Imagine doing a story focused on the release of a new study and not once mentioning the authors or institution who produced the study. That would seem to be journalism at its worst, and yet the BBC does just that with surprising regularity.
For example, here’s a short article the BBC published on Friday about a study of genetically modified cotton in India,
‘Indian GM cotton a failure’
A new study in India says that 71% of farmers who tried out a genetically modified pest-resistant variety of cotton suffered an average decrease in crop yield of 35%, compared with farms where traditional coton was grown.
The study says it also found that the new variety failed to live up to claims that it needed significantly less pesticide treatment, and that its cultivation was cheaper.
However, a spokesman for Monsanto, the biotech company which introduced the new cotton seeds, disputed the study’s findings, and said that the lower yield could be due to drought.
From the newsroom of the BBC World Service
Who were the authors of the study? Which institutions do they work at? Where was the study published?
These are all essential things to know in evaluating such information, but the BBC story is written as if the study simply burst into existence in the middle of its newsroom.
Source:
‘Indian GM cotton a failure’. The BBC, June 6, 2003.