Complaint
A viewer complained a report on fracking by the 大象传媒鈥檚 Climate Editor Justin Rowlatt lacked impartiality because it presented the personal opinion of the presenter as fact, and failed to reflect Government and public support for using all available local sources of gas. 聽The ECU considered the complaint in the light of the 大象传媒鈥檚 Editorial Guidelines on impartiality.
Outcome
The Guidelines say correspondents are entitled to offer professional judgements, so long as such judgements are based on sound evidence. 聽Mr Rowlatt concluded his report about the Government鈥檚 decision to lift the ban on fracking in England by asking whether fracking would reduce people鈥檚 energy bills at a time when prices were rising steeply. 聽He said 鈥淯nfortunately the answer is no. Companies will sell any gas they produce at market prices and there won鈥檛 be enough gas to significantly affect those鈥.
Mr Rowlatt鈥檚 view reflected the widely held position of those who have studied the energy markets. 聽The ECU noted, for example, that the Climate Change Committee and the National Infrastructure Committee wrote to the then Prime Minister, Liz Truss, and said 鈥淕reater domestic production of fossil fuels may improve energy security, particularly this winter. But our gas reserves 鈥 offshore or from shale 鈥 are too small to impact meaningfully the prices faced by UK consumers鈥. 聽Similarly, Kwasi Kwarteng had published a series of tweets in February 2022 when Secretary of State at the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy which included the following: 鈥淎dditional UK production won鈥檛 materially affect the wholesale market price. This includes fracking 鈥 UK producers won鈥檛 sell shale gas to UK consumers below the market price. They鈥檙e not charities鈥. Mr Rowlatt鈥檚 statement was therefore an evidence-based professional judgement and, as such, consistent with the 大象传媒鈥檚 standards of due impartiality.聽聽聽
The report also included a contribution from the Business and Energy Secretary at the time and reflected his view the UK should do everything to ensure a secure supply of natural gas following Russia鈥檚 invasion of Ukraine. It also featured a contribution from the Group Director of the chemicals company INEOS who said his company backed the development of fracking because it believed the UK鈥檚 store of shale gas could turn out to be 鈥渁s big as the North Sea鈥. The ECU did not therefore agree with the complainant that no attempt had been made 鈥渢o analyse the reasoning why the Government (and many members of the public) see sense in making use of all locally available sources of gas (including fracking)鈥.
Not Upheld