|
Vince Carlin
Ombudsman
CBC
P.O. Box 500, Station A
Toronto, Ontario M5W 1E6
Dear Mr. Carlin,
I am writing to request a formal review of the way in
which my background and credentials were presented to
the public in The Fifth Estate program, The Denial Machine,
last broadcast on the main network of CBC television on
October 28, 2007. Watching The Denial Machine on your
Web site brought back unpleasant memories of my experience
with the network when I was the scientific 'witness' against
the Kyoto Protocol during CBC radio's "The Trial
of Kyoto" in Ottawa on December 7, 2002. I am therefore
also requesting a formal review of the way in which that
program was edited before airing the next day on CBC radio.
1 - Concerning the first issue, the recent Denial Machine
program:
Just before I and Dr. Willie Soon (he was never identified
in The Denial Machine, a clear violation of your basic
“Journalistic Policies” (see next para) – Dr. Soon is
a leading researcher in the field at Harvard University)
appear on the screen, the Fifth Estate commentator asserts,
“Call them deniers, debunkers, or skeptics, they style
themselves as ‘keepers of the truth’ about global warming,
disputing the consensus that climate change is caused
by humans.” Dr. Soon speaks and then the commentator continues
“… ridiculing the notion that humans could do anything
to stop it”. Then I am shown speaking, although I am left
completely unidentified at this point in the program.
It is only a full three minutes later in the program that
some of my credentials are listed by conservative talk
show host Shawn Hannity but with no reference to my climatology
background (I am a past president of the American Association
of State Climatologists, was program chair for the Committee
on Applied Climatology of the American Meteorological
Society and was a contributing author and reviewer of
the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change).
I charge that this incomplete treatment of my background
violates “Production Standards, section B: 1.3” of the
CBC’s “Journalistic Standards and Practices” which states:
“Any relevant aspects of a commentator’s credentials
must be clearly summarized so that the audience may have
a perspective from which to appraise the speaker’s view.
For example, the position and affiliation of a journalist
or the particular qualifications of an academic or any
other type of speaker should be stated.”
In addition, an incorrect association is asserted by
the Fifth Estate program that many of the supposed tobacco-supporting
scientists of the 1990’s are also prominent ‘skeptics’
in the climate change debate. Less than 3 seconds elapsed
between these assertions and the first appearance of my
image on the screen implying that I am somehow also linked
with the alleged pro-tobacco campaign of the early 1990s.
This is a completely false and despicable implication
and is, I charge, editing done inconsistent with the practices
of honest and professional journalism the CBC purports
to support.
2 - The situation that occurred in 2002 is described
as follows:
Early in the 'trial', the "attorney" for Kyoto,
then Executive Director of The Sierra Club of Canada,
Elizabeth May said to me, “I’d like to know who funds
your work…?" The CBC 'judge' would not allow me to
answer the question and my testimony was stopped. At the
time, it appeared that the judge was doing the anti-Kyoto
side a favour as people in the audience would have naturally
thought that I must be funded by 'big oil' or some group
regarded as having a financial stake in Kyoto's failure.
However, this uncertainty was cleared up in the question
period following the 'trial' when a woman from the public
audience line asked me, "Who funds your research?"
I clearly explained what was then the breakdown in dollars
- it worked out to about 97% from government and 3% from
industry. The audience speculations were quelled and the
questioner seemed appeased. However, during her summary
arguments later, Elizabeth May stated “Now we have the
deep pockets of ‘big carbon’ funding studies as they have
for Dr. Michaels to cast doubt on the work of thousands
of scientists in 70 countries who are warning us that
our addiction to fossil fuels is dangerous and potentially
catastrophic.” There was a gasp in the audience as everyone
there, including the CBC and of course Ms. May, knew this
was grossly misleading.
When the program was aired the next day, the CBC left
in Ms. May's misleading summary argument remarks about
my funding sources yet edited out my earlier response
to the question about my funding sources. Not only would
this unethical editing encourage many in the radio listening
audience to doubt my credibility and so discount my science
(thereby encouraging people to vote in favour of Kyoto
following the trial), but it diminished my credibility
in the public eye for future events in Canada where I
speak about climate science. This appears to be a deliberate
act on the part of CBC (and the edited version is still
on their web
site), done to discredit me and boost the point of
view the CBC continues to promote.
I believe that both of the situations described above
conflict with the CBC’s "RESPONSIBILITY
OF THE PRESS" section on your web site where
the network writes:
"… the media must be socially responsible; in other
words, freedom of the media and the constitutional protection
that it enjoys require responsibility to the public it
serves. The broadcast media in particular have an obligation
to be fair, accurate, thorough, comprehensive and balanced
in their presentation of information. This is unmistakably
true of a public broadcasting agency, which is accountable
through its Board of Directors to the Parliament and people
of Canada."
I look forward to your review of the above.
Yours truly,
Dr. Patrick J. Michaels
Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies
Cato Institute
1000 Massachusetts Ave, NW
Washington DC 20001-5403
http://www.cato.org/people/michaels.html
back to NRSP News
|
