A sociological model by which to orientate ethics, science and society

The BBC has published a report Safeguarding impartiality in the 21st century in which it sets out to ‘define a set of principles of impartiality in a forward-looking way’, and to ‘identify a list of broad implications for the BBC’. This makes mention of global warming.

"… the growth of inter-party agreement at Westminster and unofficial cross-party alliances – whether on the invasion of Iraq, the funding of higher education, the detention of terrorist suspects, or global warming – complicates the impartiality equation. There are many issues where to hear ‘both sides of the case’ is not enough: there are many more shades of opinion to consider. Indeed, the principal linkage of impartiality to ‘matters of party political or industrial controversy’ has a very dated feel to it: there are many other areas where controversy is now much fiercer" (page 34)

The relation of the science of global warming and the idea of impartiality, the latter at the very heart of public broadcasting has not only been vexing the BBC but commentators in other media outlets.

A lack of general knowledge in science is frequently bemoaned in the news. In this case, however, no-one appears to be pointing out that a lack of social scientific knowledge is hampering understanding and progress towards a more fruitful discussion about the role of the BBC (and others) in the debate about climate change.

Sociology offers us the following framework by which to orientate ethics, science and society (for a good introduction see Runciman 1999, The Social Animal).

1) A ‘Value-neutral explanation’ is an explanation of why the world is what it is that can be assessed as to its validity.
2) ‘Value judgements’ are evaluative statements as to whether the state of the world is a good or bad thing
3) The decision of what to explain -‘value relevant choices’ - is a function of the interests, values and circumstance of the commentator (journalist or otherwise).

The BBC clearly has to consider all 3 points as it goes about its business. It’s own reports and those of climate scientists must be assessed as to (1). Clearly the interests and values of the viewers, the corporation, and the members the BBC Trust etc., along with other factors such as the amount of resources available will feed into (3). The BBC has a set of values, as we all do (2).

In the storm of rhetoric and comment about impartiality, a key to clarity is not to deny having values, but to strive to be as clear as possible about what they are in articulating an explanation. For the sake of integrity, this should be done alongside a consideration of how value judgements and value relevant choices impact on the account offered.