alexlockwood.net

C4 Mykura’s half-right contradiction on climate change

Hamish Mykura, Channel 4’s head of documentaries, has published his reply to Monbiot’s claim that Channel 4 has harmed action against climate change.

Mykura’s central tenet is that the vehemence of people such as Monbiot do more harm to the ’cause’ of global warming than a dissenting documentary that is seen by 2.7m viewers. In Mykura’s words:

It is arguable that it is not the Great Global Warming Swindle that has bred public scepticism, but the desire of some environmentalists – evidenced by the identikit complaints orchestrated against the film – to stamp out dissenting voices. This intolerance undermines confidence in the rightness of the cause.

This one’s going to get some comments alright. Maybe aiming for the 1,500 that accumulated under the New Scientist Lynas/White debate at the beginning of the year. Some early comments on the CIF site under Mykura’s article:

• Pretendingtocare: ‘2 more articles like this and we’ll have balance’
• TheLoonyfromCatford: ‘Impact? well it sure got a lot of US right-wing bloggers talking’
• Commander Keen: Hamish, you are a (quoting Durkin) ‘big daft cock’

And isn’t that fulfilling all the promises of new media?

Is Mykura correct?
He probably is half-right. But for different reasons, or in different ways, than he thinks. Take this example: in 1997, the US Clinton Administration embarked on a campaign to engage the public and build support for their position on the Kyoto Protocol. What happened was no overall change across the country, but… strong Democracts became more convinced than they already were. And strong Republicans became more sceptical than they already were. (Reported in Krosnick et al., 2000).

Programmes such as this don’t tell people what to think. But they do reinforce existing beliefs. And as if by magic: Betteroffalone’s comment on the Mykura’s article: ‘I thought the documentary was an excellent piece of polemic which reinforced my own prejudices!’

But only half-right?
In my opinion, yes.  Mykura’s confused me a little. To begin with, he has challenged my prejudices, admittedly: it’s quite clear in which ‘camp’ I sit. But if programmes such as this have no impact, what is their public service broadcasting remit for? His claim also flies in the face of 35 years of academic research which overwhelmingly illustrates that the media contributes to ‘agenda-setting’–and it can be cumulative, or it can be immediate and spectacular. See Dorothy Nelkin (1987) for example.

More importantly, it’s not either/or. It’s not ‘the green’s cause the scepticism, not us’. It’s, at their worst, both. Mykura is being deceptively smart when he says:

Global warming may be the biggest danger presently facing humanity. But people are rightly suspicious of broadcasters or newspapers that simply hector and campaign.

The fact is: strong polemic on either side offends, isolates and reinforces the prejudices of each opposite side, driving polarisation, as per the Krosnick et al. research.

People are not always (or even mostly) suspicious of broadcasters or newspapers that simply hector or campaign. Most regional newspapers survive on campaigns. Some nationals do. The issue at stake is often the editors’/broadcasters’ values attached to the campaign. Another example: in Joe Smith’s research conducted over seven years with 100 BBC broadcasters and environment specialists, he identifies that editors do often take normative, value-laden positions on campaigns to do with ’safer’ issues to campaign on, such as terrorism, human rights, and child labour. (Smith, J. 2005: 1479.) In fact:

Climate change scientists and policy communicators… suggest the media are responsible for public ignorance of both causes and consequences of climate change (Smith, J. 2005: 1473.)

That is, Hamish: it’s editorially safer to take up the dissenting position on climate change than it is to ‘hector’ or ‘campaign’ about it. This from the very mouths of UK national broadcasters.

But that’s not the point here
There’s quite a sharp double-edged sword in the Ofcom ruling. The point is whether or not by broadcasting the programme, Channel 4 caused significant (material) harm to the public. Ofcom says no. Channel 4 feel vindcated, many others don’t.

I spoke to Dave Rado, who compiled and submitted the complaint against the programme. He, as well as Monbiot and others, were quick to point out the illogic around the:

extraordinary claim that because the science is settled, the issue of whether global warming is anthropogenic is not controversial, and therefore there is no need for broadcasters to be accurate or impartial on that issue.

Now follow this logic:

• Channel 4 accepts Ofcom’s ruling that it did not mislead
• Ofcom based this ruling on the fact that the science is settled
• If the science is settled, then we really, really need to do something about it
• Is the best thing to do, in that case, broadcast a dangerously dissenting documentary?

This is how Mykura justifies the programme: “Channel 4 believes in engaging with the debate in its fullest form, rather than closing it down. That is why this film was a valid contribution.”

Yet happy to accept Ofcom’s ruling on the basis that there is no longer a debate? That’s contradictory at best. It’s left the public ever more confused, and we aren’t that clear in the first place, e.g.:

“Studies reveal that less than 10 percent of the population qualify as well-informed… and even fewer appear to meet the criteria for scientific literacy.” (Ungar, 2000: p.300)

And so… those words, dangerous, harm, etc
How to judge if a media broadcast does ‘harm’. To whom, on what, in what ways?

This is not an issue that can be resolved by Ofcom’s current code, as Leo Hickman points out. And he’s backed up by research. When it comes to assessing harm done in broadcasting this documentary, it may be useful to think about who is best placed to help a media regulator make a judgement on ‘materially misleading’ harm in relation to a scientific, social and political issue. The academic Michael Oppenheimer has a suggestion that is useful for decision-makers, whether editors, heads of documentaries such as Mykura, or politicians:

“Defining climate danger will inevitably be a process that begins with natural science and one where natural science provides one necessary focus to the discussion. Social science may also make important contributions by helping policymakers understand the way in which values arising from cultural and ehtical considerations ought to contribute to determining the final outcome.”

Similar considerations should play a role in the workings of regulatory bodies when they find themselves out of their depth. However, the role of social scientists isn’t welcome in many areas, particularly by broadcasters, for example:

[They're] seriously dodgy, they just add the word science on the end to seem more legitimate (Broadcast editor, quoted in Smith, J. 2005: 1475.)

So where now?
For me, the answer is straightforward. Channel 4 are vindicated on this count, but not to the extent that some bloggers seem to think so (I’m engaging in a bit of a debate with an American site, Men’s News Daily, and one of their writers, Roger Gay, as he’s covering this at the moment.)

So for those of us who think this instance proves that Ofcom does not have the necessary tools to robustly deal with issues of misrepresentation in relation to climate change, then either we (including me) accept the criticism of the sceptics and commenters in that we want to limit debate; or we gather evidence and argument to rigorously assess the boundaries of that debate and argue our case for review. As Dave Rado says:

if it’s really true that science documentaries are not expected to be accurate, that is a serious indictment of the broadcasting code.

I agree, Mykura and others don’t. But that’s what I’ll be doing–gathering evidence, debating–and I’m happy to engage in discussion over it.

References
Krosnick et al., 2000 “The Impact of the fall 1997 debate about global warming on American public opinion” in Public Understanding of Science, 9, 239-260.
Oppenheimer, M., 2005 “Defining Dangerous Anthropogenic Interference” in Risk Analysis, Vol.25, No.6.
Smith, J., 2005. “Media Decision Making about Climate Change Risk”, in Risk Analysis, Vol.25, No.6.
Ungar, S. 2000. “Knowledge, ignorance and the popular culture: climate change versus the ozone hole” in Public Understanding of Science, 9, 297-312.

Related posts:

1. Lomborg on half-baked climate ideas On the Guardian this morning, Bjorn Lomborg argues that politicians...
2. Climate change: how to balance freedoms Thanks for all the comments so far. The post...
3. BBC impartiality and climate change Tony at Harmless Sky has been following , for...
4. Selective nominating: Daily Mail the greenest of all? The Press Gazette Environmental Press Awards shortlist was announced Monday,...
5. Third of Conservatives don’t accept climate change Yesterday the Guardian published figures showing that a third of...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

View blog reactions