BBC of misleading reporting.
READ MORE: Minimum unit pricing achieves 'main goal' of reducing alcohol harm
She said: “This is terrible 'false balance' reporting from the BBC.
“It is not just 'environmental groups' who say more oil & gas fields would take us over carbon targets.
“It's @IPCC_CH, @IEA, @theCCCuk & the well-established scientific consensus.”
Willis shared a screenshot of a paper she had written on the Cumbria coal mine, and the issue of false balance - defined as presenting two sides of a debate as “more equal than is justified by the evidence”.
This is terrible 'false balance' reporting from the BBC.
— Rebecca Willis (@Bankfieldbecky) June 27, 2023
It is not just 'environmental groups' who say more oil & gas fields would take us over carbon targets.
It's @IPCC_CH, @IEA, @theCCCuk & the well-established scientific consensus.
For more...
1/2https://t.co/R5245LlqAx pic.twitter.com/OXq8vVO28q
Kevin Anderson, professor of energy and climate change, added: “This deliberate bias by @BBCNews is long-standing and widespread across its national outlets.
“Local radio often does a so much better job of independence & informing its listeners than the Beeb's hi-profile national programmes presided over by its obscenely-paid presenters/stars.”
Ryan Jude, Labour councillor for Lancaster Gate, wrote: “The push to stop oil & gas licences is based on the science. Most industry bosses know this. Labour’s policy gives them a clear investment signal & time to plan.
READ MORE: Tory MP Brendan Clarke-Smith doubles down on Samaritans tweet
“Media needs to report this accurately. This framing enables bad faith actors to validate their narrative. Frustrating.”
John Marsham, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Leeds said: “We need better @BBCNews.
“‘Environmental groups’ sounds like just campaigners. It's what the science demands for us to meet the UN's Paris Agreement, with disastrous consequences if we fail.
“‘False balance’ has moved on from deniers vs scientists to fossil fuel lobby vs reality.”
The BBC declined to comment, but updated the article in question to include the phrase "scientists".
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel