<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"><html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" />
</head><body style="">
<div>
Even though it would be hard to regard climate change as controversial in itself any more, the question of what to do about it, which is what I think the programmes (sensibly) focus on, is still well within the very broad definition of public controversy. Indeed a recurrent theme in Phil England's curren tpodcasts is that "this is a political issue". Even without that, it would definitely contravene the legal ban on radio stations seeking to influence the decisions of statutory bodies (the only exception being where those decisions directly affect the radio station's interests).
</div>
<div>
 
</div>
<div>
We ran across the breadth of the definition of 'political ends' when asked to advertise a public meeting taking place that was seeking to persuade the National Trust for Scotland to modify some local policies. We referred the question to the RAB who said it could definitely not be advertised.
</div>
<div>
 
</div>
<div>
I am no fan of the general concept of 'balance', but presenting them as authored pieces that are debated after might be a solution. However, it would probably also reduce the number of stations able/willin gto give them airing.
</div>
<div>
 
</div>
<div>
I think the public as a whole is relatively unaware of the fact that newspapers are free to be as politically partisan as they wish, and under no general duty to publich the truth and 'blanced opinions', when radio stations are very strictly constrained to do so.
</div>
<div>
 
</div>
<div>
Alex
</div>
<blockquote style="position: relative; margin-left: 0px; padding-left: 10px; border-left: solid 1px blue;" type="cite">
On 29 January 2015 at 20:42 Phil Korbel <phil@radioregen.org> wrote:
<br />
<br />
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
very interesting point Alex
<br />
<br />
</div> I dont know the programmes, but it is my understanding that climate change and the role of humankind in causing it is not deemed to be controversial with Ofcom demanding 'balance' on the issue (such is the overwhelming scientific consensus on the issue)
<br />
<br />That said there is ample room for such controversy in what to do about it. If Phil England's pieces, on their own, might be seen as biased and thus not Ofcom compliant, could a station remedy it by presenting them as 'authored pieces' that are debated afterwards?
<br />
<br />
</div> None of this is intended to dissuade you from covering this vital topic...
<br />
<br />
</div> bests
<br />
<br />
</div> Phil
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">
<br clear="all" />
<div>
<div class="gmail_signature">
<div dir="ltr">
<span style="font-size: xx-small;">Phil Korbel FRSA - <span style="color: #6aa84f;">Director,</span> Radio Regen, charity no. 1077763</span>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
 
</div>
</body></html>