:00:26. > :00:29.Welcome to Newswatch. Later on the programme, we have the science
:00:29. > :00:37.editor Chris us for being unbalanced, alarmist and
:00:37. > :00:41.insufficiently serious. Since the Italian cruise ship the Costa
:00:41. > :00:45.Concordia ran aground off the coast of Tuscany last Friday BBC News has
:00:46. > :00:50.reported on the rescue operation, the surge of the cause of the
:00:51. > :00:56.accident and those who died. We had the testimony of a number of free
:00:56. > :01:01.survivors, including an emotional interview of Derek and Viv Ebbage.
:01:01. > :01:11.While you are waiting to find a lifeboat, the two of the become
:01:11. > :01:22.
:01:22. > :01:32.separated from one another? That brought this reaction from Kerry
:01:32. > :02:01.
:02:01. > :02:11.We put that point to BBC News and they gave us this statement in
:02:11. > :02:40.
:02:40. > :02:44.Tuesday was 100 here since the days since Captain Scott and his team
:02:44. > :02:49.reached the South poll on their ill-fated expedition. No surprise
:02:49. > :02:53.that this was marked on the BBC with a number of items, including
:02:53. > :02:58.this into beyond the Breakfast programme. Explorers through the
:02:58. > :03:08.years have recreated a trip that Scott made, 18 other right now.
:03:08. > :03:12.
:03:12. > :03:22.They are planning to make a commemorative game of cricket.
:03:22. > :03:23.
:03:23. > :03:33.brought this reaction from Julie Breff McGovern was equally
:03:33. > :03:41.
:03:41. > :03:46.This week saw the appointment of the BBC's first science editor,
:03:46. > :03:51.David Shukman was to be given the task of raising the profile of
:03:51. > :04:01.science in BBC News. I will be speaking to him in a moment. What
:04:01. > :04:01.
:04:01. > :04:09.sort of challenge as do Newswatch think he will face? -- challenges.
:04:09. > :04:15.One prediction is that there will be criticism of the BBC's coverage
:04:15. > :04:23.of climate change. There is clearly no way of placing of the people all
:04:23. > :04:33.the time. David Murray is one of those who is unhappy. Writing the
:04:33. > :04:42.
:04:42. > :04:47.An independent review by the BBC Trust found that too much weight
:04:47. > :04:54.had been given to those challenging scientific orthodoxy on issues such
:04:54. > :04:58.as climate change as well as GM crops, and the MMR vaccine. The
:04:58. > :05:08.controversy provoked by Andrew Wakefield suggested a link between
:05:08. > :05:27.
:05:27. > :05:32.the vaccine and autism got Anthony Allegations that BBC hyped-up
:05:32. > :05:38.stories has affected bird flu and last year's Fukushima nuclear power
:05:38. > :05:48.plant disaster. Too much was made of the dangers of radiation posed
:05:48. > :06:07.
:06:07. > :06:15.Our audience have found a new planet around a distance star
:06:16. > :06:22.somewhere out there. This week's Stargazing LIVE programme has shown
:06:22. > :06:32.there is an appetite for science programme. Does BBC News take the
:06:32. > :06:53.
:06:53. > :07:01.news as seriously as it should? Not Trevor Tonkinson worried --
:07:01. > :07:09.wondered: we are going to speak to David Shukman, the newly appointed
:07:09. > :07:12.signs a tougher start first for Trevor Tonkinson, how many
:07:12. > :07:21.reporters have a scientific background? I have a geography
:07:21. > :07:26.degree and I am very proud of it. Does it mean difficulty dealing
:07:26. > :07:30.with scientists and astrophysicists? There is
:07:30. > :07:34.definitely a challenge with understanding their language. What
:07:34. > :07:40.overcomes that is an enthusiasm for the subject. Science is very
:07:40. > :07:50.specialised. A bicycle physicist may not know that much about the
:07:50. > :07:53.
:07:53. > :07:57.glaciers of Greenland. -- astrophysicist. After all these
:07:57. > :08:05.years the BBC has appointed a science editor after a science
:08:05. > :08:10.correspondent. It is long overdue. A number of important subjects have
:08:10. > :08:13.been given editors to lead the coverage. I think it is about time
:08:13. > :08:19.that science, an incredibly important part of our lives in so
:08:19. > :08:22.many ways, has the status of an editor. I know from talking from
:08:23. > :08:29.scientists and engineers, they have felt too long in the shadows of
:08:29. > :08:35.this country. We need to bring them into the limelight and give them
:08:35. > :08:42.the attention they deserve. One of the inevitable hot potatoes will be
:08:42. > :08:46.the controversies over climate change. You are not pleasing anyone
:08:46. > :08:52.in this tormented area, how do you approach it? We assess the weight
:08:52. > :08:55.of the evidence on any particular story. Whether it is client --
:08:56. > :09:00.climate science are anything else. We make a judgement about the
:09:00. > :09:05.strength of the evidence, how we are going to cover it, the relative
:09:05. > :09:15.air time we might give to different points of view. We have an open
:09:15. > :09:15.
:09:15. > :09:22.door, I hope we always have. Nothing to be shut off. If you have
:09:22. > :09:29.got 30 years of data painstakingly gathered in the Arctic by the
:09:29. > :09:35.American space agency NASA, that is a solid body of evidence. We
:09:35. > :09:45.explain to viewers were there may be weaknesses, that is the kind of
:09:45. > :09:47.
:09:47. > :09:54.thing, we can apply undue weight. One viewer said the BBC exaggerated
:09:54. > :09:58.the dangers of radiation harm. Do you think there is anything in
:09:58. > :10:03.that? Looking at some of the newspaper headlines it was clear
:10:03. > :10:08.that they were predicting nuclear Armageddon. I would like to think
:10:08. > :10:13.in now I'm reporting we laid out the context, we laid out the risk
:10:13. > :10:18.and explained row the dangers perhaps did not exist. I went to
:10:18. > :10:25.Fukushima six months after the disaster, went into the exclusion
:10:25. > :10:30.zone carrying a Geiger counter and found no levels of radiation.
:10:30. > :10:35.Hopefully people will get the idea that our job is to gather the facts
:10:35. > :10:39.and present them. David Shukman, Venky very much in do. Before we go
:10:39. > :10:49.too much further into this year, we should mention a bugbear of
:10:49. > :11:12.
:11:12. > :11:17.Point is taken, 2012 it'll be from now on. Thank you for all of your