Channel 4 ‘did not mislead’ on global warming
Ofcom will rule next week that Channel 4 did not mislead the public over the science of climate change with its programme the Great Global Warming Swindle, according to Owen Gibson in the Guardian this morning.
There is some criticism of Channel 4 and the GGWS programme, produced by Michael Durkin:
Ofcom is expected to censure the network over its treatment of some scientists in the programme… Complaints about privacy and fairness from the government’s former chief scientist, Sir David King, and the Nobel peace prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will be upheld on almost all counts…
But the bigger story is around what Channel 4 won’t be censured for:
But it is understood that Channel 4 will still claim victory because the ultimate verdict on a separate complaint about accuracy, which contained 131 specific points and ran to 270 pages, will find that it did not breach the regulator’s broadcasting code and did not materially mislead viewers.
Have a look at an example complaint made to Ofcom from Josie Wexler (via Flet) which suggests the programme broke the “Broadcasting code clauses: 5.5, 5.7, 5.8, 5.9, 5.10, 5.11, 5.12, 7.1, 7.6, 7.9, 7.10, 7.11 and 7.13.”
As Josie points out in her letter:
The director Martin Durkin is well known for his unscrupulous approach as shown by the fact that he has a previous ruling against him for his programme “Against Nature.” And yet despite having had to apologise for broadcasting this Channel 4 have now broadcast another of his programmes on the same subject without warning the public. [my emphasis]
So, Channel 4 had already had to apologise for a previous misleading programme of Martin Durkin’s?
What is even more worrying is that, again, the ’six-to-one’ evidence (six times more people supported the programme when phoning in or leaving messages on the message board) was used as a justiification of airing this programme:
Channel 4 justified the broadcast by saying it was a useful contribution to a timely debate… The producers claimed that after it was broadcast, Channel 4 received a record number of phone calls that were six to one in favour of the arguments made. The film was subsequently sold to 21 other countries.
Why this justification is wrong
This justification suggests that a particular percentage of a particular number of members of the pubic with a phone and a gripe is enough to warrant a progamme that flies in the face of over 2,000 of the world’s leading scientists publishing the 4th Assessment Report for the IPCC. So, a couple of questions for Ofcom and Channel 4.
1. How many people phoned in exactly, and what percentage of the audience figures is this?
2. What is the average repsonse to a political/provocative programme such as this?
3. What kind of people would self-select to watch a programme called the Great Global Warming Swindle?
4. What kind of people would want to phone in to support or criticize such a programme?
5. The Royal Society, scientists, academics, press, columnists, at least 1/7th of people who watched the programme, and media monitors have all come out against the programme. Do around, for example–and I’m guessing here–600 people who phoned in to watch the programme, 6/7ths of all those that phoned in, mean that Channel 4 can extrapolate out so that “6/7ths more people in the country” are behind them on this?
6. Or, in reality, do ONLY, say, 600 people who watch Channel 4 support them on this? In total. And if Channel 4 get this many viewers for one programme, does it justify its airing?
(That last one is probably unfair. Different polls at different times show different levels of support and understanding for, or disbelief and scepticism in, global warming.)
But I think Ofcom has made a mistake here. I’d like to see the numbers, so will come back to this when the report is out. I’m also going to do some digging around the code, and the definition of ‘material’ misleading.
But it may be the case that they a) either do not have the scientific experience to weigh up whether or not the programme misled the public, or b) they’ve been cowardly.
Want more? Some reviews from the time:
- Robin McKie in the Guardian condemns Channel 4
- Martin Durkin defends his programme
- The Royal Society’s Rebuttal
- the Independent attempts a he-said-they-said balancing act
Related posts:
- What materially matters: Ofcom and climate Today's Ofcom bulletin confirms the ruling on the mistreatment of...
- Wondering minds: global warming video This is a pretty watchable video on weighing the risks...
- Animal suicide: new global warming ad Picked up this from a US-based social media and PR...
- Green & Local 4: global stories, green pounds Just some links this morning on different 'green and local'...
- Twenty years on: covering climate change I wonder what the long-term impact will be on my...
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
July 19th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
I used an extract from this doc last year in MAC201. Worryingly, one group of students failed to see it as an ideological piece situated antagonistically against the backdrop of perceived scientific wisdom. They were quite happy to read it as ‘proof’ that there is nothing wrong apart from a few liberal hand wringers getting upset over nothing. When I told them about Durkin’s previous run-in they claimed I was a character assassin. Ha!
[Reply]
July 21st, 2008 at 4:51 pm
Since when has media coverage of the climate change/global warming issue been balanced? Everywhere I turn I have the green message rammed down my throat like a swan choking on a Tesco’s plastic bag.
And remember, this is Channel 4. This station is funded from advertising, not from our taxes. Being an independent broadcaster I believe it is their fundamental duty to stimulate debate and offer a vehicle for views differing from the mainstream. You could say the same about the BBC, but then they never have got to grips with the idea of ‘balance’ in any area of their reporting.
Don’t get me wrong, I believe that there are strong arguments backing the global warming theory. However, I would be much more sympathetic if I was sold the argument rather than lectured, and if the authorities were be less keen to stamp on those wishing to put forward an alternative point of view.
While the film itself may not have been balanced, it did represent a much needed cry in the wilderness from the already much persecuted climate sceptics.
[Reply]