select search filters
briefings
roundups & rapid reactions
Fiona fox's blog
After a lengthy period of consideration, Ofcom ruled that the programme was in breach of broadcasting rules over impartiality and treated its interviewees unfairly, but that it did not mislead audiences ‘so as to cause harm or offence.’
Prof Chris Rapley, Director of the Science Museum, said:
“On such an important subject all parties involved should strive to deliver as accurate an account of the evidence as possible. I saw this programme and in my view it fell far short of the standards I would have expected of a public broadcaster. This is a great pity because there are many aspects of this topic which deserve penetrating and thoughtful discussion and Channel 4 could have made a contribution to this – but they failed to do so. The quality of human life in future depends on the decisions we make now, so we need the best of journalism and the highest standards of accuracy.”
Prof David Stainforth, Co-Founder of ClimatePrediction.net and Researcher at the University of Exeter, said:
“The fact that we are continuing to debate whether climate change is happening is a huge distraction from the debates we should be having about how we change society to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, how we adapt to the inevitable but still unclear changes ahead, how we interpret the science, how we design the science to be useful, and how we deal with uncertainty. This is not about closing down debate, it’s about having the debates that really matter.”
Bob Ward, Director, Public Policy, Risk Management Solutions Ltd. and former Head of Media at the Royal Society, said:
“Although Ofcom has found the Channel programme ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’ in breach of the Broadcasting Code in respect of impartiality and fairness, it has dropped the ball by finding that the programme did not breach the Code with respect to standards of accuracy.
“While the Ofcom ruling acknowledges that the programme contained factual inaccuracies it ruled that it had not “materially misled the audience with the result that harm and/or offence was likely to be caused”.
“The programme has been let off the hook on a highly questionable technicality. Ofcom decided not to treat the programme as a news programme, which would have made it subject to section 5.7 of the Broadcasting Code:
“‘Views and facts must not be misrepresented. Views must also be presented with due weight over appropriate timeframes.’
“Instead, Ofcom decided only to investigate the programme under Section 2 of the Broadcasting Code, dealing with harm and offence, which states:
“‘Factual programmes or items or portrayals of factual matters must not materially mislead the audience.’
“The Ofcom ruling states: ‘In dealing with these complaints therefore Ofcom had to ascertain – not whether the programme was accurate – but whether it materially misled the audience with the result that harm and/or offence was likely to be caused.’
“The ruling concluded: ‘In summary, in relation to the manner in which facts in the programme were presented, Ofcom is of the view that the audience of this programme was not materially misled in a manner that would have led to actual or potential harm.’
“The ruling noted that Channel 4 had admitted errors in the graphs and data used in the programme, yet decided that this did not cause harm or offence to the audience.
“I think most scientists, and most members of the public, will be offended both by the decision to screen a programme that is acknowledged as being inaccurate, and by Ofcom’s decision not to hold Channel 4 to account for screening the programme.
“Ofcom’s decision is even more puzzling given that it ruled the programme had breached the Broadcasting Code in terms of impartiality under the terms of Section 5, which covers news.
“Ofcom has dropped the ball in its ruling on accuracy, and it has failed to uphold the public interest.”
Prof Sir David King, former Chief Scientific Advisor to the UK Government, said:
“The link between global warming and increased greenhouse gas emissions from human activities is now established beyond all reasonable doubt. The basic science underpinning this link was established as long ago as the nineteenth century, and a vast array of more recent work has enabled scientists to develop further our understanding of the mechanisms in play.
“Today, none but the most ill-informed can maintain that human induced climate change is not happening. The most recent IPCC report published at the end of last year sent a clarion call for action of increased intensity from that the political world heard that action is now needed urgently and on a global scale.”