Skip to content

Channel 4 Ignores Broadcasting Code

December 5, 2020

By Paul Homewood

 

 Channel 4 News had a debate yesterday on the government’s new decarbonisation targets:

 image

image

https://www.channel4.com/news/there-is-a-way-to-meet-these-targets-whats-missing-is-the-political-will-hannah-martin-from-campaign-group-green-new-deal

 

So where is the alternative point of view?

Channel 4 are obliged to abide by the OFCOM Broadcasting Code, which demands “due impartiality”. Not for the first time, they have chosen to deliberately ignore it.

image

https://www.channel4.com/producers-handbook/ofcom-broadcasting-code/due-impartiality-due-accuracy-and-undue-prominence-of-views-and-opinions

44 Comments
  1. December 5, 2020 11:12 am

    The media rely on the IPCC as the fount of all climate knowledge fit to broadcast, print etc. That relieves them of any obligation to consider any realistic alternatives, in their own minds at least.

    • December 5, 2020 12:29 pm

      The IPCC is generally not as alarmist as the media. There are exceptions.

      There has been some mission creep here. From “not having a denier on for balance” we have now reached “no one can question any climate change policy, no matter how ludicrous.”

      • Gerry, England permalink
        December 5, 2020 4:24 pm

        The best description of the IPCC is that they are an ‘advocacy group’ not a scientific body.

    • Mike Jackson permalink
      December 5, 2020 5:33 pm

      Yes, but as Jit says, what the IPCC says in its scientific reports is a lot more measured than what the scaremongering eco-freaks and their useless idiots make sure go into the Summary for Policymakers, which is all anybody actually reads.

      And the media don’t need to go outside the “community” to get a less panic-stricken angle. Perhaps if they had invited Shellenberger or Lomborg they would have got a less “breathless” point of view.

      But we know — because Edenhoffer and Figueres and others have told us so — that none of this has anything to do with climate. CO2 is just the excuse to put an end to the use of fossil fuels because, as Maurice Strong said many years ago, “ Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”

      The left-inclined media — which is pretty much all of them — accept that as mainstream thinking and act accordingly.

      Remember, when your dog pees on a lamp-post he’s not behaving like a vandal; he’s behaving like a dog! Same applies to Channel 4. It’s worth a complaint to Ofcom but the powers-that-be at Channel 4 wouldn’t understand what the problem is. There isn’t “another side” to this as far as they’re concerned!

  2. leitmotif permalink
    December 5, 2020 11:15 am

    So what’s new? The BBC and Sky UK have been doing this for years. When was the last appearance by Nigel Lawson or Piers Corbyn on tv in a climate change related interview?

    • Harry Passfield permalink
      December 5, 2020 12:06 pm

      When Nigel Lawson last appeared on Today they apologised later saying he should not have given air-time because he was not qualified. Then again, in technical terms, neither is Deben or any of the Green Deal supporters.

      • dennisambler permalink
        December 5, 2020 2:41 pm

        As John Gummer, Deben was lauded by Friends of the Earth as the best Environment Secretary ever, under John Major’s premiership.

        He has been pushing this stuff since before Kyoto in 1997, which he attended. He continues to get away with conflicted interests, as do all the CCC members:

        https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/tory-peer-john-gummer-cleared-of-alleged-failure-to-declare-green-payments 2019
        “In February, an article in the Mail on Sunday claimed that the firm had been paid £600,000 from “green” businesses whose work was said to be related to his policy output heading up the Committee on Climate Change.

        But a report published by the independent House of Lords Commissioner for Standards, Lucy Scott-Moncrieff, has cleared Lord Deben, who was a Tory MP for 40 years before becoming ennobled in 2010, of any wrongdoing.”

        Lucy Scott-Moncrieff CBE is the House of Lords commissioner for standards, a mental health and human rights solicitor, a Mental Health Tribunal and Court of Protection judge.

  3. 2hmp permalink
    December 5, 2020 11:49 am

    i have written to the BBC et al on this issue with absolutely no response. Is it that they know they are lying and don’t care are are they just stupid ?

    • Ben Vorlich permalink
      December 5, 2020 2:31 pm

      They are lying but also stupid and don’t really care about either

  4. Penda100 permalink
    December 5, 2020 11:53 am

    Cannot let things as mundane as facts and economics get in the way of “saving the planet”.

  5. Gamecock permalink
    December 5, 2020 12:08 pm

    Y’all are being silly.

    ‘Presenting a story or item with “due impartiality” means presenting it in an appropriately balanced and fair way.’

    This means the right can’t say something without a balancing view from the Left.

  6. Is it just me? permalink
    December 5, 2020 12:29 pm

    I’ve finally found time to finish the excellent (5*) GWPF (Global Warming Policy Foundation) document under the title: ‘Global Warming – a case study in groupthink’. It was penned by the late Christopher Booker, and it’s a must-read. The media cannot be trusted on global warming debates. The government cannot be trusted to oversee policy on global warming debates. I will (going forward) lend my FULL support to any credible organisation leading environmental practice based on validated, rational, balanced scientific analysis. I’m increasingly cutting out all media from my environmental endeavours. They are not providing illumination – they are providing chaos and distortion – both of which are not only singularly unhelpful – but also deeply damaging.

  7. December 5, 2020 12:30 pm

    Can’t expect any impartiality on air these days. Listening to BBC World Tonight last night, which claims “intelligent analysis” (do they even know what that means?) I had to give up after a while when the presenter, James Coomarasamy, said “There is of course a climate emergency”. That set the tone.

    • dennisambler permalink
      December 5, 2020 2:54 pm

      This paper was published in August 2006. https://www.ippr.org/publications/warm-wordshow-are-we-telling-the-climate-story-and-can-we-tell-it-better

      “To help address the chaotic nature of the climate change discourse in the UK today, interested agencies now need to treat the argument as having been won, at least for popular communications.

      This means simply behaving as if climate change exists and is real, and that individual actions are effective. The ‘facts’ need to be treated as being so taken-for-granted that they need not be spoken.

      The strategy has been eminently successful

  8. December 5, 2020 12:51 pm

    “So where is the alternative point of view? Channel 4 are obliged to abide by the OFCOM Broadcasting Code, which demands “due impartiality”. Not for the first time, they have chosen to deliberately ignore it”

    Is there a government dept that enforces the law that obliges the media to abide by the ofcom broadcasting code?

  9. Mad Mike permalink
    December 5, 2020 12:52 pm

    Don’t know if you can get past the pay wall but basically Harwood is not denying that we need to cut emissions but going down the Alarmist’s route will have the opposite effect as we’ve been telling them. Maybe its getting through.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/12/04/can-meet-green-targets-exact-opposite-xrs-manifesto/

    • El Toro permalink
      December 5, 2020 3:13 pm

      We can only meet our green targets by doing the exact opposite of what’s in XR’s manifesto
      The ‘solutions’ offered by hardcore environmentalists would not only destroy our economy, they would do very little to tackle climate change
      TOM HARWOOD
      4 December 2020 • 12:45pm
      It’s easy to baulk at the Government’s steep new emissions target – to cut CO2 emissions by as much as 69 per cent of what they were in 1990 by the end of 2030. Yet despite its ambition, this goal is not impossible. With the right technological progress, policy decisions, and economic growth it can (just about) be reached.
      Frankly, there is one narrow path to achieving it. The Prime Minister must look closely at what Extinction Rebellion protesters are demanding and do exactly the opposite. From Maduro-style democracy-swerving alternative parliaments to the anti-nuclear, anti- shale gas, anti-capitalism agenda – it has long been clear that the so-called solutions being proffered by scruffy environmentalists would not only destroy what is left of our economy, they would be ineffective at tackling climate change too.
      History tells us that listening to hardcore environmentalist attempts to solve the emission reduction puzzle is damaging and often counterproductive. The Green Party’s influence in Germany led to the shutting down of all that country’s nuclear power plants, and therefore a worse rate of CO2 reduction than even the United States last decade.
      From nuclear power to the shale gas revolution and most importantly capitalism-led innovation, the very things Extinction Rebellion opposes provide the only route by which we can so drastically cut our emissions. The key reason why the United States of America was able to somewhat impressively reduce its CO2 emissions was the shale gas revolution under President Obama. Shale, a not-perfect but far cleaner fuel, allowed the US to transition away from dirtier fuels and grow the economy while doing it. And that is the key.
      There is no way a nation can better insulate homes or move away from the internal combustion engine without having created the wealth to do so. Politicians charging after a green agenda without thinking it through has led to historic policy blunders that could have been avoided if Governments dropped their fixation for picking winners. Who can forget the diesel emissions scandal, where filthy diesel cars were massively incentivised within the EU as they produce 15 per cent less CO2 than petrol.
      While impressive electric cars were being developed in the United States, EU bureaucrats fell for the car lobby’s overtures and mercilessly promoted a fuel that emits four times more nitrogen dioxide than petrol and 22 times more general pollutants. In bending to vested interests and steering investment towards this sector, the EU may well have hindered green advances on a global scale.
      In 2009 the EU made the disastrous decision to ban incandescent light bulbs by 2011. At the time governments began promoting instead the uglier, slower, harsher and more expensive ‘compact fluorescent lamp’ bulbs – which are impossible to recycle due to the mercury they contain. The EU-promoted ‘CFL’ bulbs, which cost considerably more than incandescent ones, saved around 50 per cent on energy used. Yet little did regulators know that the world was just a couple of years away from mature LED bulbs. Unlike Government-promoted CFL options, LEDs did not take up to a minute to fully turn on, used 90% less energy, were brighter, longer lasting, and crucially far cheaper than even traditional bulbs.
      Time and time again when Governments have sought to direct investment at the behest of lobby groups, the results have stunted technological progress. Banning, subsidising, taxing, and directing from the centre are just about the very worst ways to bring about a better society.
      In the early 1900s, the US military ploughed millions of dollars into the work of Samuel Langley, who was attempting to build the world’s first aircraft. Little were they to know that despite their enormous investment and massive teams – or perhaps because of that – their aircraft would never fly. In fact it was two unknown non-Government funded bicycle engineers, Orville and Wilbur Wright, who were able to produce a lighter, nimbler aircraft – one that could actually fly – on a shoestring budget.
      The Tories mustn’t throw away the lessons of the last century. We know the only way to fight climate change (without descending to the poor, nasty, brutish, and short pre- industrial revolution world) is technological progress. And we know that heavy handed Government interference of the kind demanded by environmentalists only serves to undermine that. One does sometimes wonder if the shrewdest environmental campaigners know all this – and have simply latched onto the cause of climate change as the latest vehicle for their regressive, luddite, anti-growth, protectionist, Malthusian worldview.
      The ‘living off your own allotment’ worldview needs little thinking about to realise the desperate poverty and illness such a society would inflict on its people through lack of technology, medicine, and enterprise. The happy reality is the world is not far from cheap, reliable and abundant cleaner energy. And capitalism is already delivering. We’re on the verge of an electric vehicle revolution. Every year technology enables us to do more with less. Efficiency is growth. And despite protestation from green campaigners, nuclear power is safe, cheap, and abundant. No government could possibly imagine the miraculous innovations that history tells us will appear in the next decade.
      The message to Boris has to be simple: keep calm, ignore the regressive hippies, and let the market do its job.

      • chriskshaw permalink
        December 5, 2020 5:58 pm

        Yes, totally agree. Would love to hear what specific policies or decisions that Obama put in place to secure and encourage fracc’d gas production. He held up pipelines and lease sales etc. it was the private land owner and the efficient machine of capitalism that resulted in gas supply increases during the Obama years. Unless you can remind me otherwise.

      • It doesn't add up... permalink
        December 5, 2020 7:27 pm

        Not sure that Harwood is really qualified to evaluate this. He seems to have ignored AdBlue and particulate filters for a start. He doesn’t seem to be aware of the resource limitations around EVs. I’d rather start by looking at Bjorn Lomborg’s recommendations if you have to deal with those who refuse to re-evaluate the pace of climate change.

      • John Palmer permalink
        December 5, 2020 7:52 pm

        ET, I entirely agree…..but you don’t become a ‘Global Leader’ in the fight against Climate Change® by letting the markets do their thing. Where’s the grandstanding kudos and ‘world-leading’ status opportunities without which our polies won’t do a thing?
        Bojo can for the time being wave the green standard and get the adulation from the MSM, pressure groups, activists and his ‘Princess’ secure in the knowledge that by the time it all goes t**s-up – as it most surely will, he’ll be a halo-wearing elder statesman like Obama.
        I hope (and suspect) that when the ‘great unwashed’ (as our ruling elite seem to view their outside-of-M25 electorate) realise the full, horrendous implications of all this greenwashing, the Brexit revolt will seem like a picnic in the park.
        But before all that, he’s got to stand firm on Brexit. If he crumbles to the EU on that, he’ll likely be toast next year anyway.
        I think that the huge costs and restrictions on future liberty, freedom of movement, and social development associated with these climate goals will provoke an enormous backlash as the full horror is (reluctantly) unveiled by these idiots. Especially when all can see that the rest of the world (outside us, the EU and, possibly, USA) will be having none of it – and will continue to be huge beneficiaries of our continued and suicidal de-industrialisation.
        Just saying’…..

  10. December 5, 2020 12:57 pm

    I watched it live and just avoided putting my foot through Deben and Stark’s faces.

  11. KOSMOOO permalink
    December 5, 2020 1:00 pm

    I have complained to the BBC on numerous occasions about their lack of balance and blatant bias when reporting on climate change. They eventually claimed that Ofcom had instructed the broadcast media that they are no longer required to give balance on issues related to climate change as the science is now settled.

    I then submitted a complaint against Ofcom, and cc to the head, Lord Burns, and Chief Executive Melanie Dawes by letter as their email address are not listed. Ofcom never replied to my letters, or responded to my online complaint. It’s obvious that the powers in charge have imposed a form of censorship against anyone who challenges the “consensus” view on climate change.

    • December 5, 2020 1:34 pm

      When all they have is assertion and bluster, they don’t want to be challenged in public by their opponents.

  12. Dave Gardner permalink
    December 5, 2020 1:35 pm

    There are some figures available to quantify how big the alternative point of view is. There was a poll Lord Ashcroft carried out in 2016 after the EU Referendum, which amongst other things, looked at what the public attitude was to various ‘progressive’ ideas favoured by Metropolitan Liberals:

    Click to access How-the-UK-voted-Full-tables-1.pdf

    In that survey, the UK public’s attitude to the Green movement was that 20% thought it was a “Force for Ill” and 57% a “Force for Good” (Question 23, Table 26 in the poll). 20% is quite a sizeable percentage that ought to be represented by TV broadcasters. To put it in perspective, it is higher than than the 13 or 14% of the UK population that is BAME (Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic), which TV broadcasters pull out all the stops to represent.

    The background to how Lord Ashcroft, a Conservative peer, got into polling was that after Tony Blair’s New Labour had defeated the Conservatives in three General Elections in a row in 2005, he held a meeting with CCHQ (who run the Conservative party’s election campaigns). Ashcroft concluded that CCHQ had no real idea why they were losing, and he decided to set up a polling organisation to provide more accurate ‘intelligence information’ on what the public thinks that might be useful to the Conservatives.

    • jack broughton permalink
      December 7, 2020 9:23 am

      Fascinating tables, Dave, especially the sections on Scotland. Also, interesting that the main “remainers” were in London and Scotland for apparently opposite reasons I find some amazing material on this site: the internet is fantastic, but the problem is finding what you need.

  13. Mack permalink
    December 5, 2020 1:46 pm

    If that programme got your hackles rising Paul, wait until till you watch next week’s instalment of BBC’s Panorama on ‘Britain’s wild weather’. You know exactly where that one’s going. It’s bound to get you chewing the telly!

  14. Ben Vorlich permalink
    December 5, 2020 2:29 pm

    Fortunately I saw a trailer with the cast list and decided to avoid watching for the sake of my blood pressure.

  15. Coeur de Lion permalink
    December 5, 2020 2:35 pm

    I fear we are losing. But the truth will out, it always does in the end. When the costs start to pile up and the impossibility of many of the programmes (universal EVs, heat pumps, universal house insulation, ‘clean’ electricity generation etc) is apparent, there will be a kickback. And it’s a BORING SUBJECT which will not continue to engage the proletariat. Other ghastly problems are coming down the pike. Added to which we had hail here this morning, La Niña will last until next autumn, watch for der Kalte Sonne.

    • Mike Jackson permalink
      December 5, 2020 5:51 pm

      Perversely, I hope that Boris presses ahead with “his” plans. If there is anything that is going to demonstrate the idiocy of this government’s ‘zero emissions’ strategy (at some cost and discomfort to the British public unfortunately) it is his speeded-up plans to get rid of anything that uses oil or gas.

      It will become clear within less than a decade that any attempt to run a civilised country cannot (as yet at least) be done without a sensible mix of high-density energy sources. It will also become clear — indeed it is starting to already — that CO2 is not the cause of climate change though it may take a little longer to penetrate the firewall that eco-activists have erected round their brains.

    • John Palmer permalink
      December 5, 2020 8:16 pm

      Quite so! +10

  16. Broadlands permalink
    December 5, 2020 2:58 pm

    Hannah Martin asserts: “There is a way to meet these targets, what’s missing is the political will” ??? Sorry Hannah, but political will cannot meet a Net-zero goal because it cannot take billions of tons of CO2 from the atmosphere and bury it somewhere. Nobody can do that regardless of how green you become. Get realistic!

  17. Devoncamel permalink
    December 5, 2020 4:35 pm

    Why do we have to ‘fight climate change’ ?
    Yes I know, because that’s the only permitted view. Far easier to adapt to it and move on.
    It’s the same with weather and the sea – we try to hold it back but cannot stop it. Cnut supposedly knew this 1000 years ago.

    • El Toro permalink
      December 5, 2020 5:04 pm

      From Wikipedia: in Henry of Huntingdon’s account, Canute set his throne by the sea shore and commanded the incoming tide to halt and not wet his feet and robes. Yet “continuing to rise as usual [the tide] dashed over his feet and legs without respect to his royal person. Then the king leapt backwards, saying: ‘Let all men know how empty and worthless is the power of kings, for there is none worthy of the name, but He whom heaven, earth, and sea obey by eternal laws.'” He then hung his gold crown on a crucifix, and never wore it again “to the honour of God the almighty King”.
      Boris and The Prime Mistress (Princess Nut Nuts) please take note!

    • Harry Passfield permalink
      December 5, 2020 5:14 pm

      Fighting it takes resources. The spies, like Deben, can make fortunes out of supplying these resources. That’s it in a nutshell.

  18. Micky R permalink
    December 5, 2020 5:40 pm

    Dissenting voices don’t have a visible platform. LBC radio generally does not broadcast texts or emails from non-believers. James O’Brien openly refuses to offer broadcasting time to non-believers.

  19. December 5, 2020 7:22 pm

    That’s the whole thing, isn’t it? We do not have a voice in the public arena.

    The ONLY message that the general populace take home is the screaming, doom-mongering, headlines in the MSM.

    It is irrational, it is unfair and it SHOULD be illegal. Where are the sceptic billionaires (I’m sure there are some) who could put this to rights – by publishing the truth?

    • John Palmer permalink
      December 5, 2020 8:20 pm

      Reform Party, anyone???
      They’re very good at getting media coverage and don’t mind if it’s pos or neg. It’s publicity….

      • December 6, 2020 3:45 am

        Some of us have already written to Nigel Farage/Richard Tice, John. I was told my message “would be passed along”.

  20. It doesn't add up... permalink
    December 5, 2020 7:55 pm

    There is a way to meet these targets. It involves trashing the economy, lowering our living standards dramatically, freezing and starving at home with no private transport, and sharply rising crime. If that doesn’t provoke a revolution that ousts these green barons from the corridors of power then we are in for decades of miserable totalitarian rule in a communist society. Periods of famine, disease rife because we can no longer operate hospitals. Repression to keep us in place. The fortunate may be able to defect somewhere nicer: learn to be a ballet dancer or footballer for the opportunity to travel. Or maybe a top intelligence official at the heart of the regime. Broadcasting from outside the country will be jammed, the internet firewall complete for the few hours a day when there might be electricity. Listen continuously to Ode to Joy – Clockwork Orange style.

  21. Broadlands permalink
    December 6, 2020 1:25 am

    Yes, it doesn’t add up. It appears that everyone commenting here is “on the same page”. Yet the problem remains. How do we get the others, especially those who are in charge of this so-called fight against the Earth’s climate to understand? Green or not, they seem to be immune from seeing the facts…vaccinated ideologically? This is not an idle question to be discussed in the faculty lounges by academics everywhere. It is reality.

  22. December 6, 2020 1:52 pm

    Channel4News & Ofcom
    Like a playground bully, and his elder brother who is the teacher.
    People expecting justice are naive.

    Plus they put in little bits for the Guardianmob to complain about
    as Geoffrey Lean did.

    • December 6, 2020 1:55 pm

      someone said C4 put a few seconds of the Deben burger feeding stunt.

  23. Micky R permalink
    December 7, 2020 6:37 am

    Unfortunately, it probably needs widespread power cuts to demonstrate the current folly, followed by a four year construction programme for coal-fired power stations, probably purchased from the Chinese.

    • jack broughton permalink
      December 7, 2020 9:43 am

      Britain stopped almost all heavy engineering and steel-making over a generation ago. It would take more than a generation to recover the skills. The vast majority of the so-called green-jobs in the Renewables sector are overseas: as, the UK has no wind or solar technology of its own and even imports the gas turbines and powerplant for CCGT, (even while Rolls Royce are lacking orders – if Drax get their CCGT consented).

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: