In Ofcom's ruling on the `Great Global Warming Swindle' [1], they say
amongst other things that (pdf page 20 onwards) (paraphrased):

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.

This seems to lead to the absurd situation that an opinion which is
generally accepted as false is regarded by Ofcom as less
controversial, and more suitable for broadcasting in the form of an
allegedly factual polemic, as compared with an opinion on a subject
about which there are wide differences of opinion.

That is, it is more OK for C4 to broadcast something utterly wrong
than something doubtful.

Could this be a subject of a successful judicial review challenge ?

[1] http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/obb/prog_...4/issue114.pdf
--
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

Ian Jackson wrote:
In Ofcom's ruling on the `Great Global Warming Swindle' [1], they say
amongst other things that (pdf page 20 onwards) (paraphrased):

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.

This seems to lead to the absurd situation that an opinion which is
generally accepted as false is regarded by Ofcom as less
controversial, and more suitable for broadcasting in the form of an
allegedly factual polemic, as compared with an opinion on a subject
about which there are wide differences of opinion.

That is, it is more OK for C4 to broadcast something utterly wrong
than something doubtful.

Could this be a subject of a successful judicial review challenge ?

[1] http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/obb/prog_...4/issue114.pdf

Th central plank, that AGW has turned into a political ideology, and is not
based on fact, is true, however.

Gaz

Ian Jackson wrote:

In Ofcom's ruling on the `Great Global Warming Swindle' [1], they say
amongst other things that (pdf page 20 onwards) (paraphrased):

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.

That they declared that it was not man-made is the failing as I see/read
it, as well as mis-representing some of the contributors.
If they had said that it may not be man made, but a natural occurence,
then it would be quite OK to broadcast it.

This seems to lead to the absurd situation that an opinion which is
generally accepted as false is regarded by Ofcom as less
controversial, and more suitable for broadcasting in the form of an
allegedly factual polemic, as compared with an opinion on a subject
about which there are wide differences of opinion.

I am surprised that this has caused so much furore, as neither case can
be proven, the people who say it is a man made phenonenom(sp) have yet
to totally prove their case, as have the doubters who argue the climate
has been getting hotter for centuries.
That the planet has got hotter is not in doubt. What has caused it is.

Alan.
--
To reply by e-mail, change the ' + ' to 'plus'.

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

Ian Jackson wrote:
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.

Well, someone needs to decide these weighty matters, and I'm glad that Ofcom
has stepped up to the plate. I remember the church once doing much the same
during the Inquisition about the sun going round the earth. We were all a
lot better off for it, I can tell you, but they've gone a bit quiet since.

We should all welcome the authoritative leadership and absolute
infallibility that only Ofcom can give in today's uncertain world.

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 12:20:07 +0100, Ian Jackson
wrote:

snip


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.

I can see your point, but I think as a general principle, OFCOM are
right here.

If something is still a matter for major public debate, then the TV
companies have a duty to be impartial, and not unduly sway the debate
one way or the other.

But if something is genuinely settled in the public view, then showing
something which suggests one view or the other (either the "agreed"
view, or the "false" one) is not going to sway "public opinion" one
way or the other.

I this case, I strongly disagree with OFCOM's suggestion that the
matter is "settled", but that, as you say, is a side issue to the
point we are attempting to discuss.

Imagine these complaints had been about a program supporting the
"creationist" theory against Darwinism. Would you still say it was
important for them to be impartial?
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
God is real, unless declared integer.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

"Alex Heney" wrote in message
...
Imagine these complaints had been about a program supporting the
"creationist" theory against Darwinism. Would you still say it was
important for them to be impartial?
Like 'Songs of Praise'?

"A.Lee" wrote in message
...
Ian Jackson wrote:

In Ofcom's ruling on the `Great Global Warming Swindle' [1], they say
amongst other things that (pdf page 20 onwards) (paraphrased):

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.

That they declared that it was not man-made is the failing as I see/read
it, as well as mis-representing some of the contributors.
If they had said that it may not be man made, but a natural occurence,
then it would be quite OK to broadcast it.

This seems to lead to the absurd situation that an opinion which is
generally accepted as false is regarded by Ofcom as less
controversial, and more suitable for broadcasting in the form of an
allegedly factual polemic, as compared with an opinion on a subject
about which there are wide differences of opinion.

I am surprised that this has caused so much furore, as neither case can
be proven, the people who say it is a man made phenonenom(sp) have yet
to totally prove their case, as have the doubters who argue the climate
has been getting hotter for centuries.
That the planet has got hotter is not in doubt. What has caused it is.

Can it be right, though, to deliberately mis-represent the science and to
argue, completely fallaciously, that volcanoes and/or the oceans are
contributing far more to the CO2 burden than anything humans can contribute?

Such a proposition is about as scientifically accurate as saying that if you
drink 8 litres of water a day it will detoxify you and make you a healthier
person. For many people the therapy works, mainly because people don't
manage to drink all that water. For the minority, it will result in
permanent brain damage.

People should have the right to make a living peddling snake oil and phoney
therapies, because if they didn't we'd miss the opportunity to discover, by
pure chance, that one of the snake oil remedies actually might cure
adenocarcinoma.

And people should be able to make daft documentaries masquerading as
responsible scientific documentaries, because that's the way to discover and
solve the problem of global warming. All the problems of the world can be
solved by pitting some talking heads against each other on TV and having a
Heated Debate.

Anyone wanting to experience the full force of George Monbiot's attack on
the Great Global Warming Swindle can read it at
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...rbonemissions1

Fortunately, global warming doesn't matter very much. You can say you don't
believe in it, just as you can say you don't believe in polar bears, and
life will go on for you much as it always has done, because the big
decisions are in the hands of others.

In article ,
Alex Heney wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 12:20:07 +0100, Ian Jackson
wrote:
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.
....
But if something is genuinely settled in the public view, then showing
something which suggests one view or the other (either the "agreed"
view, or the "false" one) is not going to sway "public opinion" one
way or the other.

I disagree. After all the whole point of the programme was to sway
public opinion, and there is plenty of evidence to suggest that it
did.

Indeed if one takes the view that the programme wouldn't sway public
opinion because its contents were false, then surely that's because
the viewers would have discounted or ridiculed its content. Surely
the transmission of content so blatantly false that it is risible or
incredible can't be justified on the grounds that the public wouldn't
believe it anyway.

But even so you're neatly sidestepping my point which is that Ofcom
have apparently regarded something false as less controversial (and
hence deserving of the usual strictures regarding accuracy, etc.) than
something doubtful.

I suppose my point is really that Ofcom's position seems contrived.
They didn't want to censure the programme makers because they feel
that media freedom is important, or something, in some kind of woolly
postmodern way where what really matters is not what's true but what
people say.

They couldn't conclude that the programme was accurate, or that it
wasn't biased, or that it had been appropriately balanced elsewhere in
the way that a programme about a controversial subject ought to have
been. So they had to manufacture a view which would allow them to let
C4 off anyway and their report is the result.

Also, to be honest, I was astonished that the Communications Act
doesn't require Ofcom and broadcasters to be accurate in general
factual programming !

I this case, I strongly disagree with OFCOM's suggestion that the
matter is "settled", but that, as you say, is a side issue to the
point we are attempting to discuss.

If Ofcom had found that the issue wasn't settled then they would have
been bound to find that C4's duty to be accurate and impartial on
controversial questions had been breached.

Imagine these complaints had been about a program supporting the
"creationist" theory against Darwinism. Would you still say it was
important for them to be impartial?

I'm not sure I understand your point. Certainly I think that a
programme supporting creationism, standing on its own, would be very
troublesome because it's difficult to see how such a thing could be
accurate - but I should really try to keep my personal opinions out of
it. Would you perhaps like to choose an example that we're really all
like to agree on, or which we will all agree is in real doubt ?

Either one must regard creationism as nonsense and evolution as the
settled knowledge, or one must regard the question as controversial.
If the question is settled knowledge then a TV programme disputing it
would be ridiculous. In that view, why not a programme advocating the
flat earth theory ?

If we regard evolution as controversial then there is a duty to be
even-handed, which would probably mean presenting both sets of views
in the same programme or perhaps in two closely linked (and equally
heavily marketed) programmes, or something.

Acceptance of a premise in (eg) ordinary news broadcasting or by most
participants in the public sphere is not a counterweight to a specific
polemic challenging that view.

As an aside, I would say that impartiality is a fair and even-handed
approach to the problem, including a fair and even-handed approach to
the arguments and supporting evidence on all sides of a disputed
question. It doesn't mean that the conclusions are necessarily evenly
balanced.

If the arguments and evidence are predominantly one way or the other
then obviously there is still a duty to report the minority side in an
appropriate context. C4 claim that that is what they were doing here
but I would reject that.

--
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

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 17:20:12 +0100, Ian Jackson
wrote:

In article ,
Alex Heney wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 12:20:07 +0100, Ian Jackson
wrote:
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.
...
But if something is genuinely settled in the public view, then showing
something which suggests one view or the other (either the "agreed"
view, or the "false" one) is not going to sway "public opinion" one
way or the other.

I disagree. After all the whole point of the programme was to sway
public opinion, and there is plenty of evidence to suggest that it
did.

But that *can* only be true if the basis of OFCOM dismissing that part
of the complaint were incorrect.

If it is genuinely a settle issue, then you won't sway public opinion
by such a program.

As I said, i believe their assertion that it is settled *is*
incorrect, and so this program *could* sway public opinion, but we are
discussing whether the general point is correct, not whether this
application of it is correct.



Indeed if one takes the view that the programme wouldn't sway public
opinion because its contents were false, then surely that's because
the viewers would have discounted or ridiculed its content. Surely
the transmission of content so blatantly false that it is risible or
incredible can't be justified on the grounds that the public wouldn't
believe it anyway.


There are plenty of such programs shown, and it seems OFCOM thought
this was one such.


But even so you're neatly sidestepping my point which is that Ofcom
have apparently regarded something false as less controversial (and
hence deserving of the usual strictures regarding accuracy, etc.) than
something doubtful.

I'm not sidestepping that point at all.

I was explaining *why* I think OFCOM have that attitude.




I this case, I strongly disagree with OFCOM's suggestion that the
matter is "settled", but that, as you say, is a side issue to the
point we are attempting to discuss.

If Ofcom had found that the issue wasn't settled then they would have
been bound to find that C4's duty to be accurate and impartial on
controversial questions had been breached.


Yes.

But OFCOM find against the TV companies on such issues often enough
that I don't think it likely they "contrived" a response that would
mean they could avoid doing so here.


Imagine these complaints had been about a program supporting the
"creationist" theory against Darwinism. Would you still say it was
important for them to be impartial?

I'm not sure I understand your point. Certainly I think that a
programme supporting creationism, standing on its own, would be very
troublesome because it's difficult to see how such a thing could be
accurate - but I should really try to keep my personal opinions out of
it. Would you perhaps like to choose an example that we're really all
like to agree on, or which we will all agree is in real doubt ?


I thought that *was* one that we are (almost) all likely to agree on.

That *is* one where scientific opinion is totally undivided.


Either one must regard creationism as nonsense and evolution as the
settled knowledge, or one must regard the question as controversial.
If the question is settled knowledge then a TV programme disputing it
would be ridiculous. In that view, why not a programme advocating the
flat earth theory ?

Why not indeed?




If we regard evolution as controversial then there is a duty to be
even-handed, which would probably mean presenting both sets of views
in the same programme or perhaps in two closely linked (and equally
heavily marketed) programmes, or something.



So you are yourself accepting that if it is controversial they have to
be fair, while if it is settled, they are only being "ridiculous" to
make a program going against the settled viewpoint.

All the OFCOM ruling is saying is that what you consider "ridiculous"
is OK.


--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
The fecal material has hit the air circulating device.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom