The BBC Caves in to astrologers

[Sticks]

If anyone in the UK caught Wonders of the Solar system with Brian Cox on the BBC, you will have seen him comment on the validity or otherwise of astrology.

This caused astrologers to complain and Phil has blogged about it here

Now according to the fan page / group page for Equinox Astrology the BBC, (As I predicted on the blog comments), has caved in.

According to the facebook page the BBC emailed an apology to the person running this site saying

the Professor's comments "were his own, not those of the BBC and were based on his belief that there isn't sufficient evidence to support astrology".

So should we expect Brian to be barred from hosting any programmes on the BBC until he recants?

Will the BBC be editing out his comment about astrology before they release the series to DVD or show it in the US?

We had expected better of this broadcasting organisation, and for them to apologise for someone commenting on astrology, which has no evidence whatsoever is bad astronomy in the media in the extreme.

I follow Brian on Twitter and facebook, so may try and alert him to this turn of events

[Buttercup]

Political correctness run amok.

[Gillianren]

No, political pressure. There's a difference. Not every caving to a special interest group is political correctness; few of them are.

[Paul Beardsley]

I feel strongly about this. Is there a recommended way of complaining to the BBC about their shameful action?

[EDG]

Bombard them with lots of emails?

[EDG]

Oh wait. From the Equinox Astrology page that was linked to above:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/forms/

Let's have at them. They've ****ed me off already by claiming that astrology is "science" and that Prof Cox was being "unscientific". For that at least, this means war.


That said, what exactly is there to complain about? We just have the astrology nut's word for it that they posted an apology, all they actually quoted was that bit that the OP quoted here. That doesn't sound like an apology to me, that just sounds like they're saying "it's his own opinion, based on the fact that there's no science behind it", which is correct. So I suspect they're trying to paint something as an apology when it isn't really one at all.

It might be able to mobilise some masses against these loons, given that Prof Cox and the WOttS have Facebook pages... if it blows up any more, then I may try to do that. For now, it seems that the astrologers in question are getting a lot of beating down on their own group.

[HenrikOlsen]

Now if only they could get the same treatment that the chiropracty quacks are getting in the aftermath of the Singh case, things would be looking brighter.

[Disinfo Agent]

So should we expect Brian to be barred from hosting any programmes on the BBC until he recants?

Will the BBC be editing out his comment about astrology before they release the series to DVD or show it in the US?

I see no reason to fear any of the two. Why do you ask?

We had expected better of this broadcasting organisation, and for them to apologise for someone commenting on astrology, which has no evidence whatsoever is bad astronomy in the media in the extreme.

The words you quoted are not an apology.

[grant hutchison]

The words you quoted are not an apology.

And in fact are a pretty standard disclaimer by which an organization says, in effect: "If you have a problem with this, you need to take it up with the person who said it."
I can't access Equinox Astrology at present, but I presume if the BBC had actually used the words "sorry" or "apologize", that would have appeared in the quoted "apology".
What is quoted in the OP looks more like a shrug than an apology.

Grant Hutchison

[Strange]

What is quoted in the OP looks more like a shrug than an apology.

Which sound like just the right response.

"I'm an Astrologerer!"
Shrug. Wanders off to search for intelligent life elsewhere.

[grant hutchison]

And the astrologer's response is a fine illustration of the fundamental error in astrology: mistaking indifference for personal significance.

Grant Hutchison

[Cruithne3753]

An astronomer looks at say, Jupiter. He/she considers the enormous bulk of the planet, the cloud belts, the Great Red Spot, Io, Europa, Callisto and Ganymede and the other moons, how it affects the paths of asteroids and comets, and marvels at the splendour of it all.

An astrologer looks at Jupiter and thinks "better be careful with money next Tuesday."

It must be cramped living inside such a tiny mind.