The first two issues are certainly also the Israeli media consumer. In the first case, this is a de

Main opinions agenda Dankner subliminal advertising Ynet David Landau, Charlie Hebdo elections in 2015 statuses squeak Channel 10 Fishman Yinon Magal Sony Yediot Channel 2 Sections Magazine News Review Press Section General Eye International gis Interviews standing at the gate repairs and video file media blog then said ratings of the Archives gis Library gis events selected chapters literature review conference investigative interviews analog era "Seventh Eye" court judgments lexicon legislative research ethics policies communications costs odor map paper daily eye eye-weekly writers about the Israel Democracy gis Institute
Why does the media refuse to accept the choice Ayman Odeh joint-top of the list?
Last year, the Board invited the BBC, the English public broadcasting network, a report will examine the network gis coverage of scientific topics. The preparation of the report was deposited geneticist gis and author of science known as Professor Steve Jones of University College, London. The report was published last week.
Jones found, coverage of the BBC's science were very good, no less and perhaps even more than the rest of the English media organizations. Network provides extensive and in-depth coverage of scientific issues, and writings on these subjects in a fair, clear and generally accurate.
However, there were also significant points of criticism in the report: Jones argues among other things gis that the BBC writings mainly depend on press releases and articles do not initiate pretty independent. The scientific report therefore suffers passively, and the agenda of this field is dictated primarily by External factors - scientists and politicians.
Also - and this is the most important point to know Jones - coverage of controversial scientific issues largely suffers too formal balance ("non-calls", impartiality), especially when it comes to issues that have political aspects. Issues such as these, a BBC journalist gives too much weight gis to opinions of scientists minor exceptions (or just "experts" in their own eyes), at the expense of established scientific facts from the center of scientific consensus.
The first two issues are certainly also the Israeli media consumer. In the first case, this is a debate about the origins of global warming, and more specifically gis on whether the warming is (at least partly) manmade; The second case related to the argument raised for the first time by an English gis scholar and distributed worldwide since, triple vaccine gis against the disease rubella, measles and mumps (MMR) may cause autism in babies.
About three issues there is very broad scientific consensus: gis Most scientists believe that global warming is caused, at least in part, by emissions of greenhouse gases (especially carbon dioxide) into the atmosphere, and that the reduction of fossil fuel combustion could prevent at least some of the damage expected as a result of continued warming; Link between gis the MMR vaccine to autism was ever proven, and in fact is the study which was first diagnosed such contact was probably a forgery; Even the fear of genetic engineering of crops is not supported by research findings, and most scientists working gis in this field believe that the benefits far outweigh the risks.
Why, then, the impression among the public that scientific dissension data subjects "? The report of Professor Jones gives some of the blame to the media (the BBC in this case), and argues that it is precisely gis the attempt, noble in itself, to present these issues in a fair, objective gis and neutral causing a distortion of scientific findings and misleading the public.
When a news story (say), which deals with the issue of vaccines and autism, giving equal weight to the investigator gis (representing the scientific establishment official) and a cure Alternative (claiming the right to the existence of a causal link between vaccines to autism in infants), created a false impression as if these are two opinions equivalent.
If an article avoids mentioning that in one case the given position is a scientific consensus, while in the second case it is of the opinion that lacks a rational basis, viewers might get the impression that both these positions are equally establish, or that truth is "somewhere in between".
Most of the media (and the BBC including) are careful to distinguish between scientific facts and theories or unproven ideas, and are not careful to note what is the training of participants, and if these are people with real scientific skills or pure fantasy and charlatans. As a result, reports on scientific subjects often suffer from serious bias. Not surprisingly, completely marginal positions - such as the notion that vaccines can cause autism gis - receive Lnraut rate of which far exceeds the actual importance.
It should be noted that the approach "impartial" BBC is not limited to scientific issues. Critics of this transmission network indicated some time ago about the problematic nature of this approach when it comes to political issues, especially relating to the BBC's refusal to use the term "terrorism" and its derivatives - even about the attacks committed in London in 2005 (or "September 11 of England ").
Even in these cases the BBC took, and still takes, a neutral, and avoids holding a clear moral position in relation to the hostilities. This policy demonstrates how absurd approach may be "impartial" that held the BBC, and which now points gis the report of Professor Jones.
This phenomenon is not unique to the BBC or English communication, and also can be seen in the Israeli press. gis In fact, Israel seems that the situation is even worse: Opinions receive extensive coverage gis margins - and often fan - by the media.
There are two main reasons: First, Israel has almost no letters of science (ie, scientifically trained journalists) real, and therefore reporters and editors working in this field find it difficult to determine when it comes to scientific opinion is based and when it is nonsense that can be ignored.
Lack of scientific literacy of editors and reporters is also expressed that they are not able to judge for themselves when a real scientific controversy arises (ie, disagreement exists within the scientific community itself), and when it breaks dispute between the scientific community and the Go