That's the problem with media like BBC - airing the view point becomes "subsidizing", and which opinion gets discussed and which is not becomes matter of centralized public policy instead of matter of private preference and market of ideas. Yes, this is the opposite of what journalists are supposed to do - instead of being free agents in the market of ideas, they become essentially a part of executive branch in enforcing public policy. Not a good development.
"which opinion gets discussed and which is not becomes matter of centralized public policy"
Not really. Should they stop and give equal time to the Flat Earth Society every time they show a picture of a spherical earth?
If climate deniers want to continue to get anything like equal time they should earn it, not be granted it. They were granted equal time for a long time, longer than they deserved. Now, after several decades of firing blanks while the evidence supporting anthropogenic global warming and climate change has continued to snowball, deniers have been demoted. Expect to see more and more such demotions unless they start backing up their astroturf and propaganda efforts with real science.
>>> Should they stop and give equal time to the Flat Earth Society
You seem to miss the point. The point is not who deserves and who does not deserve access to the market. The point is the whole questions stated like this is a problem. Everybody should have access to the market, that's the point. If FES wants to be on idea market, let them be there. If nobody would buy their goods - their imaginary idea store would wither and fall into disuse. That's how it should be done, not by some committee that decides who gets equal share of centralized resource and who does not. You talking about "being demoted", that assumes centralized external control of who is promoted and who is demoted. Right now you laud this model because you sympathize to the point being promoted and despise the point being demoted. But this model is inherently not healthy, as it has control of what is discussed and what is not in the hands of the central power and not in the hands of the people. I was thinking people on HN would get why such centralized system is problematic, but looks like the cheerleading for their team obscures their vision.
> You seem to miss the point. The point is not who deserves and who does not deserve access to the market. The point is the whole questions stated like this is a problem. Everybody should have access to the market, that's the point. If FES wants to be on idea market, let them be there. If nobody would buy their goods - their imaginary idea store would wither and fall into disuse.
The BBC is not "the idea market". The BBC is a participant in that market (a distributor that spends resources picking up ideas from idea suppliers, packaging them and bundling them into consumer-focussed idea-delivery products -- shows -- and delivering them to consumers.)
The issue isn't whether the climate denial should be banned from the market, the issue whether the BBC is wrong in a decision to stop stocking it.
By being a special national public tax-funded corporation, BBC is a huge part of idea market, at least in the UK. In fact, by claiming that airing those views is "subsidizing", the parent post acknowledged it. Since UK residents have no choice about if to pay the tax or not, they are essentially forced to support one ideas over the others as a matter of public policy. If BBC were a private corporation without tax financing, of course that would not be a problem.
