Climate Misinformation on TalkTV Prompts Calls for Ofcom Action

In a significant escalation of tensions between media regulators and broadcasters, the Good Law Project has launched a formal challenge against Ofcom for allegedly failing to enforce broadcasting standards on climate change misinformation aired by Murdoch-owned TalkTV.

The legal campaign group claims Ofcom has neglected its regulatory duties by dismissing complaints about TalkTV broadcasts that included statements such as “CO₂ is not a threat to the planet” and assertions that climate science “doesn’t add up to a row of beans”—claims that directly contradict established scientific consensus.

One particularly notable incident occurred on July 24, when England recorded its hottest July on record. While the Met Office publicly stated it was “virtually certain” that human activity had increased both the likelihood and severity of the extreme heat, TalkTV host Alex Phillips—a former Brexit Party MEP and ex-GB News presenter—told viewers that the “climate has always changed,” employing what critics describe as a common rhetorical device used to minimize the impact of human-driven global warming.

An investigation by DeSmog previously identified at least 60 separate broadcast segments livestreamed under the TalkTV brand that included attacks on the UK government’s legally binding 2050 net zero emissions target. These segments frequently lacked balanced representation, with government officials rarely given an opportunity to respond to criticisms of their policies.

The broadcasts have often crossed into personal territory, according to the complaint. Presenters and guests have repeatedly directed insults toward Ed Miliband, the energy security and net zero secretary, labeling him as a “Marxist,” “madman,” “zealot,” “crazy,” and “gormless.” In one instance, host Kevin O’Sullivan reportedly responded to footage of Miliband speaking in Parliament by saying: “Oh shut up, you lunatic.”

The Good Law Project’s campaign, titled “Tell the regulator to stop climate misinformation,” contends that TalkTV has moved far beyond the boundaries of legitimate debate on climate policy. The group alleges the channel has “spewed false information” about climate science, characterized environmental concerns as “cultish,” and accused climate campaigners of deliberately manufacturing “false anxiety” and “scaring children about something that is not going to happen.”

Stop Funding Heat, a sister organization to Stop Funding Hate, had previously submitted formal complaints to Ofcom regarding these broadcasts. According to the Good Law Project, these complaints were dismissed without thorough investigation, a response they claim is inconsistent with Ofcom’s own broadcasting standards, which require news to be “reported with due accuracy and presented with due impartiality.”

The case highlights growing tensions between media regulators and broadcasters over how to handle climate change content. While Ofcom has maintained robust regulations around political impartiality and factual accuracy in news reporting, critics suggest these standards have not been consistently applied to scientific matters with significant public policy implications.

The issue speaks to broader challenges in media regulation as opinion-led programming continues to expand across British television. TalkTV, which launched in 2022, follows a format similar to that pioneered by GB News, combining news coverage with personality-driven commentary programs that often take strong editorial positions on contentious issues.

The Good Law Project has now written formally to Ofcom on behalf of Stop Funding Heat, demanding an explanation for the rejection of the complaints. The organization has indicated its willingness to pursue legal action if Ofcom’s response is deemed unsatisfactory.

Media analysts note this confrontation comes at a critical moment for climate policy in the UK, with the government’s net zero targets facing increased scrutiny and political pressure. How regulators handle climate misinformation could significantly impact public understanding and support for climate action in coming years.

For Ofcom, the case represents a test of its regulatory framework in an era where the boundaries between news, opinion, and entertainment continue to blur across broadcast media. Their response may set important precedents for how scientific issues are treated in broadcasting regulation going forward.