madcomments

The great Channel 4 swindle

Posted in Media March 9th, 2007 by Stuart Aitken

In which a highly respected national broadcaster continues to screen sensationalist rubbish while claiming that the controversy proves its importance.

Not content with stirring up an international racism row by allowing the disgusting spectacle of Big Brother to be broadcast, Channel 4 has decided to once again embrace the controversial by screening an entirely one-sided debate refuting the arguments for man-made climate change. Why? For too long now the channel has relied almost entirely on controversy to guarantee audiences. This is useful if it provokes debate. But when broadcasting an entirely one-sided argument on one of the most important issues of the day then should they not take more responsibility for their actions?

Problem one with last night’s The Great Global Warming Swindle (if we ignore the sensationalist title) is that it entirely failed to reflect scientific reality, in that there is never unanimity and that one counter-theory does not render a theory false. 

Problem two is that Channel 4 showed the climate change dissenters without giving any idea of what proportion of scientists those dissenters represent. They mentioned it was a minority, but how small? Further, as Zoe Williams in a response to the programme in today’s Guardian points out, why do they suggest that simply by being in a minority is it more likely that they are right?

Indeed Williams makes a very interesting point when discussing one of Channel 4’s so-called “experts”: “Nigel Calder, incidentally, is billed as the “ex-editor of the New Scientist”; to clarify for a second what they mean by “ex”, he was the editor of a non-peer-reviewed journal that, under his relatively short tenure beginning 1962, was five years old. That’s like accepting the ex-editor of a student fanzine as a leading authority on Mahler’s experiments with harmonic dissonance.”

Another major problem was that Channel 4 failed to emphasise the fact that the theory that the sun causes changes in temperature on earth is not inconsistent with the theory of man made global warming – the issue simply being the extent to which the sun or human-created co2 emissions each affect global temperatures. 

Further, was the amazing suggestion that people employed in climate change related posts - journalists, activists etc are claiming that the issue exists solely to protect their high-paid jobs. This argument is so childish it doesn’t even deserve repost. 

And finally came a bizarre argument that the environmental lobby is trying to scam the developing world out of developing. Taking the example of a woman who lived in a mud hut, the programme asked why she didn’t have a fridge or a cooker. Surely the answer to these questions lie more in the dealings of the World Bank than the climate change lobby.

At this point it’s worth looking into the track record of Martin Durkin, the man responsible for last night’s programme. In 1997 Durkin made a series for Channel 4 called Against Nature, which targeted environmentalists, presenting them as ‘the new enemy of science’ and as comparable to the Nazis. They were responsible, the series argued, for the deprivation and death of millions in the Third World.

In the aftermath, Channel 4 was forced to broadcast a prime-time apology after the Independent Television Commission ruled: “Comparison of the unedited and edited transcripts confirmed that the editing of the interviews with [the environmentalists who contributed] had indeed distorted or misrepresented their known views. It was also found that the production company had misled them…as to the format, subject matter and purpose of these programs.”

This was not all though. Undeterred, Channel 4 made further use of Durkin’s services. As Private Eye noted, mocking Durkin’s involvement with the channel, in February 2000: “What does Channel 4 do with programme makers condemned by the TV watchdog, the ITC, for using underhand editing techniques? The answer is, er, hire them to make another programme…”

So, next up ‘Modified Truth: The Rise and Fall of GM’ broadcast in March 2000 - again on Channel 4. Here Durkin presented GM food as perfectly safe and as much needed to feed the starving in the Third World.

Following the broadcast, multiple signatories from the Third World complained in a joint letter that the programme was a propaganda vehicle to support the monopoly control and global use of genetically modified food. What’s more, two scientists critical of genetic engineering who were invited to contribute to the programme, both subsequently complained that they were misled about the content and were not given a chance to reply to attacks on their positions.

Just what is going on here? Why does Channel 4 continue to use the services of Mr Durkin? The answer sadly is audience figures – for which the channel appears happy to sacrifice its already dwindling credibility.

The problem with this kind of one-sided programming is obvious. Exactly how much harm the programme – and Channel 4 itself – has done to the climate change lobby may be seen in the coming months. Let’s hope it’s not too much. 

PS – for more information on Martin Durkin read Getting your science from charlatans by George Monbiot.
 
PPS – I have not been paid by any lobbyists, NGOs, pressure groups or left-leaning liberal propagandists for writing this piece.