Public Service Broadcasting

The sad thing is so many people were taken in by it all and now think there's no point in trying to save energy and reduce their carbon emissions. It undid so much good work done recently in encouraging people to become greener.

It is the sort of thing any PSB, especially C4, should be doing though - allowing people to put across controversial points of view rather than silencing their argument.


Again though it's the show that makes the headline - forget the number of other programmes C4 have made in the last year regarding the environment etc.

I've no problem with people putting forward their point of view. The problem I have is when completely untrue information is presented as fact, and interviewees' comments are used totally out of context in order to make it sound like they're saying something totally different. That's just irresponsible, unethical broadcasting.

I agree that was documentary was one-sided (part of the point I feel);but those sorts of programmes do get people debating issues, which is surely a good thing?

If done responsibly, yes.

In this case, leading scientists claim the makers changed statistics, mislead interviewees about the nature of the programme and used selective editing in order to distort their views. Last I heard some of those featured in the programme were planning on taking their grievances to Ofcom.

Incidentally, the director of the programme has a track record for this exact behaviour leading to Channel 4 making an on-air apology following a programme he made in 1998.

I take your point. The programme certainly shouldn't be dissuading people from "going green", since there are plenty of other ways that human activity definitely does affect the environment: Smog, deforestation, water pollution, over-fishing/grazing, acid rain, landfills and so on.

It's the notion of industrial CO2 emissions causing global-warming that is the fiercely disputed topic... C4 could have made a decent programme of this debate, or even a decent polemic-- but instead we got a distorted view of things from TGGWS. Sadly I think this programme has muddied the waters of the argument.

One thing the programme did is present another point of view on the subject and even though much of it was skewed (but no more than any of the pro-warming polemic I've heard), it still raised a point of debate. I appreciated it for offering another train of thought other than "we're killing the planet, feel guilty you capitalist pig" (which is the opposite and equally misinformed opinion and the most prevalent sadly) though mainly it told me little more than I already was aware of.

But then one programme hardly represents one channel's whole output in terms of PSB remits and here is hardly the place to debate ecology and ethics, C4 does stick the most tightly to it and has taken whatever spot BBC 2 used to occupy.

I think Roger hit the nail on the head by saying it's muddied the waters. Presenting this point of view in such a shoddy way has actually discredited any valid arguments opposing theories on the link between carbon emissions and climate change.



I do however think that it reflects the direction in which much of Channel 4's factual programming is going. Too much nowadays tends towards sensationalism and headline-grabbing.

http://media.guardian.co.uk/mediaguardian/story/0,,2110327,00.html


More crap lets attack C4 and question why tax payers should fund Big Brother?

Mmmm - they don't!