A lengthy and interesting article in TruePublica.org earlier this month suggests that the BBC’s coverage of the 5G issue has, up till now, been biased and lacking in impartiality.
- All the recent coverage has taken as its starting point ‘the unsubstantiated rumours of a link between 5G and Covid-19 that had reportedly spread rapidly through social media and that needed to be debunked’.
- Little coverage was given to the ‘considerable and growing concern in the scientific community about impacts on health from 5G’.
- Precautionary scientists were given little air time. ‘On the very rare occasions that they did feature, their contributions were systematically followed by lengthier ones from deniers of health effects to which they are never permitted to respond; thus the deniers always got the last word’.
- ‘It is clear that the BBC has chosen to represent the science about RF-EMF impacts as non-contentious whereas it is in fact far from settled……instead of exploring this fascinating scientific paradigm shift, the BBC systematically excludes discussion between qualified scientists and medics of our rapidly evolving understanding of the biological effects of RF-EMFs’.
- Conflict of interest. ‘Although the BBC’s status as broadcaster entails it having an interest in new broadcasting technologies, few members of the public are probably aware that the BBC is actively involved in 5G development and deployment.’ So while in the File on Four programme ‘the BBC purported to reveal conflicts of interest regarding 5G it glaringly failed to disclose its own’.
Annelie Fitzgerald is a member of Safe Schools Information Technology Alliance (SSITA) and Wiser Wireless Wales.