[quote]The BBC's journalists were commended for an "ability to communicate complex topics to a global audience".
Nature News came just behind the BBC in the top 10 and Wired's science coverage was listed at number three.
RealClearScience also said the BBC's science team had "extraordinary journalistic instinct".
On Nature News, which came at number two in the list, the site said "the reliability and readability of the information found here proves that Nature takes its commitment to journalism every bit as seriously as it does its commitment to groundbreaking research".
Wired's science coverage took third place, with the magazine being praised for being "at the forefront of all things science and technology". Its reporters Brandon Keim and Nadia Drake were also described as "top-notch".[/quote]
And that is why it's a trust worthy source my friends.
-
Good for them, they're probably one of the best news organizations in the world.
-
I always liked BBC good for them.
-
Edited by Urgency: 7/31/2013 7:08:54 PMThis proves that Dr. Who is real.
-
>science >news Pick one.
-
Edited by AcedannyK: 7/31/2013 2:34:06 PMITT: People think the BBC is heading the New World Order
-
BBC is awful in so many ways it's depressing. They're the masters of twisting words and deceiving the public. How you people take them seriously is beyond me.
-
But what about fox news? Its my favourite source.
-
I thought you didn't believe in science? >global warming
-
Okay. And?
-
BBC is far better than the shitty American networks.
-
Why did we need a thread to tell us what we already know?
-
I agee, the BBC is just so much more reliable than the news sources you get in America. Mainly because BBC doesn't try to start race wars (not that I know off anyway)