In article ,
A.Lee wrote:
Ian Jackson wrote:
The view promulgated by parts 1-4 of the programme, that climate
change is not man-made, was settled as a falsehood by the time the
programme was made. In their view, because the question was settled,
it wasn't a matter of controversy.

Many people argue that the effects of global warming are not
(completely) man-made, and there is no way of proving it either way.

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I was trying to avoid the
sidetrack where we have to actually argue about global warming in this
newsgroup. My argument doesn't depend on the truth or otherwise of
the generally held view about global warming.

My point is that regardless of what the true situation is, Ofcom have
taken the view that the programme's main premise was settled as false
by the time it was broadcast - and on that basis they have decided
that the programme wasn't dealing with a controversial topic.

According to Ofcom's ruling, if (as you would apparently argue) the
question were still in doubt, then Ofcom would have felt that C4
should have been much more impartial about it than they were because
the matter would have been `controversial'.

It seems to me perverse that C4 can escape from the duty to be
impartial or accurate _precisely_ because what they transmitted was
(in Ofcom's view) false. Or to put it another way, that false
assertions are less controversial than widely disputed ones.

--
Ian Jackson personal email:
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657