Readers of this blog will know I take a dim view of much science reporting on the BBC News website. As a whole the website is a useful and valuable resource. However the science section often leads much to be desired in both terms of both accuracy and responsibility.
This article in particular appears designed to irk me. GM seeds can 'last for 10 years'
But as you read the rest of the article you find out that so do non-GM seeds.... Marvellous.
Why is this:
1) Even news? We already know seeds stick around for ages.
2) Sensationalised in this way?
Good work BBC - you've reinforced the idea that somehow GM crops are proven dangerous while showing in the same article that they're no worse than others. Presumably this is what a 'balanced' article is like?
In a time when we need to seriously consider and debate in a mature and thoughtful way the use of GM foods for humanitarian and environmental reasons it doesn't help to keep the 'scare talk' of the last decade running.
Grr.
Posts
2 comments:
My last comment tonight:
I love this quote:
As a whole the website is a useful and valuable resource.
Even though you know the section you know most about is rubbish you still think the rest is good. What's going on there? If you know your part is lame why do you trust the rest?
The BBC is rubbish. They may have been good at one time and the World Serice and Radio 4 may be keeping up the tradition but trust me... It's pretty bad.
My section would be Sport. Probably just like your article the headline has little to do with the content and the content little to do with reality. I've heard sports-stars interviewed live and then what they say so spun and edited that they seem to have said something else.
It's a bit like the Michael Moore films. Everyone in the UK thought they represented a true picture of America... until they saw the section he did on the NHS (our area of expertise) in Sicko and all of sudden he's misrepresenting...
Didn't say it was good, just a valuable resource as it does often point people towards the original sources for their stories which are usually far better to read than the BBC-interpreted versions.
Post a Comment