I heard the host of BBC World today claim that it's "radical" to say that resources of the Amazon rainforest shouldn't be exploited. Is this the kind of bile we call news?

If you think that’s bad, wait till you hear of Fox News.

Unfortunately, there are no journalism laws. There is no requirement to present the truth and only the truth—especially when the truth changes such as in a breaking story. As such, there are many non-news news segments or even channels.

My guard against such things is skepticism. I do not accept something just because it’s in a book or in a news segment. I look at the data itself and make my decision based on that.

I didn’t hear the report, but does this use of “radical” necessarily imply a criticism? The first definition in Webster of “radical” as it applies to ideas is “marked by a considerable departure from the usual or traditional”. Considering that heretofore it has been standard practice to plunder the Amazon at will, perhaps a hands-off policy is rightly described as “radical”.

@Harp Quite right. But to me it’s seen also as meaning ‘unreasonable’. It was during a report about miners in Columbia finishing off the Amazon rainforest completely, and in this context the host implied that it’s unacceptable to not inflict further damage to rainforest because industry depends on it; in addition to local peoples’. It went completely unchallenged. The activist she was interviewing agreed with her.

Normally the people working for the BBC are smarter than this.