Ofcom has ruled that Channel 4 breached broadcasting codes on impartiality and was "unjust and unfair" in the way it represented individuals in its controversial documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle.
Ofcom has ordered Channel 4 to broadcast a summary of its adjudication on the programme, which was aired on Channel 4 and E4 on March 8 last year.
The show challenged the theory that human activity is the major cause of climate change and global warming.
Ofcom's investigation found that the Nobel prize-winning UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the government's former chief scientist Sir David King and professor Carl Wunsch "were treated unfairly in the programme".
"In particular, the programme made some significant allegations without offering an appropriate and timely opportunity to respond," Ofcom said. "In the case of Sir David King, the programme-makers also criticised him for comments he did not make."
Ofcom also found Channel 4 in breach of impartiality "on matters of major political and industrial controversy and major matters relating to current public policy".
The media regulator said that the final part of the programme, which focused on policies adopted by the United Nations and western governments to tackle global warming, was in breach of the "due impartiality" requirements of the broadcasting code.
"The programme was required to include an appropriate wide range of the significant views. The programme-makers failed to do this," said Ofcom.
However, Ofcom found that the first four parts of the programme, which focused on the scientific debate about the causes of global warming, did not breach the broadcast code.
"Ofcom concluded that these parts of the programme were not matters of political or industrial controversy or matters relating to public policy and therefore the rules on due impartiality did not apply," it said.
The media regulator also said that while it 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".
"We are pleased that Ofcom has ruled the film did not materially mislead the audience," said Hamish Mykura, the Channel 4 head of documentaries.
"The film acknowledged the majority scientific and journalistic consensus in support of man-made global warming, but legitimately sought to present the viewpoint of the small minority of scientists who do not believe global warming is caused by anthropogenic production of carbon dioxide."
However, the media regulator admitted that it only regulates "misleading material where that material is likely to cause harm or offence".
Ofcom added: "As a consequence, the requirement that content must not materially mislead the audience is necessarily a high test."
Ofcom said that, therefore, its job in this case was not to ascertain whether the programme was "accurate".
"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."
· To contact the MediaGuardian news desk email editor@mediatheguardian.com or phone 020 7239 9857. For all other inquiries please call the main Guardian switchboard on 020 7278 2332.
· If you are writing a comment for publication, please mark clearly "for publication".
Comments (13)
This discussion is now closed for comments but you can still sign in or create your Guardian account to join the discussion next timeComments (13)
This discussion is now closed for comments but you can still sign in or create your Guardian account to join the discussion next timeAlok1234
You're right. The word 'offsetting' gets on my nerves when used as a proposed method of reducing the carbon footprint of developed countries and large businesses. It basically allows rich people to throw money at something without ever having to really give a rats arse about it. Nothing in their output ever changes, it just improves their perceived environmental awareness and allows them to stick it in their company report in big green capital letters. I'm all for encourging more sustainable practices in developing countries, but not as an 'offset' for what's going on in your own front yard.
I'm no eco-warrior, but I do think that large-scale reform in the way we do things is both necessary and preferable, especially in the world's major cities. You only have to look at the Beijing Olympics to see an example of how bad it's got. We're talking about people pulling out of races because they don't want to breathe the air in that city. That's terrible. And people have to live there. I live in New York and I hate walking around the midtown (espcially on hot day). You can almost feel it going into your lungs. Perhaps if you live in the country or a town like York (where I was born and raised), you don't notice it as much, but this is a real issue, even if you don't believe the climate is getting warmer.
I think the C40 Group along with the Clinton Foundation's Climate Initiative have got the right idea. If it's of interest, have a look at their work.
Either you had no purpose
Or the purpose is beyond the end you figured
And is altered in fulfilment
From Little Gidding part of Four Quartets
By T S Eliot