Climate change: always a hot topic
One of the aims of any radio producer is to put together a programme that will capture the interest of the audience, but it's impossible to know how the items are received unless you, the listeners, get in touch to let us know of your reaction. But I suppose I could have predicted that climate change, one of the topics we covered in last week's programme, was guaranteed to get people emailing us and writing blog comments.
If you missed the programme why not listen now - the item that provoked all the reaction is the interview with Steven Duke, editor of One Planet.
He defended his programme against comments from two listeners who felt that One Planet didn't adequately reflect the views of those sceptical about the reality of climate change.
Some of you responded to the blog posts that Rajan and I wrote last week, but we also had a lot of emails on the subject prompted by Steven Duke's interview and the views expressed by the listeners we featured - often disagreeing with them.
Ulric Schollaert, for example, sent us a long and detailed email putting the case for coverage of the view that climate change is real. Among the points he made was this:
"I find the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ is perfectly entitled (and, in my view, is even under an obligation...) to give wide coverage to the views that climate change is happening and is a definite threat to humanity. The principle of precaution commands such coverage. There is overwhelming evidence that something momentous is going on, that is caused by humans, and that consequences would be dreadful and costly - A LOT MORE costly than what spending it would take to keep on the safe side."
But I'm pleased to say that we have had emails on a variety of other topics, too. I was particularly interested to hear from listener Joel Atadan, who wrote:
"I am not impressed with the reporting on African matters like the riots in Kampala where I was present when the police out of the blue started beating innocent people trying to open up their stalls."
We shall try to follow up on Mr Atadan's criticism on this week's programme.
But in the meantime, I imagine that others among you might have found yourselves in the middle of something that was then reported on the World Service news. It might not have been a riot, but perhaps you were in the audience for an important speech, or took part in a protest march that was then reported around the world? I wonder whether later, when you heard or read the news reports, you felt that they reflected your own experience? Or do you think it's inevitable that journalists concentrate on giving a broader view of what is happening?
Cathy Packe is the Producer, Over To You
Over To You is your chance to have your say about the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ World Service and its programmes. It airs at 10:40am GMT (11:40am BST) every Saturday.
- Listen to previous episodes of Over To You
- Send the team your feedback by email (overtoyou@bbc.co.uk), telephone (44 144 960 9000), SMS (447786 202006) or by leaving comments on this blog.
Comment number 1.
At 17th Sep 2009, Gates wrote:I don't think press talking about is helping anymore. It's only making things worse. It has been forced into the spotlight for too long now, and with little evidence of the results for us here in the western world, it's causing people to stop caring and stop believing. Climate change is a serious issue and it's becoming as popular as Gordon Brown.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 21st Sep 2009, sensiblegrannie wrote:I think it IS time for the media to get involved in the climate debate. How they do it is a matter of hot contention. The main thing is that both sides of the debate are given EQUAL voice and that ordinary people from a range of cultures are also given their voice. It will be no good trying a bit of media spin, it will have to be plain unadulterated fact with reference to a particular scientific specialism. It would be a bit trite to try and cover the debate in a short program. The debate should be advertised to cover a number of broadcasts and repeated as necessary. It will be no good trying a bit of tokenism, it will have to be well thought out, researched and prepared by scientists and broadcasters together, before being presented at the consumer dinner table. You will be dammed if you do and dammed if you don't, so if you decide to do make sure you make the best job you can of it. ;o)
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 29th Sep 2009, thewhyte wrote:In the next 100 years, the effects of climate change would be so obvious that the paradigm would shift from a burning issue to a notable global crisis. Let me ask, What is the issue here, is it not evident that man is placing considerable pressure on earth's resources? Is it not evident that we are discharging immeasurable volume of gases to the atmosphere?
Yes, if these activities are carried on by man, how difficult would it be to accept that they are impacting on our environment negatively. Perhaps the argument is the correlation between these actions and environmental reactions. Maybe we would first be clear and indeed convinced that the earth's present state is as a result of man's actions on the environment. This assertion could take us the next hundred years to confirm, and it might just be that before then, the globe would be so much in a sorry that it would become difficult to reverse.
While the argument continues, why not we emphasize caution in our actions on the mother earth, before we lose the mother completely. I do sincerely hope we do not get near to this breaking point. Let's educate people on environmental issues while we debate, "there is indeed fire on the mountain"
Adi Whyte
Calabar, Cross River, Nigeria
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 19th Oct 2009, pablo senk wrote:Examples:
www.cbc.ca/canada/edmonton/story/2009/10/12/mb-snowy-cold
Reasons?
GW is a religion, Climate Change is almost certain using the past records as a benchmark, however, the temps are going down, glaciation will happen again as it has many times in the last 800,000 years.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)