The makers of the Great Global Warming Swindle have been given a slap on the wrist by the broadcasting watchdog, Ofcom (who makes up these stupid names). Apparently the ticking off was not because the programme misled viewers in any way, but it did, so Ofcom claim, break Channel 4's own rules on "impartiality".
A couple of things about this decision intrigue me. First of all, why would anyone think that a programme entitled "The Great Global Warming Swindle" would be impartial? The clue is in the title, guys.
Secondly, seeing how Channel 4 news run considerably more reports which do mislead the public regarding global warming and very rarely provide any balance to the opposing viewpoint why is it that Channel 4 News hasn't been criticised for breaking it's own impartiality guidelines?
Thirdly, why did this Ofcom finding get so much news coverage? The Great Global Warming Swindle was made, in part, as a response to Al Gore's much vaunted and totally one-sided "An Inconvenient Truth". This film was not only very partial, is was found to be far from the truth and contained no less than 11 inaccuracies which did materially mislead the viewer according to British judges.
Did that news receive the same sort of coverage as this? I don't think so.
It's one of the reasons why people like Al Gore and the equally disreputable Michael Moore prefer to make "movies" rather than TV documentaries. If you make a documentary for television you have to abide by certain rules like "being honest" - but if you make that "documentary" for the cinema those rules don't apply. So you can lie as much as you like, you can be as partial as you like, you can cut and edit to twist the words and views of people as much as you like - it's only a film. Doesn't stop those films being shown on television, though.
Anyway - having made this ruling, I wonder if Ofcom will get off their backsides to do anything about the way broadcasters - especially the BBC - present man-made global warming as "fact" without ever questioning it?
I won't hold mu breath.
10 comments:
You are legendary. I really wish I could put my point of view across as eloquently as you do.
I was wondering the very same thing: how can Channel 4's documentary be deemed impartial, yet Al Gore's one-sided piece of propaganda isn't given a hard time by any regulating body?
Have you seen this new animated Disney flick yet, WALL - E? Apparently the story is infested with left-wing socialist nonsense to brainwash our children.
Thanks for the high praise, Lawrence - I only wish it were true!
The point I made in the post about Gore (and Moore) using film as the medium rather than tv is why he can get away without the sort of scrutiny that TGGWS got. Movies just aren't subject to the code of impartiality that tv is - which is why anything released as a "documentary" to the movies should be considered with a very large dose of salt.
I haven't seen Wall-E - but I've heard about the subliminal messages it reportedly contains. That said - if my kids are anything to go by - they mostly wash over kids.
Still there's always the BBC way of getting the message across.
"Christopher Hall, the producer of Burn Up, which is going to hit the screens next week, admits that "the question we kept asking ourselves was, 'How do we make a sexy programme about CO2? It's a gas, for goodness' sake!' So we see this piece as a Trojan horse: we rivet viewers with good drama and smuggle the message in that way."
Oh, don't get me started on Burn Up! GRRR!
The BBC really are an insidious organization, who are partial to this whole global warming movement due to their inextricable links with Government.
Channel 4's the only decent channel left - if you can overlook Big Brother! I've just thought of something - by paying my TV licence, am I not contributing to the fraudulent global warming swindle? After all, I'm partly funding the BBC's nefarious left-wing propaganda.
That's settled it - i'm cancelling my TV licence!
Yes - I did post about "Burn Up" and the blatant propaganda. Once again it's a way of avoiding the impartiality rules - they can claim "hey, it's only drama" - so they don't have to be balanced or even factual.
Hi Stan
Did you watch Burn Up? I was curious to see how corrupt and sinister the BBC really were, but couldn't bring myself to watch it. So I went out for a drive to unleash CO2 on the eco-fascists! :)
I didn't watch it - was in the pub last night :) - might try and catch it on iplayer later though.
Well I watched The Great Global Warming Swindle for the first time. What an eye opener! I mean, I already knew it was a con, but it brought up aspects I hadn't even considered.
What I want to know is this: how did any scientist interviewed on that programme consider himself to be misrepresented? I thought every scientist quizzed gave their point of view quite clearly.
For a break down of the Ofcom findings plus some valuable insights into the global warming debate check out Steve McIntyres Climate Audit site. McIntyre is one of the guys behind the expose of the "hockey stick" scam.
Wunsch complaint here ...
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3334
IPCC complaint here .....
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3335
So all that channel 4 were guilty of was a slight lack of integrity, in the sense that they misled a couple of scientists - allegedly. But the scientists gave their opinions and they are recorded on video, so they can't really argue. I suppose it's a form of entrapment, but then the public have a right to know the truth, eh?
Post a Comment