Complaint to Ofcom Regarding “The Great Global Warming Swindle”

Comparison of the unedited and edited interview transcripts confirmed that the editing of the interviews with these four contributors had indeed distorted or misrepresented their known views. It was also found that the production company had misled them, when it originally sought their involvement, as to the format, subject matter and purpose of the programmes. No mention had been made of the critical position the programmes intended to adopt, for example in correspondence.

Channel 4 was forced to issue a public apology (see http://tinyurl.com/2w6sjd).

The letter of complaint from one of the contributors to Against Nature, Peter Melchett, whose complaint was upheld by the ITC, is at: http://tinyurl.com/2rned3.

Equinox: Storm in a D Cup

In May 1999, Channel 4 broadcast in its Equinox series, which claimed to be a series of science documentaries, a film produced by Durkin called “Storm in a D Cup”, which argued that silicone breast implants were beneficial to a woman’s health. According to George Monbiot in The Guardian, the film had earlier been rejected by the BBC’s Horizon series on the grounds that “Mr Durkin had ignored a powerful body of evidence contradicting his claims” (see http://tinyurl.com/yu8l8w).

According to the same article, Najma Kazi, a respected TV researcher and producer who was previously a research biochemist walked away from the breast implant programme project after two weeks, claiming that her research had been ignored. She is also reported to have said: “I don’t know how that programme got passed. The only consolation for me was that I’m really glad I didn’t put my name to it.” (http://tinyurl.com/yu8l8w).

Equinox: Modified Truth: The Rise and Fall of GM

On March 20, 2000, Channel 4 broadcast another programme produced by Durkin in its Equinox series, whose thesis according to one of the film’s participants was that:

GM food is perfectly safe and beneficial and badly needed to feed the hungry in the Third World. But hysterical environmentalists and the privileged, chattering middle-classes (mainly women) have been responsible for bringing down the industry. [See http://tinyurl.com/2tspuw].

A joint letter signed by a group of scientists based in the developing world was sent to Channel 4 and to The Times newspaper in protest against the claims made in the film and in a related Times article (see: http://tinyurl.com/28uu48). The scientists accused both the film and the article of “misleading oversimplification” and “misinformation”.

Prior to the film’s broadcast, Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, a geneticist featured on the program, said in an interview: “I feel completely betrayed and misled. They did not tell me it was going to be an attack on my position” (see The Guardian: http://tinyurl.com/yu8l8w), and she subsequently wrote (see: http://tinyurl.com/2tspuw):