On the one hand, I was very pleased to see CNN's Howard Kurtz mention on Sunday's "Reliable Sources" the recent decision by the BBC to cancel "Planet Earth," a proposed daylong special to focus attention on anthropogenic global warming.
On the other hand, I was surprised when Kurtz chose not to include one of the key reasons this project was scrapped, namely, the failure of Al Gore's Live Earth concerts.
Here's what Kurtz said on the subject:
How far should the media go in spotlighting climate change? The BBC had planned to air a day's worth of programs to highlight concerns about global warping. Not unlike when NBC carried the Live Earth concert sponsored by Al Gore. But in this case, two of the network's top TV news executives objected. With Peter Barron, editor of its "Newsnight" program saying "It is absolutely not the BBC's job to save the planet."
The BBC has now bowed to the criticism, canceling the day of environmental programs.
Yes, Howard, but you forgot to mention what British press outlets such as the Times felt was a key reason for this cancellation (emphasis added):
The BBC has now scrapped the concept. Negative reaction to this summer's flop Live Earth concert, promoted by Al Gore, was cited as a factor.
Even the BBC, in its own report on the subject, addressed this connection (emphasis added):
Is [sic] is believed that poor ratings in the UK and elsewhere for July's Live Earth concert may have confirmed the internal belief that the public do not like being "lectured to" on climate change.
With that in mind, as Kurtz did mention Live Earth and Gore, why did he choose to omit this connection?
