Channel 4 - A crusade against science (the guardian)

This is an interesting article from the Guardian with three interesting points. Firstly, that a major TV channel can appear biased in its documentary output towards global warming. Secondly, that there is a fine line between a documentary considering all arguments and a rant pursuing only one version as fact. Thirdly, that there is almost no regulation or punishment for a media outlet misleading the public or misrepresenting the facts.

The background of all this is that Ofcom has ruled following complaints on a programme broadcast last year called "The Great Global Warming Swindle". Ofcom found that the programme treated two scientists and the IPCC unfairly. Channel 4 have had to give a prime-time apology for the content of the programme. This is the second time Channel 4 have had to apologise for an environmental programme against global warning.

Channel 4 bias on the environment

George Monbiot (Another environmental documentary maker who has worked with Channel 4 in the past) who writes the article identifies a history of bias going back to at least 1990. George identifies a previous documentary called "The Greenhouse Conspiracy" ,which was similar to the global warming swindle programme, as a turning point in the channels output. From then on the output of environmental programmes decreased until 2006. Channel 4 themselves state that since 1990 there have been 5 and a half hours of output supporting the view that global warming is not man made. This says George should be considered against the IPCC stating that there is now a 90% certainty that global warming is caused by man and only 10% uncertainty that it might not be. George states that there is no percentage certainty that it is not caused by man, in fact that there is no reliable evidence showing that man made global warming is not taking place.

I would note that this confidence in the science was not so complete in 1990 but was in 2007. So you may consider that channel 4 may have been justified with the documentary in 1990 provided certain safeguards were in place to suggest that it was not fact and that it was questioning the established view as devils advocate. However in 2007 I would suggest they were seriously misleading the public in their programming. Compare with the change in status of smoking between the middle of last century and now.

Most telling is some of the anecdotes or quotes provided by George Monbiot on the Channel 4 response to such accusations.

"I don't know what's important any more."

- Tim Garden, Director of programmes Channel 4, when asked
why the channel seemed so hostile to the environment.

If the quote is accurate it suggests that Channel 4 has no clear understanding of the issues and what they are broadcasting. Channel 4 has no coherent policy on standards or a peer reviewed authority process to determine the accuracy and reliability of the evidence presented.

The differences between a documentary or rant

There are certain conventions for a documentary and a personal opinion show. A documentary generally has a voice over presenting the facts with views from experts and other clips of supporting evidence. A programme representing a personal opinion generally has the person presenting usually interviewing relevant people again with other relevant clips. A documentary is supposed to present both views before reaching a conclusion, a personal opinion programme would push one view and support that with evidence, it would generally not consider alternative views unless they can be disproved.

This is not a written rule but could be said to be a commonly accepted convention. Therefore creating a personal opinion programme in the style of a documentary could be misleading. This is what Channel 4 allowed from the programme makers for "The Great Global Warming Swindle".

In several programmes over the last 17 years George Monbiot suggests that Channel 4 have made the same mistakes in misrepresenting facts in a claimed environmental documentary.

1. Use of a anonymous and authoritative voice over in the documentary style.
2. Contributors commercial interests not disclosed.
3. Opposing view rarely represented to balance view in areas of uncertain science.
4. Authoritative scientists were edited to appear like cranks where as maverick scientists were edited to strengthen their views and opinion (George states that some authoritative scientists were not even told about the overall tone or stance of the programme).

The examples behind this list are in the article and are well worth reading. The usual suspects are there such as the environmental campaigners funded by oil companies or researchers with inflated positions and qualifications. There are also some unusual claims as well such as the definition of current dates on graphs, in one programme the current date varied from 1970 to 2007.

One of the interesting facts in this case is that the judgment was not based on one page opinion complaints on content. Scientists submitted the first 176 page, peer reviewed submission to Ofcom outlining the main errors and faults of the programme which bear in mind was for a 90 minute programme with adverts. This is a huge 2 pages of report per minute broadcast.

It is clear that Channel 4 have allowed a programme to be broadcast with serious flaws which originate in part from the presentation style.

Ofcom regulation

Ofcom comes across as being almost impotent in forcing broadcasters to give a balanced view. Although they are allowed to regulate news programmes which must be accurate, they are unable to regulate other factual programmes.

In Ofcom's report they stated that they were only able to rule on whether the programme mislead the audience so as to cause harm or offence. In a way it is difficult to imagine how any programme on the environment could cause harm or offence. Certainly with 276 complaints such a view would unlikely to be taken.

Indeed this was the opinion of Ofcom, they did have reservations about the way certain facts were represented but there had been no material breach of the regulation code.

Ofcom did find against Channel 4 on grounds of impartiality but interestingly it could only rule on the 20% of the programme that would influence public policy. The 80% of the show questioning global warming could not be judged as it would not change the government stance on the environment.

In other words provided the government has a clear stance on an issue the documentary can be as biased as it likes.

For the two individual scientists and the IPCC, Ofcom found against Channel 4 on the grounds of fairness, stating that these three and their views had been misrepresented.

The penalty of course was an apology in prime time. Sadly the damage had already been done, according to George Monbiot several recent polls have shown that there has been a decline in the number of people that believe global warming is a real phenomenon as a direct response to this programme.

Conclusions

Currently there is little obligation on a broadcaster to check a documentary for bias and accuracy. Basically a dishonest programme maker can represent his or any organisations view as fact. The only boundaries to that is misrepresenting individual / organisations or broadcasting anything that may cause harm or offence.

This has highlighted a greater need for self regulation for media organisations and stronger regulation and punishment when self regulation fails. Ofcom should be able to pass judgment on factually inaccurate and misleading programmes.

The problem remains that Channel 4 have taken a cavalier approach to programme commissioning and the programme makers themselves have questionable journalistic integrity.

Channel 4 is in a position of trust and has a responsibility to check the accuracy and bias of programmes before broadcasting.