There were many complaints on various right-leaning blogs on Thursday (13 December) that the BBC was promoting an anti-
fracking (hydraulic fracturing) agenda. There have been plenty of such complaints before. Fraser Nelson's
Spectator column is fairly typical:
There was something odd about George Osborne offering tax breaks for fracking when it was still banned by another part of his government. The ban has been lifted and exploration can begin again in Lancashire, in what could be the most important piece of economic good news since the discovery of North Sea oil.
But listening to the BBC reports this morning, it’s striking how the corporation already seems to be against it. Fracking has begun, it says. And the two things is listeners need to know about fracking? That it has been accused of polluting water in America and causing earth tremors. The upside, especially for Blackpool and its environs, was not mentioned.
Over at
Biased BBC you can read comments like:
Excellent article in The Spectator showing just how little regard the BBC has for the country and society in the pursuit of its own agenda. I’m just glad the government finally had the guts to start developing this form of energy. It could solve more than one problem in the world.
and
Today I learned the BBC is worried about Fracking and the fact that there will be in one experts opinion no major impact on gas supplies even though we sit on hugh amounts of of shale gas.
and
Beeboids increase their devious anti-fracking campaigning. Beeboids are determined to stop, by fair means or foul apparently, the development of shale gas in Britain.
and
Yes, but, uncle beeb hates “fracking” and is totally against it being done in the UK
Was Fraser Nelson basing this criticism on watching the BBC News Channel that morning? Or from listening to
Today on Radio 4? I didn't watch the News Channel that day and there's no 'listen again' facility to check if the BBC's reporting did come across as being against fracking. What, though, of
Today? That can be
listened to again. Did it strike an anti-fracking stance? And what of the rest of the day's reporting? It's time to check it out and judge for myself.
Before I begin, I'll lay my own cards on the table. I'm pro-fracking. I hold high hopes for it. We, as a country, need it to be a success.
Having so confessed, I will now try to put my own biases on the issue to one side and see what happens. This post will be through-composed, so Lord knows where it will lead me conclusions-wise.
Today, 13 December
Listening through
Today's coverage just now has been quite eye-opening. The second and third hours of the programme began with segments on the issue. The second hour got under way with a John Humphrys interview with
Alastair Fraser, Professor of Petroleum Geoscience at Imperial College, London. You can hear it at the 7.09 slot
here.
It was a good-natured and interesting interview, but what was so interesting (from a bias-hunter's perspective) was the questioning by John H. For all the world, it sounded to me as if he was actively steering Prof. Fraser in a pro-fracking direction - the exact opposite of what many in favour of fracking are alleging against the BBC.
John Humphrys began the interview by asking, "Professor Fraser, just deal with the safety bit first. When we talk about earthquakes, they are really tiny?"
Prof. Fraser agreed that they were "very small". "Micro-earthquakes" called them.
"It's like a bus driving past?", John asked.
"Absolutely", replied Prof. Fraser.
"Right, shouldn't worry about that," said John decisively. "What about polluting the water?"
Prof. Fraser said we can worry a little bit more about that, but it's down to good or bad drilling practice. A good regulatory framework is required. The UK has been regulating oil and gas for some 60 years...
"Without any big problems," John interrupted.
"Without any major problems," agreed the professor. There was Piper Alpha though...
"No, no, but I mean in terms of polluting water...", John interrupted again.
"No major problems there", Prof. Fraser agreed.
"So, again, that's controllable?", John asked.
"Yes," Prof. Fraser replied.
They then talked about the amount of gas we could have in the UK. Prof. Fraser said that it was hard to be sure but it seems that onshore gas could a fifth or a quarter of what we've had offshore....
"But still very significant?," John asked/stated.
"Yes, absolutely", agreed Prof. Fraser. It won't dramatically effort our export markets but it will have an effect on the energy that comes into our homes. It may not lower the price but it will stop us having to rely on imported gas and give us more control over the price in that case...
"And that is very important?", John asked/stated.
"I think it's important. I hope your listeners feel it's important as well."
"Right, but what we won't have is what they've had in the United States, where the gas price has dropped like a stone?", said John.
"My goodness, it's incredible..", began Prof. Fraser.
John sounded as if he shared his guest's amazement. "Wow!" he said soon after.
Please listen to the interview to judge for yourself, but you can surely see from all this that John Humphrys could not, in any way, shape or form, be fairly or accurately accused of asking questions from an anti-fracking stance. Quite the reverse, in fact. It sounded much more as if he was actually promoting fracking rather than criticising it. His questions were framed almost entirely from a similar standpoint to that of, say, Fraser Nelson.
Now, this could just be good old-fashioned devil's advocate questioning of the kind BBC interviewers might well put to an anti-fracking guest. Questioning from a pro-fracking stance would be entirely justified in such circumstances. Except that Professor Fraser clearly isn't against fracking.
How John Humphrys conducted the interviews during the 8.10 segment should clarify the matter then.
