So, here we have an article, published by the BBC, entitled
Hmm.. slightly emotive. Is this justified by the content of the referred-to report?
Sorry, petrolheads - conservatives - right wingers - it's just not.
In fact, the report gives electric cars a glowing review. But why let content get in the way of a sensational headline?
Aside::: Credit to the BBC for actually citing a source! They have long refused to do so -- it's standard, in science, to cite sources, so that you know where the story came from. Well done -- keep it up.
I was going to write a rant of my own, condemning yet another example of excoriating, anti-scientific journalism, but Bobby Llew's already done it, so read his (also read the comments - one's particularly well referenced).
The BBC - biased and impartial? Unfortunately not.
The reason -- scientific illiteracy.
This is not peculiar to the BBC - it is an endemic problem in journalism. I pay even less attention to other sources of 'news' because the BBC's actually one of the least bad reporters!
...on the web. Don't ever watch BBC TV News -- it's terrible!