Don鈥檛 believe anything you see in a TV documentary made in the UK.
Documentary makers here have no obligation to be accurate, though factual programmes should present a wide range of views.
That is the implication of a series of rulings by , the regulatory body for responsible for upholding broadcast standards in the UK, on complaints made about a British TV documentary called The Great Global Warming Swindle.
Advertisement
Channel 4, the television company that commissioned and broadcast the documentary, first shown on 8 March last year, subsequently sold the show to 21 countries and released it on DVD. Numerous clips have been viewed on video-sharing site YouTube.
According to the Ofcom ruling, while all programmes dealing with important issues should be impartial, only news programmes have to be presented with 鈥渄ue accuracy鈥�. It doesn鈥檛 matter if other programmes are misleading as long as they don鈥檛 cause 鈥渉arm or offence鈥�, and the regulator鈥檚 interpretation of harm is so narrow that it effectively gives broadcasters a green light to mislead the public.
The 鈥渄ocumentary鈥� in question attacked the idea that global warming is caused by human activity.
To achieve this, writer and director Martin Durkin didn鈥檛 look at the many genuine questions and uncertainties relating to climate change. Instead, he assembled a based mainly on inaccurate newspaper reports, opinion pieces and old propaganda disseminated by the oil lobby and its stooges.
Blatant errors
For instance, parts of some of the graphs were actually made up, as the programme makers effectively admitted when they corrected the most blatant errors for later broadcasts.
For me and my colleagues, this shameful piece of television was the final straw that persuaded us to do a special setting out the science behind the many climate myths and misconceptions.
We were not the only ones outraged. Durkin鈥檚 documentary also prompted many complaints to Ofcom. Dave Rado, a concerned layman, worked with scientists to produce one detailed complaint claiming 137 breaches of the UK鈥檚 broadcasting regulations. Those involved stress that they are not trying to stifle free speech, but rather to prevent the media from practicing 鈥渟ystematic deception鈥�.
Now, more than a year after the broadcast, Ofcom has finally gotten around to (pdf). It has upheld some of the claimed breaches.
Upheld complaints
The programme misrepresented the views of David King, then the chief scientific advisor to the UK government, and gave him no opportunity to respond, Ofcom has decided. The programme criticised King for comments he did not make.
Ofcom also partly upheld similar complaints by oceanographer Carl Wunsch and the .
Channel 4 will have to broadcast summaries of Ofcom鈥檚 ruling in each of the three cases.
So much for fairness. What about the general issue of factual accuracy? According to : 鈥淔actual programmes or items or portrayals of factual matters must not materially mislead the public鈥�.
The code goes on to say that 鈥渄ue impartiality must be preserved on 鈥� major matters relating to current public policy鈥� and 鈥渋n dealing with matters, an appropriately wide range of significant views must be included and given due weight鈥�.
Ofcom has ruled that the final part of the programme was in breach of the code relating to impartiality and presenting a wide range of views.
The decision is fairly meaningless, however, as it has not imposed any sanction. Channel 4 will not have to broadcast anything relating to this ruling.
Factual failings
What seems extraordinary, though, is that Ofcom has decided Durkin鈥檚 programme was not in breach of the code when it comes to factual accuracy. So apparently:
- It鈥檚 OK to fabricate graphics.
- It鈥檚 OK to state that volcanoes emit more carbon dioxide than humans when in fact humans emit far more.
- It鈥檚 OK to present scientists as experts in fields they in fact know little about.
- It鈥檚 OK to present disputed claims as if they were well-established and accepted scientific facts.
- It鈥檚 OK to claim: 鈥淭here is no evidence at all from Earth鈥檚 long climate history that carbon dioxide has ever determined global temperatures鈥�, when there is overwhelming evidence going back many decades that CO2 does play a role.
- It鈥檚 OK to deliberately confuse long-term changes in sea ice cover with the seasonal coming and going of ice.
- It鈥檚 OK to state that Margaret Thatcher made a speech to scientists at the Royal Society saying: 鈥淭here鈥檚 money on the table for you to prove this stuff鈥� (meaning global warming) when she did not say any such thing. The extraordinary idea being that climate change was an issue .
- It鈥檚 OK to state that, 鈥淭he common belief that carbon dioxide is driving climate change is at odds with much of the available scientific data: data from weather balloons and satellites, from ice core surveys, and from the historical temperature records鈥� when this is clearly untrue.
- It鈥檚 OK to claim that an individual called Piers Corbyn produces more accurate weather forecasts than the UK鈥檚 Met Office when there is no evidence of this at all.
The list could go on and on, but you get the picture. I can鈥檛 think of any supposedly factual programme on British TV that was less accurate than Durkin鈥檚 polemic. For Ofcom to rule that it was not factually misleading is extraordinary and sets a disastrous precedent for programmes relating to controversial scientific issues.
鈥楬arm and offence鈥�
The reasoning behind this decision, according to the judgement, is that for non-news programmes the rule on factual accuracy applies only to 鈥渃ontent which materially misleads the audience so as to cause harm and offence鈥�. It goes on to say that only 鈥渁ctual harm鈥� rather than 鈥減otential harm鈥� matters.
In other words, discouraging action to avoid future catastrophes does not count as harm.
On this basis, Ofcom decided that all the falsehoods in the programme relating to the causes of climate change could simply be ignored. The programme will not cause harm by affecting people鈥檚 behaviour, the judgement claims, because most viewers know the views expressed are not the scientific consensus.
Well, yes, most viewers might know what the consensus is, but an awful lot of them do not accept it. What鈥檚 more, most viewers would not have been aware how many of the statements in the programme were false.
Poor record
By Ofcom鈥檚 logic, a programme that presented the long-discredited myths about AIDS not being caused by HIV as being true would not count as causing harm either. Indeed, astonishingly, the ruling makes exactly this comparison.
As for the factual inaccuracies not causing offence, well, I get hopping mad when I see a pack of lies presented as the truth. Does that kind of offence not count? Clearly not.
The other thing I find extraordinary about this case is that Channel 4 is a publicly owned company. Despite its public remit, it has a .
What鈥檚 more, with its advertising revenues falling, it is currently campaigning to get its hands on part of the BBC鈥檚 licence fees. What a horrifying prospect.
In my opinion, if Channel 4 carries on producing programmes like The Great Global Warming Swindle, the sooner it goes bust the better off Britain and the world will be.
