U.K. Regrets Anti-Environment Doc
It's one thing to disagree with somebody. It's another to censor them. That's the central problem with the United Kingdom's decision to condemn The Great Global Warming Swindle, a documentary by Martin Durkin arguing exactly what its title implies.
A response to the global warming awareness popularized by An Inconvenient Truth, Durkin's film was considered disingenuous from the perspective of British broadcast regulator Ofek, which ruled that Channel 4 violated the country's boundaries of impartiality when it broadcast the movie last year. Apparently, Durkin manipulated his subjects in order make them verify his questionable stance that global warming was a conspiracy.
Now, I find it hard to buy into any movie that puts its ugly one-sided argument right in the title, but there's something to be said for freedom of speech in this case. What's the U.K. doing with these nonsensical impartiality laws? Since when do documentaries have to remain objective and avoid agendas? Even your average PBS program takes a side. The ruling suggests a totalitarian mindset where art is subjected to a group think mentality, and that's scary. What if The Dark Knight were banned for condoning torture? Maybe that's an extreme comparison, so try this one: What does Ofcom think about Michael Moore?
_thumbnail.jpg)
Fan Made: Steampunk 'Return of the Jedi' Figures_thumbnail.jpg)
Exclusive: 'A Christmas Tale' Poster Premiere_thumbnail.jpg)
Cinematical's Fourth Annual Halloween Costume Contest is Coming!
Netflix Unleashes Another Batch of "Forgotten" Flicks
Geek Daily: Wolverine, 'Batman 3', 'Punisher' and 'Kick-Ass'
_thumbnail.jpg)
_thumbnail.jpg){kind=spacer}
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
7-22-2008 @ 9:35PM
Electrix said...
'Ofcom ruled that the documentary violated rules on impartiality, and made significant allegations against individuals without giving them a chance to respond.'
From your very own words: It's one thing to disagree with somebody. It's another to censor them.
The documentary made allegations and didn't give them the chance to respond or defend themselves.
Reply
7-22-2008 @ 9:58PM
Mike said...
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/dn14379?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=top1_head_Comment:%20Why%20ruling%20on%20%27climate%20swindle%27%20film%20is%20dangerous
I certainly hope you don't think that free speech includes true propaganda? The world doesn't need another person (especially filmmaker) who tells them that what they say is gospel. From what I've read, this documentary deserves to be trashed. Biased or not, it appears to be truly misleading.
Reply
7-23-2008 @ 12:54PM
Kevin said...
Freedom of speech is just that...freedom. I can't speak for British law, but in the states if someone wants to produce and distribute a movie that they know to be full of lies than I would hope that nobody would stop them from doing so. We don't have the restricted freedom to only speak the truth, or only say nice things, etc. Its the freedom to say whatever we want (within reasonable limits...fire in a movie theater being the most obvious example). Having said that, the channel in question also had the freedom to reject his movie and not show it, which I certainly wish they had. It sounds like total garbage, but garbage that in country he should have the right to show to whomever wants to watch it. Freedom of speech advocates should be the most vocal supporters of speech that is inflammatory, even when that speech is personally offensive to them.
7-23-2008 @ 2:22AM
malren said...
"What does Ofcom think about Michael Moore?"
Moore has nothing but praise for the most socialist aspects of UK society. Therefore all government agencies in the UK love Moore, champion Moore and show Moore's films without hesitation, as the movies he makes fit the popular leftist narrative. Truth, and the ability of those Moore denigrates to directly respond, do not matter. Which puts the lie to the excuse used to censor The Great Global Warming Swindle.
This doc was censored because it disagrees with the popular narrative. Plain and simple. Whether it is accurate or misleading simply does not matter. The fact that Moore's clearly manipulated fictions aren't also banned is evidence of that.
Reply
7-23-2008 @ 8:08AM
Philip said...
Global warming causes kidney stones.
Global warming causes multiple personality disorder.
Global warming has caused mosquitoes to double in size since 1992.
Global warming causes stunted growth.
Only one of the above statements was NOT an actual newspaper headline. See if you can figure out which one. The hysteria has reached epic density. And I do mean dense.
Reply
8-07-2008 @ 6:27AM
Tony Butler said...
How strange it is when the makers of Al Gore's horror, sci-fi movie, 'An Inconvenient Truth' after conceding to eleven major scientific errors contained in his work of fantasy, are aided by the Uk's Top Scientific Advisor to debunk Tghe Great Global Warming Swindle.
He stated that there is now record levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, and he is right. But shouldn't he have also pointed out that levels of CO2 in the atmosphere today are a response to rising global temperatures 800 -2000 years ago. The Medeival Warm Period.
The science of CO2 levels following 800 - 2000 years behind
fluctuating temperature leveps is not in doubt, it was conceded in the court case over An Inconvenient Truth by...er... the UK's chief scientific advisor.
Surely his failure to mention the fact that the CO2 levels in the atmosphere today reflect an ancient historic event was an oversight and not meant to mislead anyone.
Reply