BW )(: Panorama: Wi-fi: a Warning Signal - complaint upheld
Peter Ferne
petef at bristolwireless.net
Fri Nov 30 21:56:56 GMT 2007
Some of you will remember the recent Panorama wifi piece, widely
regarded as inaccurate scare-mongering. Brian Butterworth complained
to the BBC. The response from the Editorial Complaints Unit (ECU)
which he forwarded to the backstage list (and which is copied below)
is a bit long but a substantial part of the complaint was upheld.
> "...an overall concern that the programme gave a misleading
> impression of the balance of scientific opinion on the possible
> danger of radiation from Wi-Fi signals."
> ...
> "I am therefore upholding this aspect of your complaint."
>
--
petef
Begin forwarded message: (long)
From: Brian Butterworth
Date: 30 November 2007 20:42:45 GMT
To: backstage at lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: [backstage] ECU ruling: Panorama: Wi-fi: a Warning Signal,
BBC1, 21 May 2007
Reply-To: backstage at lists.bbc.co.uk
Good news everybody, it's Doctor Nick!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/news/2007/11/30/51156.shtml
More information...
Panorama: Wi-Fi - A Warning Signal, BBC1, 21 May 2007
Thank you for your e-mail of 19 June. I'm sorry you feel the
responses you've had to your complaint so far have been
unsatisfactory, and I hope I can address your concerns here.
I have now had the opportunity to watch the programme and discuss the
points you make with the producer and the Deputy Editor of Panorama.
As you may be aware, it is the role of the Editorial Complaints Unit
to investigate complaints and determine whether there has been a
serious breach of the standards expressed in the BBC's Editorial
Guidelines. You can see them in full at www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/
editorialguidelines . In looking at this matter I have taken the
relevant Editorial Guidelines to be those dealing with Accuracy and
Impartiality.
Before I address your specific complaints, I think it might be
helpful to explain that Panorama decided to investigate this
particular subject because Sir William Stewart, the head of the
Health Protection Agency (HPA), said he was concerned about the
safety of using Wi-Fi equipment, especially in schools. The
programme-makers felt such comments about an issue of public health
from an eminent and respected scientist, entrusted by successive
Governments with leading on such matters, justified further
investigation.
You have raised a number of specific points, so I hope it will be
helpful if I take them in turn. I have attempted to summarise each
aspect of your complaint and I hope I have done so accurately.
The programme failed to point out to the viewer the nature of radio
signals – saying a signal was "three time stronger" whilst playing
down the inverse-exponential nature of the measurement was
extraordinary.
We have spoken to the programme-makers and discussed your concerns
about the way the level of radiation from the mobile phone mast and
the Wi-Fi equipment were compared. As you know, one of the
recommendations of Sir William Stewart's group was that the beam of
greatest intensity from a mobile phone mast should not fall on any
part of a school's grounds. Sir William said he was concerned about
radio frequency radiation from phone masts and has now said he is
also concerned about similar radiation from Wi-Fi. Panorama's simple
test was to compare the levels of radiation from a mobile phone mast
at the point where the beam of highest radiation hits the ground (the
point where Sir William says children should not be exposed) with the
levels of radiation from Wi-Fi equipment in a classroom.
The reporter, Paul Kenyon, explained the test in the following terms:
Paul Kenyon: The government knows Sir William has concerns about
siting masts near schools. Why then are we now placing them inside
classrooms in the form of Wi-Fi mini masts? They emit the same sort
of radiation, so what's its potential impact in the classroom? We
went to a school in Norwich to find out. The idea to compare the
level of radiation from a typical mobile phone mast with that of a Wi-
Fi enabled laptop in the classroom.
We're about 100 metres away from the mast here. The man who'll take
the readings is an electrical engineer called Alasdair Philips. He
runs a lobby group called Powerwatch which raises awareness of
electromagnetic smog, but he's also taken measurements for industry
and helped advise the Government.
So we're in the main beam, this is sort of highest radiation, is it?
Alasdair Philips: Yes, it's where the main beam of radiation comes
down to ground, so basically the highest point of the signals, yeah.
I think this made clear that the programme wasn't saying the Wi-Fi
signal was three times stronger, but simply comparing the levels of
radiation at the points where children might encounter it. I accept
that this wasn't a particularly sophisticated test but I agree with
the programme-makers that it was a simple way to make a simple
point. Panorama asked three scientists (Dr Alan Preece at Bristol
University, Dr Richard Towser at the University of Sheffield and Dr
Mike Clarke at the Health Protection Agency) to take a view on the
validity of the test, and they agreed the comparison was valid. In
any event the reporter, Paul Kenyon, after reiterating the basis for
the test, made clear that it wasn't definitive:
So we took the first measurement here in what's called the beam of
greatest intensity from the mast. The advice from Sir William
Stewart to the Government was that this beam shouldn't fall on any
part of a school's grounds, unless the school and the parents
agreed. But the levels of radiation inside the classroom were far
higher, three times the strength of the nearby mast - not
continuously but during downloads. These are controversial findings
that must be repeated and verified.
I would like to take your next two points together.
2. The programme conflated Wi-Fi signals and GSM mobile phone
signals, which is as valid as comparing light and heat.
3. The only effect that has ever been seen from the vibrating
air molecules that provide radio signals used for Wi-Fi is a heating
effect, but the programme made no attempt to explain this or measure it.
Rather than exploring the detailed science behind these points, we
have taken them as instances representing an overall concern that the
programme gave a misleading impression of the balance of scientific
opinion on the possible danger of radiation from Wi-Fi signals. In a
self-contained programme such as this, I think there is a
responsibility on the programme-makers to make sure it gives a fair
representation of the range of opinion, even if it sets out primarily
to explore the concerns raised by a particularly distinguished
scientist. The section of the BBC's Editorial Guidelines on
Achieving Impartiality sets out what's required:
Impartiality must be adequate and appropriate to our output. Our
approach to achieving it will therefore vary according to the nature
of the subject, the type of output, the likely audience expectation
and the extent to which the content and approach is signposted to our
audiences.
Impartiality is described in the Agreement as "due impartiality". It
requires us to be fair and open minded when examining the evidence
and weighing all the material facts, as well as being objective and
even handed in our approach to a subject. It does not require the
representation of every argument or facet of every argument on every
occasion or an equal division of time for each view.
I think the programme failed to meet these requirements in a number
of ways. Firstly, the fact that there were many more contributors
speaking about the potential dangers of Wi-Fi would have tended to
suggest that the balance of informed opinion was strongly in Sir
William's favour. As far as we have been able to establish, however,
his is still a minority view. In fairness to the programme-makers, I
should mention that they contest this assessment. But, at a minimum,
there is a substantial body of scientific opinion which differs from
Sir Willam's view, and I don't think that's the impression which
viewers would have formed.
Secondly, I think a greater degree of scepticism was necessary in the
way the scientists who expressed concerns about Wi-Fi were
presented. They were allowed to put forward their views without
being challenged and were consistently portrayed in a positive fashion.
Additionally, the BBC guidelines say programme-makers should be
"objective and even handed" but I think the approach taken to
contributors in this instance was inconsistent. The only scientist
interviewed putting a different view, Dr Michael Repacholi, was
introduced as "a controversial character" who had previously been
employed by the mobile phone industry, with the implication that his
opinions might be coloured as a result. He was also challenged in
the course of the interview in a way the other contributors were not.
I was also concerned about the terms in which the programme addressed
the particular question of the safety limits set by ICNIRP (which, as
I expect you know, are based on thermal effects). It said:
It's unlikely you'll have heard of ICNIRP but it's an international
group of scientist which our government relies on to set our
radiation limits. But here's the problem, it doesn't recognise any
biological effects so it bases our exposure limits on a thermal
effect. In other words, the radiation has to be so strong it heats
up your organs before it's restricted. That's why our safety limits
are so high.
The tone of this (with phrases such as "Here's the problem") is
implicitly critical of the ICNRIP position - and the impression was
reinforced by the interviews that followed with Professor Henry Lai
and Professor Olle Johansson in which both accused ICNIRP of being
irresponsible. It seems to me that this line of criticism pre-
supposes what is in fact a matter of disagreement - that Wi-Fi
radiation has biological, as well as thermal, effects.
I am therefore upholding this aspect of your complaint.
4. To claim that the signal from Wi-Fi equipment is "pulsing" is
a gross misrepresentation of the technology.
Firstly I'd like to thank you for your e-mail clarifying this
particular point. I think it demonstrates that this is a somewhat
complex matter. The challenge for programmes like Panorama when
dealing with complicated science is to present it in terms
comprehensible to a lay audience. I don't believe that Panorama can
be expected to provide the kind of detailed analysis you might expect
in a dedicated science programme. In this case, the programme drew
the simple parallel between the signal emitted from mobile phones and
masts and that from Wi-Fi equipment, something I addressed in
relation to Point 2. The only use of "pulsing" was in this brief
portion of the script:
It's the new hi-tech way of connecting to the internet. No wires, no
modem, just radio waves, pulsing information through a network of
mini masts. E-mails, websites, films, crackling through the skies.
In the context, I think viewers would have understood "pulsing" in a
figurative sense (much as they would have understood "crackling"),
rather than as a technical description of the technology, and I don't
feel able to support this aspect of your complaint.
5. The responses of the electro-sensitive woman were
statistically misrepresented.
Panorama was careful to point out that the research into electro-
hyper-sensitivity was still in its infancy and I think there was a
suitable note of caution throughout. Sylvia Wilson was described as
a "possible" electro-sensitive and Paul Kenyon explained that the
tests in which she had taken part were neither completely analysed
nor definitive:
So what about the lab tests? Well they've only just finished. They
were independently funded and carried out by the University of
Essex. Participants who were exposed to the levels of radiation
typically emitted by phone masts which, as we've seen, can be far
lower than Wi-Fi. Sylvia could tell when the mast was on or off two
thirds of the time. The rest of the participants' results are still
being analysed.
He concluded:
The evidence is still unclear when it comes to Sylvia's results.
This seems to me to present the matter fairly, albeit in simple
terms, and not in a manner likely to suggest to viewers that the
evidence for such a phenomenon as electro-sensitivity is stronger
than it in fact is.
6. Who in the programme production and management chain have the
correct scientific education, experience or qualifications?
I understand why you feel it important to raise this question, but my
remit is confined to such questions as are directly relevant to
whether or not there has been a breach of editorial standards. It is
possible for programme-makers without scientific qualifications to
deal with scientific topics in a way which accords with the BBC's
editorial standards, just as it is possible for scientifically-
qualified programme-makers to breach those standards, so the question
you pose doesn't arise in relation to my investigation in this
instance. However, it may be helpful if I make the general point
that issues relating to the treatment of scientific topics by non-
specialist journalists are currently under consideration in the BBC.
In conclusion, and despite my reservations on some of your points, I
do think you have done us a service in calling attention to the issue
of due impartiality. A summary of my conclusion, with a note of the
action taken as a result, will be published in the complaints section
of the BBC website, bbc.co.uk. I will, of course, send you a copy
when it has been posted. Meanwhile, I hope you will accept my
apologies on behalf of the BBC for the lapses you have helped us to
identify.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.psand.net/pipermail/bristolwireless/attachments/20071130/b83d81ef/attachment.htm
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
Bristolwireless mailing list
Bristolwireless at lists.psand.net
http://lists.psand.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/bristolwireless
More information about the Bristolwireless
mailing list