Tue 22/07/2008 22:57
To Andrew Morgan – Ofcom
Dear Andrew,
I am concerned about widespread reporting such as this:
“TV documentary on global warming did not mislead viewers, says Ofcom “
Which you know is not what the ruling states (page 14):
“The accompanying Ofcom guidance to the Code explains that “Ofcom is required to guard against harmful or offensive material, and it is possible that actual or potential harm and/or offence may be the result of misleading material in relation to the representation of factual issues. This rule is therefore designed to deal with content which materially misleads the audience so as to cause harm or offence.” (Emphasis in original).
Ofcom therefore only regulates misleading material where that material is likely to cause harm or offence.”
and:
“In dealing with these complaints therefore 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. It is not within Ofcom’s remit or ability in this case as the regulator of the ‘communications industry’ to establish or seek to adjudicate on ‘facts’ such as whether global warming is a man-made phenomenon, nor is Ofcom able to reach conclusions about the validity of any particular scientific theories.”
and (page 15):
“In summary, in relation to the manner in which facts in the programme were presented, Ofcom is of the view that the audience of this programme was not materially misled in a manner that would have led to actual or potential harm.”
and (page 15/16)
“As a result Ofcom considered it highly unlikely that the programme could have caused actual harm. As to potential harm some complainants had considered that the programme’s questioning of the theory of man-made global warming would create doubt and confusion in viewers’ minds about the need to take action against global warming. Ofcom considers that, although the programme may have caused viewers to challenge the consensus view that human activity is the main cause of global warming, there is no evidence that the programme in itself did, or would, cause appreciable potential harm to members of the public.”
Therefore the headline is wrong, and should include the caveat “so as to cause harm or offence” to accurately reflect the ruling.
I’d normally consider this to be a matter of poor reporting, coupled with an aggressive damage limitation exercise by Channel 4. I contacted the editors of a number of papers yesterday, and the Guardian at least corrected the story to reflect the actual ruling.
However it now appears to me that the source of this misreporting is OFCOM itself. It would appear that yesterday you published a summary of the ruling in:
“Ofcom Update: Ofcom Broadcast Bulletin issue number 114”
that omitted key information and the vital caveat:-
“In addition, while Ofcom had concerns about aspects of the presentation (and omission) of fact and views within the programme, it did not believe, given the nature of the programme, that this led to the audience being materially misled. As such, Channel 4 has not been found in breach of Rule 2.2 of the Broadcasting Code.”
-and much of the media would seem to have simply repeated this without checking to see if it fairly reflected the actual ruling – which has allowed Channel 4 to incorrectly claim that they have been vindicated by OFCOM on these matters of fact.
Therefore as a matter of urgency:
- Who was responsible for producing the “Ofcom Update”? and who authorised its publication?
- Were the contents of the “Ofcom Update” agreed with the panel that made the ruling?
- If this is not the case, I feel that OFCOM has made a grave error in a matter of great public interest, and will seriously consider making a complaint about OFCOM itself.
- Will OFCOM produce an new Update as a matter of urgency; to correct this error while the matter is still a matter of public discussion; and will you circulate this correction directly to editors of the national media?
Regards
Dean Morrison
