My letter to the Telegraph, sent earlier today:
Sir - In commenting on Ofcom’s ruling on Channel 4’s “The Great Global Warming Swindle”, David Hughes notes the regulator’s conclusion that the programme “did not lead to viewers being “materially misled”” (“Ofcom can't take the heat of climate debate”, July 21), suggesting this means that, “[i]n other words, the programme makers had sought to debunk a cherished theory by challenging an orthodox view, yet did so in a way that did not mislead the viewer.”
Had Hughes taken the trouble to read Ofcom’s report, he would surely be aware that his version of its conclusion on this point is totally inaccurate. As the regulator makes very clear, “whilst Ofcom is required by the 2003 Act to set standards to ensure that news programmes are reported with “due accuracy” there is no such requirement for other types of programming, including factual programmes of this type.” Documentaries are bound by Rule 2.2 of the Broadcasting Code, which, Ofcom states, “only regulates misleading material where that material is likely to cause harm or offence”. This means that, in the report’s words, “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 programme could have made any number of outrageous claims - the earth is flat, black is white, the sky is green - as long as it didn’t “harm or offend” anyone, Ofcom would have been obliged to exonerate it.
Tim Holmes, London
This whole episode really has been pretty extraordinary. Not only does Channel 4 quite happily broadcast a documentary so completely out of touch with reality it quickly becomes David Icke’s favourite film, prompting the first ever peer-reviewed complaint to the industry regulator - comprising a 188-page debunking from, among others, former chairs and co-chairs of the Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change; denunciations from the scientists actually featured in the programme; and a shocking exposure of the programme’s manipulation of facts and data by ABC Australia; but the UK’s regulator itself states in its ruling that it has no obligation to ensure that documentaries are accurate. Got that? The implications are pretty clear: as Michael le Page comments in New Scientist, “Don’t believe anything you see in a TV documentary made in the UK.” And indeed, why should you? UK audiences can evidently be lied to over and over again by documentary-makers; the regulator, as this latest ruling demonstrates, can’t do a thing about it.
