[cma-l] Climate Radio replies to CMA debate

[Two Lochs Radio]

Phil

I do hope your programmes get the airing they deserve, but... 

...to avoid anyone getting the wrong idea, I think it ought to be pointed out that contrary to your suggestion, the requirements of the law and the Broadcasting Code's section on due impartiality definitely are not restricted to news coverage. 

To be sure there are much stricter requirements on news, in that it the code requires all news content to have due impartiality, whereas for general programming it is only mandated for matters of public policy or controversy. Additionally, the law prohibits radio stations from editorially seeking to influence the decisions of statutory bodies (except where they directly and specifically affect the radio station itself).

Ofcom's interpretation of the law is set out here: http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/broadcasting/broadcast-codes/broadcast-code/impartiality/. As you will see, rules 5.1 to 5.3 do apply to news only, but the broader rules 5.4 to 5.12 apply to all programming.

I guess it comes down to a decision as to whether you consider action against climate change a matter of political controversy and/or public policy, but from Ofcom's definition it's hard to see how it could be anything other than that. From the above document:

-----------
Meaning of "matters of political or industrial controversy and matters relating to current public policy":
Matters of political or industrial controversy are political or industrial issues on which politicians, industry and/or the media are in debate. Matters relating to current public policy need not be the subject of debate but relate to a policy under discussion or already decided by a local, regional or national government or by bodies mandated by those public bodies to make policy on their behalf, for example non-governmental organisations, relevant European institutions, etc. 
-------------

I guess para 5.9 is the most relevant here:

-------------
...presenters of "personal view" or "authored" programmes or items, and chairs of discussion programmes may express their own views on matters of political or industrial controversy or matters relating to current public policy. However, alternative viewpoints must be adequately represented either in the programme, or in a series of programmes taken as a whole. Additionally, presenters must not use the advantage of regular appearances to promote their views in a way that compromises the requirement for due impartiality
-------------

I guess stations could take the view that on the subject of climate change a fleeting mention of climate change denial is adequate representation of it, since it seems so utterly refuted by the scientific evidence, but that still leaves the question of whether a prgramme can support a specific line of stautory action on a matter of controversy (ie the controversy is over how it should be tackled, not whether it should be tackled).

As I said, personally I applaud the programmes, but I think we all need to be aware of the decision we are/would be taking in broadcasting them, and be ready to defend the decisions robustly if challenged.

Alex
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.commedia.org.uk/pipermail/cma-l/attachments/20150302/3d5bbc80/attachment.html>