28 November 2014 Dr K Appleton [email protected] Dear Dr K Appleton Further to your email received 4 November I wish to advise the Complaints Committee has completed its enquiry into your formal complaint about Breakfast shown on 4 November on TV ONE. Your complaint has been considered with reference to Standards 4, 5, 6 and 8 of the Free-to- Air Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. The Decision The Complaints Committee has not identified any breach of the relevant standards and accordingly declines to uphold your complaint. The reasons for this decision are discussed below. The Programme The Breakfast bulletin of 4 November contained an interview with climate change denier Bryan Leyland. The interview is introduced: Climate change set to unleash and I quote ‘severe, widespread and irreversible impacts’ -that is strong language from scientists. With floods and droughts becoming commonplace and that is the finding of this new and stark international report which says that the ‘only way to save the planet is to reduce carbon emissions immediately’. Not everyone is convinced and joining us this morning is renewable energy consultant Bryan Leyland... So yesterday we heard we’re all doomed unless we act, as of yesterday, you say this is all rubbish. Bryan Leyland: basically everything that they say is based on computer models. And computer modelling shows that if you increase carbon dioxide, temperatures increase. That’s the way the computer models are programmed to say that. But every, many a beautiful theory has been destroyed by an ugly fact. The ugly fact in this case is that they predicted warming and in fact it hasn’t happened. Q: is this not more than computer modelling though? Is this not thousands of respected scientists, meteorologists etc, going out and saying ‘look it’s getting warmer, the ice-sheets are getting smaller, the sea level’s rising, the warmer seasons are getting longer, the dry seasons are getting drier? BL: well in case of sea levels the report itself says sea levels have been rising at 2mm a year. That’s 200mm a century. There’s nothing wrong with that. They predict that it will suddenly increase, there’s no indication so far that it’s doing anything like that. About the E: [email protected] storms and things if you take the record that are over a long period, hurricanes, tornadoes all these things have actually decreased. Q: so why is there this drive therefore, why are scientists who work so closely to fact and to accuracy in models, why are they panicking it seems, in your opinion, in this way to say they are predicting this? If we look at this chart you brought in – I want to have a quick look at this actually, it’s quite interesting, this actually shows what you’re saying. There are the models, the predictions in red, and there are the realities according to data which you’ve collected. So why are they doing this? What’s the motive? BL: I think it’s basically they’ve got the computer modellers are a very small group and they work amongst themselves. They’ve got locked into the belief reality exists in a computer screen. They’ve got locked into believing this is the real world in the computer screen – it’s not. The other scientists are just going on what they tell them. But actually it’s quite a small group of scientists who are running the models, and a very large group of scientists are using the output of the models to predict all sorts of doom and disaster. Q: you’d accept that there is climate change? BL: the climate’s always changing, it always has changed. We’ve had ice-ages, we’ve had the middle ages warm period, always it’s changing. The chances are that now it’s going to head into a cooling period. Q: and human behaviour hasn’t got the influence that scientists say it has? Even if we accept that there is talk of this quote ‘severe irreversible impact’, and we accept that this has no accurate foundation at all as you are saying. Isn’t it not though responsible of governments to be looking at renewable energy solutions over burning fossil fuels? BL No I don’t think so for two reasons. First they’ve spent so far $2 trillion on wind and solar power altogether right. $2 trillion that would have able to bail out the whole of Europe; it has had no effect on carbon dioxide emissions. So all that money has been squandered and could have done enormous good around the world... the second one is that the increase of carbon dioxide which has certainly taken place has bought huge agricultural benefits. The deserts are getting smaller, our grass is growing better, trees are growing better and all this without any need for more water. The report doesn’t even consider the trillions of dollars of benefits we’ve already got from the increased carbon dioxide. So it’s not doing any harm and it’s actually doing a lot of good and they hate it. Q: and they’ll hate you Bryan won’t they cos you’re going to stand up and tell them they’re all lying. The ONE News bulletin of 3 November contained an item on the findings of the IPCC Report: Presenter: the world faces widespread and irreversible damage from climate change if action isn’t taken now. That’s the stark warning issued today by leading international experts who are calling to an end to the use of fossil fuels to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Reporter: coal blasted out of a mountain in West Virginia and gouged out of the ground in Germany. Fossil fuels like these remain the backbone of modern economic life. But today’s report says burning them gives off so much carbon dioxide that extreme warming becomes far more likely and for the UN Secretary General this has become a personal cause. 2 Ban Ki Moon, UN Secretary-General: science has spoken there is no ambiguity in their message. Leaders must act, time is not on our side. Reporter: The report lays out the potential impacts of climate change and options for tackling it and the most controversial is that fossil fuels like coal should be phased out by the end of the century. That would be a huge undertaking because fossil fuels generate about two thirds of the world’s electricity. The report says they should only be used is the carbon dioxide they emit is captured in plants like this one. But this technology is in its very earliest days. Over the years the UN Climate panel has repeatedly warned about the impact of fossil fuels on the future temperature and the risks of an increase of more than 2°C. But never as starkly as now. Rajendra Pachauri, International Panel on Climate Change: In the absence of carbon capture and storage, then power generation from fossil fuels would need to be phased out by the end of the century if we want to maintain the 2°C limit of temperature increase. Reporter: but fossil fuels are central to lives this forest of oil pumps is in California, every attempt to negotiate a global treaty to cut greenhouse gases has failed. Most recently five years ago, economic pressures and national politics have always intervened. The UN will try again in Paris next year but has anything really changed? Talks about the deserts in Western China: according to today’s report even if there big cuts to greenhouse gasses climate change will be felt in many different ways. And while some people will cope others will have a much harder time in adapting. Presenter: so are we doing enough here to adapt to any future climate changes? ... Reporter: we’ve experienced our fair share of wild weather in New Zealand, Scientist Tim Naish is warning we could see more of it if greenhouse gas emissions aren’t reigned in. Tim Naish: the sort of rainfall events we’re seeing up North, in Northland, the extra tropical cyclones coming out of the Pacific. Reporter: last year parts of the country experienced the worst drought in seventy years; forcing farmers to think more about water storage for irrigation. While Nelson and Tasman were hit by massive floods and Professor Naish has a grim prediction. Tim Naish: so the 1 in 100 coastal flooding event becomes an annual event by 2100. Reporter: but that can be prevented, according to the UN report climate change if the worldwide use of fossil fuels are phased out by the turn of the century. While New Zealand may not burn fossil fuels like China and the United States in 2011 New Zealand’s emissions by person were the 5th highest in the industrialised world... (discussion of political perspectives in New Zealand)... and despite New Zealand’s small size and population climate change experts say every little bit helps. Bryan Leyland describes himself as an Electrical and Mechanical Engineer with wide experience in power generation, power systems and transmission and a recognized expert on all aspects of the design, construction and operation of small hydro schemes combined with wide experience on large schemes. I have reported on generation, transmission and 3 distribution systems in New Zealand, Australia, Fiji, Samoa, Solomon Islands, PNG, Phillipines, Thailand, India, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Zambia, Niger and Iran. bryanleyland.co.nz/cv.html Your Complaint You state: TVNZ gave airtime to Mr Bryan Leyland in response to news on the IPCC publication on climate change. Mr Rawdon Christie appeared to endorse MR Leylands views as part of a balanced reporting and critique of the IPCC research. As such he appeared to dismiss the findings of the world consensus of climate science while giving credibility to someone his is well know as representative of tiny fringe and unsubstantiated views. It would have been appropriate to at least have a respected climate scientist included in the article to respond. On the contrary Mr Christie seemed to relish this dismissal of the major news item. Mr Christie has in fact become more and more biased in his reporting over the last year and in my view the quality of news and credible reporting has slumped to an all time low. The Relevant Standards Standard 4 Controversial Issues – Viewpoints When discussing controversial issues of public importance in news, current affairs or factual programmes, broadcasters should make reasonable efforts, or give reasonable opportunities, to present significant points of view either in the same programme or in other programmes within the period of current interest. Guideline 4a. 4b No set formula can be advanced for the allocation of time to interested parties on controversial issues of public importance. Significant viewpoints should be presented fairly in the context of the programme. This can only be done by judging each case on its merits. The assessment of whether a reasonable range of views has been presented takes account of some or all of the following: • the programme introduction; • whether the programme approaches a topic from a particular perspective (e.g. authorial documentaries, public access and advocacy programmes; • whether viewers could reasonably be expected to be aware of views expressed in other coverage. Before considering a complaint under this standard, the Complaints Committee must determine whether the issue being discussed is a ‘controversial issue of public importance.’ The Broadcasting Standards Authority has typically defined an ‘issue of public importance’ as something that would have ‘a significant potential impact on, or be of concern to, members of the New Zealand public’ (refer BSA decision 2005-125). A ‘controversial issue’ is defined by the BSA as one which has topical currency and excited conflicting opinion or about which there has been on-going public debate (e.g. BSA decision 2006-076). The issue of human caused global climate change is one which is accepted by most governments around the world. However it is also one which excites passionate debate from individuals and parties from a wide spectrum of positions about this issue. This is a long-running discussion and it reasonable to expect that the vast majority of people are aware of significant perspectives on human induced global climate change, and have formed their own view on this. 4 The BSA noted in decision 2013-025 concerning the predictions of a climate scientist about the impacts of climate change on New Zealand by the year 2100, including the opinion of a climate change health expert about the health risks associated with the predicted changes: [29] It is well established that the balance of information does not have to be internally achieved in the same programme. We think a programme can be an advocacy piece and it can be unbalanced and it can give information that is incomplete, so long as the nature of the programme and its purpose is obvious, and there is other balancing information available to the viewer or listener. That other information can come from a variety of other sources or places. It may be found in other broadcasts at around the same time, it may be in newspapers or elsewhere. It may be something which is visible to everybody in the universe of information. [30] We do not think that there will be many people in New Zealand who are unaware of the swirl of arguments around global warming. We do not think that there will be many people who are unaware that at one end of the spectrum of views there are those who say it is the greatest issue facing mankind, and at the other end of the spectrum there are those who say it is a myth. In applying broadcasting standards we need to look at the viewers and listeners who live in the real open world rather than those who live in isolation and who in this instance might come out, look at Seven Sharp, be misled by an unbalanced presentation and retire anxiously to be concerned about the future. [31] While the claims may have been at the extreme end of predicted outcomes, we think there is a level of sophistication and awareness in New Zealand around the issue of, and ongoing debate about, climate change, such that viewers would have interpreted the predictions with a degree of scepticism. It is likely that viewers would have heard extreme projections of this nature before, and would have seen the predictions as only speculation about what New Zealand might look like in 87 years’ time... [32] We are not willing to take from a broadcaster the freedom to express a one-sided view where it is obvious that is what they are doing, and it is clearly for the purpose of entertainment and stimulation of discussion. For us to say that on occasions such as this there has to be some internal balance, in our view, reduces editorial freedom and interferes with the principle of freedom of expression. We do not think that anybody was misled. We do not want to see the impact of programmes of this kind dampened down by some contrary view of which everybody is aware, having to be expressed internally within the programme. It is an established principle of this standard that balance cannot be measured by a stop- watch; it is sufficient that significant viewpoints are adequately represented in the period of current interest. The Committee finds that this has occurred in the case Breakfast news bulletin. The ONE News bulletin from the previous day which is quoted under “The Programme” is such an example. As you have discussed Mr Leyland is a well-known commentator in this arena and those with an interest in this topic are well aware of his credentials and point of view; which was also signalled by the presenter in the interview. Opinion and analysis from a particular perspective is permitted under this standard as long as it is clear that the material is presented in this way; which it was in this broadcast. No breach of standard 4 has been identified. Standard 5 Accuracy 5 Broadcasters should make reasonable efforts to ensure that news, current affairs and factual programming: • is accurate in relation to all material points of fact and/or • does not mislead. Guidelines 5a The accuracy standard does not apply to statements which are clearly distinguishable as analysis, comment or opinion. 5b In the event that a material error of fact has occurred, broadcasters should correct it at the earliest appropriate opportunity. 5c News must be impartial. As discussed above the Committee notes that the issue of human caused global climate change is one which is accepted by most governments around the world. However it is also one which excites passionate debate from individuals and parties from a wide spectrum of positions about this issue. This is a long-running discussion and it reasonable to expect that the vast majority of people are aware of significant perspectives on human induced global climate change, and have formed their own view on this. In this case Mr Leyland discussed his opinion on the IPCC Report. His commentary was clearly presented in the programme as his opinion. Opinion and commentary is permitted under this standard. The right to make such commentary is permitted as it what is commonly termed “freedom of speech” and protected under the Bill of Rights Act 1990. As you have discussed he is a well-known commentator in this arena and those with an interest in this topic are well aware of his credentials and point of view. We note that in decision 2014-047 concerning commentary in Seven Sharp which disputed the findings of the IPCC Report on Global Climate Change the BSA found: [15] Mr Hosking’s comments were clearly expressed as his personal opinion on, and specifically his scepticism of, the IPCC’s findings and human-induced climate change in general. Guideline 5a to the accuracy standard states that it does not apply to analysis, comment or opinion. The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 explicitly protects the right to freedom of expression, which includes the right to express one’s opinions, even if they are considered by many to be wrong. The accuracy standard must be applied in such a way as to impose the minimum restriction on free speech, and can only be applied to inaccurate material statements of fact. And in decision 2013- 025 concerning an item on Seven Sharp which reported the predictions of a climate scientist about the impacts of climate change on New Zealand by the year 2100, and included the opinion of a climate change health expert about the health risks associated with the predicted change the BSA found: 11] These claims were clearly framed as predictions and analysis and sourced to the experts interviewed in the item. Guideline 5a says that the accuracy standard does not apply to statements which are clearly distinguishable as analysis, comment or opinion. The reporter mostly used terms such as ‘could’ and ‘might’ throughout the item and the presenter used open-ended language in the introduction (see paragraph [6]), indicating that these were theories only, which by their very nature are disputable. [12] In our view, given the nature of the programme and the topic reported on, reasonable viewers would have interpreted the predictions with some scepticism. Climate change is a highly contentious issue attracting a wide range of differing opinions, meaning viewers 6 were unlikely to draw any solid conclusions solely from the information presented in the item, particularly taking into account the light-hearted and jovial style of presentation. Standard 5 is not designed to regulate personal opinion or commentary (as per guideline 5a). No breach of standard 5 has been identified. Accordingly the Committee finds that the comments made by Mr Leyland were opinion and analysis and as such are permitted under guideline 5a. No breach of standard 5 has been identified. Standard 6 Fairness Broadcasters should deal fairly with any person or organisation taking part or referred to. Guidelines 6a A consideration of what is fair will depend upon the genre of the programme (e.g. factual, dramatic, comedic or satirical programmes). 6b Broadcasters should exercise care in editing programme material to ensure that the extracts used are not a distortion of the original event or the overall views expressed. 6c Except as justified in the public interest: • Contributors and participants should be informed of the nature of their participation • Programme makers should not obtain information or gather pictures through misrepresentation; • Broadcasters should avoid causing unwarranted distress to surviving family members by showing footage of bodies or human remains. 6d Broadcasters should respect the right of individuals to express their own opinions. 6e Individuals and particularly children and young people, taking part or referred to should not be exploited, humiliated or unfairly identified. 6f Where the programme deals with distressing circumstances (e.g. grief and bereavement) discretion and sensitivity are expected. This standard is designed to protect those people and organisations taking part or referred to in broadcast. You have not made a complaint in this regard. No breach of standard 6 has been identified. Standard 8 Responsible Programming Broadcasters should ensure programmes • are appropriately classified; • display programme classification information; • adhere to timebands in accordance with Appendix 1; • are not presented in such a way as to cause panic, or unwarranted alarm or undue distress ; and • do not deceive or disadvantage the viewer. Guidelines 8a Broadcasters should use established classification codes. • Classification symbols should be displayed at the beginning of each programme and after each advertising break. • Warnings should be considered when programme content is likely to offend or disturb a significant number of the intended audience. 8b All promos (including promos for news and current affairs) should be classified to comply with the “host programme” (the programme in which they screen): • Promos for AO programmes shown outside AO time should comply with the classification of the host programme; 7 • Promos shown in G or PGR programmes screening in AO time should comply with the G or PGR classification of the host programme; • When a promo screens during an unclassified host programme (including news and current affairs) in G or PGR time, the promo must be classified G or PGR and broadcasters should pay regard to Standard 9 – Children’s Interests. • When a promo screens adjacent to an unclassified host programme (including news and current affairs) in G or PGR time, the promo should comply with the underlying timeband. • Broadcasters should be aware that promos showing footage of violence or other explicit material outside the context of the original programme may be unacceptable to viewers in the context of the host programme in which they screen. 8c Except as justified in the public interest, news flashes screening outside regular news and current affairs programmes, particularly during children’s viewing time, should avoid unnecessary, distressing or alarming material or should provide a prior warning about the material. 8d Advertisements and infomercials should be clearly distinguishable from other programme material. 8e Broadcasters should ensure that there is no collusion between broadcasters and contestants that results in unfair advantage to any contestant. 8f Broadcasters should not use the process known as “subliminal perception” or any other technique which attempts to convey information to the viewer by transmitting messages below or near the threshold of normal awareness. This Standard relates to broadcasters ensuring that the programme is correctly certified and that the certificates are displayed when the programme screens. As the material subject you have complained about formed part of an unclassified news and current affairs programme, we find that Standard 8 is not applicable in the circumstances. No breach of Standard 8 has been identified. Right to Refer to Broadcasting Standards Authority and Time Limit In accordance with section 7(3) of the Broadcasting Act you are hereby notified that it is your right, should you be dissatisfied with this decision, to refer the matter to the Broadcasting Standards Authority, P O Box 9213, Wellington, as provided under section 8 of the Act, for the purpose of an investigation and review of the decision. You have 20 working days after receipt of this letter to exercise this right of referral. Yours sincerely Complaints Committee 8
Posted on: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 06:57:42 +0000