<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.23588">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Tahoma>Phil</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Tahoma></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Tahoma>I do hope your programmes get the airing they
deserve, but... </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Tahoma></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Tahoma>...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. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Tahoma></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Tahoma>To be sure there are much stricter requirements on
news, in that it the code requires <U>all</U> 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).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Tahoma></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Tahoma>Ofcom's interpretation of the law is set out
here: <A
href="http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/broadcasting/broadcast-codes/broadcast-code/impartiality/">http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/broadcasting/broadcast-codes/broadcast-code/impartiality/</A>.
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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Tahoma></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Tahoma>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:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Tahoma><STRONG></STRONG></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT size=2 face=Tahoma>-----------</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Tahoma><STRONG>Meaning of "matters of political or
industrial controversy and matters relating to current public
policy":</STRONG><BR>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. </DIV></FONT>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Tahoma>-------------</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Tahoma></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Tahoma>I guess para 5.9 is the most relevant
here:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Tahoma></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Tahoma>-------------</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Tahoma>...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</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Tahoma>-------------</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Tahoma></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Tahoma>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).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Tahoma></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Tahoma>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Tahoma></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Tahoma>Alex</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></BODY></HTML>