http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jRiYg47dEeOHGq5gtc4xNmaYHcZQ

“BBC fined after new phone-in scandals

LONDON (AFP) — The BBC was fined 400,000 pounds Wednesday after a string of top television and radio shows faked winners of their competitions.

The fine, imposed by media regulator Ofcom, is the latest in a string of similar scandals involving British broadcasters, which has tarnished their reputation for transparency, particularly over competitions.

In the latest round of revelations, Ofcom said that the producers of some shows had decided to broadcast competitions which viewers invited to take part had no chance of winning.

Flagship charity telethon Comic Relief was one of the offenders. Ofcom said viewers were told that if they called in to pledge money, they would automatically be entered for a prize draw to win flights to the United States.”

Faking a charity show? What right does any organization that does such a thing have to criticize another network in the way it has done here?

Steve: Maybe. But understand that I didn’t mean this observation in a venal way, but in a practical way. OFcom clearly did not want to be refereeing one dispute among climate scientists after another. They’ve shown considerable intelligence in their handling of this matter and would obviously know that AIT was in the pipeline and that, if they didn’t draw a line in the sand, then they have another big, complicated case with AIT, re-arguing the matters. So their decision was, in my opinion, crafted to forestall their having to re-litigate AIT. This is what I had in mind, not that they were some sort of venal apologists for Al Gore.

[Ofcom] had to ascertain not whether the programme was accurate or not, but whether it materially misled the audience with the result that harm and/or offence was likely to be caused.

So one does not have the right to take offence at media inaccuracy? Curious way of wording the ruling.

Most scientists are deeply offended when inaccuracies masquerade as truth.

Probably not that many knowing scientists in the audience with a right to feel offended. Still.

Interesting that a claim is deemed justified when there is material harm OR offence taken. The scientists did not need to prove accuracy, only demonstrate that the “polemic” offended them. In this light, Ofcom’s ruling is strange. Jurisdiction over accuracy is not required to rule whether or not viewers were offended.

I wonder if any viewers felt so sick they had to visit a doctor, and got a note. Remember: accuracy isn’t the issue. Offence is.

Same rules will apply for any airing of AIT.

Steve: What people are missing is that Ofcom’s ruling was constructed so in a way that AIT wouldn’t have any problems. Had Rado et al won their section 5 complaint, then AIT could not have been shown without offering rebuttal time. The entire case was absolutely madness.

“Thank you for your email to Ed Richards dated 22 July 2008. Your email has been passed on to me to reply to as it is my department that deals with complaints about programme content.

While we note your comments on our finding, I would like to take this opportunity to clarify that Ofcom made it clear in its finding that in dealing with the complaints about the programme it had to ascertain not whether the programme was accurate or not, but whether it materially misled the audience with the result that harm and/or offence was likely to be caused.

It is not within Ofcom’s remit or ability as the regulator of the ‘communications industry’ to establish or to seek to adjudicate on ‘facts’ such as whether global warming is a man-made phenomenon or not. Nor is it within Ofcom’s ability to be able to reach conclusions about the validity of particular scientific theories. Ofcom’s role, as regards to factual accuracy, is to decide whether the programme breached the requirements of its Broadcasting Code (in particular Rule 2.2) and to do this, it must reach an opinion on the portrayals of factual matters in a programme in order to determine whether the audience was materially mislead by them overall.

I also note that you have raised concerns about the BBC’s reporting of our finding. However, these are not matters within Ofcom’s remit.

Ofcom regulates BBC services in relation to material that may be thought to give rise to harm or offence, as well as in relation to complaints of unfairness and/or unwarranted infringement of privacy from individuals who have taken part or been included in programmes. However, under the terms of the Communications Act 2003, Ofcom does not regulate BBC services in relation to accuracy or impartiality. Such matters are regulated by the BBC Trust, therefore your concerns should be addressed directly to the BBC itself. If you wish to make a complaint to the BBC, the single point of contact for viewers and listeners is:

BBC, PO Box 1922, Glasgow, G2 3WT

(Tel: 08700 100 222)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints.

Thank you once again for contacting Ofcom. Your comments are important to us.

Yours sincerely

David Best

Case Leader
Standards Team
Content and Standards

Tel: 020 7981 3899
Fax: 020 7981 3806

Email: david.best@ofcom.org.uk

:: Ofcom

Riverside House
2a Southwark Bridge Road
London SE1 9HA
020 7981 3000

http://www.ofcom.org.uk

As to a complaint, my initial thought was that, as this was a fictional drama, we would be told that questions of balance didn’t arise. However, it would appear to have been in clear breach of the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines that you helpfully quoted. Nonetheless, it may be that all it did was confirm the majority’s sceptical reaction to constant “climate change” propaganda. What’s your view?