One of my favourite publications is Overland, which proudly carries this endorsement from The Australian editorialists on its back cover - “One of Australia’s loopy-Left little magazines”. The latest issue features a cracker of an investigative story by Katherine Wilson, which you can read online [link to pdf]. Wilson attended a seminar at which Liberal staffers, corporate PR types and thinktank types gathered to learn how to counter NGOs and activists. It’s a very interesting story indeed - exposing some of the networks and tactics which contribute to climate change denialism, among other causes of the now proudly mainstream loopy-Right.
“It’s a very interesting story indeed - exposing some of the networks and tactics which contribute to climate change denialism…”
One day, history will record those who actively deny climate change for self-interested reasons as being extremely negative, along with the way in which they’ve been able to influence policy. Unfortunately, those who do this are probably not even aware of the real potential consequences of climate change.
Sacha, you would think the deniers are going to be terribly embarrassed in their own lifetimes. But these people are beyond embarrassment. WMD-believers like pro-war Greg Sheridan never seemed to get embarrassed about past contradictions.
If the article is going to call CIS astroturf then it’s a load of outrageous rubbish as CIS has barely touched the global warming stuff.
Are you alleging by endorsing this article, Mark, that the CIS produced astroturf and therefore, Andrew Norton,a CIS employee, for instance, produces astroturf?
Andrew Norton has the same opinions about education when he has his CIS stuff off as when he puts his CIS hat on. Can the bloody moron and coward who wrote this article please name some names - who is paying Andrew Norton for his articles on education reform which he has been writing ever since the beginning of time and which he writes voluntarily in his own free time on the catallaxy blog? Let’s have more details about these cowardly academics making these claims who refuse to engage ideas as opposed to personalities.
This is the classic leftist ploy to discredit alternative opinions - if you are working for the university system and espouse pro-market ideas, then accuse the person of being a ‘hypocrite’ because he is working in a university which is government funded. If the person works for a privately funded non-profit organisation and espouses the same ideas, then accuse them of producing astroturf. Heads you win, tails you win.
I happen to know some IPA people and can assure you that they are wild-eyed libertarians who genuinely believe what they write.
Jason - I said it was an interesting story worth reading. I’m not alleging anything, and certainly not about Andrew Norton, for whom I have a lot of time.
Well I think it’s a very poor piece of reportage if it’s repeating totally unfounded allegations about at least one of these think-tanks (the CIS). It has totally no understanding of how think tanks work.
Now of course if the CIS produces a paper about GMOs (which so far it has never) the author of this rubbish is going to say Monsanto must’ve paid for the paper - but the way it works is that someone who is formally or loosely associated with the CIS (including me, I have had ideas about papers to write in the past), gets an idea for a paper, runs it past the Centre, it gets peer reviewed and published. But according to the ridiculous conspiracy theory thinking behind this reportage, people can only hold non-left ideas because they’re paid for them.
Jason Soon says:
“Let’s have more details about these cowardly academics making these claims who refuse to engage ideas as opposed to personalities.”
Oh for fuck suck- only 10 minutes you said I should get a yellow card for naming one of these “cowardly academics”.
Hasn’t Norton banged on about Leftism in universities?
Norton has a CIS job because he does the job the puppeteers expect of him- the fact that they needn’t actually pull the strings is beside the point.
Jason, the article actually said that those ALLEGED to be astroturf include the CIS. It didn’t itself claim this.
And it NEVER said the CIS “has touched the global warming stuff.”
Comment held up in moderation, Mark.
Steve Munn, you have no academic distinction to speak of, no point engaging with the likes of you. Ypu’re a mediocrity with nothing to contribute.
Many years ago, I wrote a paper on reform of taxi regulation. It even got cited by the Productivity Commission. But I guess it must be astroturf, funded by …..?????
I think those alleged to be Astroturf by some academics also include organisations such as SANE Australia. This is not to say such organisations do only bad work, but the fact that they’re funded by pharmaceutical companies obviously heavily influences their output. I think there’s some debate as to whether astroturf is purely front organisations. I don’t know whether or not the CIS discloses its funding sources, but the IPA certainly is very secretive.
Describing the CIS as astroturf is silly even if you think they are merely industry shills. Astroturf is about pretending to be grass roots organizations of activists where as the CIS is pretty upfront about what its direction is and doesn’t pretend to be grassroots as far as I can tell.
Funnily enough it seems to be the same sort of language games as conflating activists with security threats.
Steve
The same can be said about the IPA. It ‘is pretty upfront about what its direction is and doesn’t pretend to be grassroots as far as I can tell.’
Now, let’s analyse Steve Munn’s point here:’Norton has a CIS job because he does the job the puppeteers expect of him- the fact that they needn’t actually pull the strings is beside the point. ‘
Now, even if this is true, it renders the whole astroturf point irrelevant. That is the precise description of a left leaning academic who starts off with a presumption that his political perspective is the correct one, and this bias slants his conclusions *as do the writings of anyone else who starts off with a presumption* WHICH HAPPENS TO BE MORE OR LESS EVERYONE. The funding source of the institute is neither here nor there. If they do their work well, then they only make plausible claims and gain credibility. If they allow their biases to go too far, they make implausible claims and lose credibility.
I still find it laughable this theory that you must be paid to hold a non-left opinion - for chrisssakes isn’t the proliferation of conservative/libertarian blogs proof to the contrary? or is that evidence of astroturf too? The inability of the left to believe that people can genuinely hold other opinions is just absurd.
Of course they were bored. They practise this stuff already.
This is a very important article.
CIS and the IPA are not astroturf.
It pisses me off that this Canadian quidnunc carries on about transparency yet the above organisations refuse to disclose their funding sources.
I would like to see legisaltion that forces think tanks to disclose their funding sources.
Its also a bit fucked up that Right think tanks seem to attract 10-20 times the funding of Left think tanks. This isn’t a level playing field.
Anyway, I’m really cranky at the moment. I’ve had bad insomnia for three days and I’m probably just rambling incoherently.
I think I’ll step outside and count the neighbour’s sheep.
Fair enough, Steve. Sorry I blew up at you. CIS does disclose its funding sources.
Anyway, the shorter me:
“Does anyone seriously believe that Graeme Bird gets funding from Exxon?’
Frankly I thought the main point of the article was the way in which Irvine’s workshop provides not the shrill nonsense one expects from the right, but the tools with which to see legislation such as the Draft Charities Bill put to its intended use of shutting down any alternative voices to Thatcher’s vision of a world “where there is no society, only individuals”
These people are playing for keeps, and we simply lack the legislative protection that other western democracies have in place. Astroturfing has been banned in something like 18 states in the US, yet here…. “Costello’s people, sitting up the back, said nothing. They looked bored.” After ten years of Howardfuturespeak and a controlling interest in the Senate, I’m surprised they wasted the $595.
& which broadsheet pulled the article? Mmmmmmm?
I dont much care for opposition research unless and untill the researcher engages and refutes the opposition’s core intellectual ideas using the methods of science.
Critics of global warming denial astroturf think tanks have done this. Critics of neo-liberal, early neo-conservative and neo-Darwinist think tanks have not.
In any case both sides can play this game.
The New Left’s “long march” through cultural institutions has turned many humanities and social science departments into astroturf fronts for identity political rackets. Guys like Gramsci and Marcuse were quite open about this.
The New Right decided to copy this technique by creating its own alternative academic universe through funding libertarian, conservative and militarist think tanks. I dont see much harm, and some good, in these think tanks so long as they steer clear of political power. Certainly the IPA in the UK and the Manhattan Institute in the US were miles ahead of academic thinking during their hay day.
Ideally, public intellectuals should be men of independent means. Academics should avoid partisan political committments and ideological infatuations. If they want to enter the political fray they should, as Orwell advised, do so as guerillas rather than marching lock step in the big battalions.
“Climate Change Denialism” Ho Ho yeah good one.
What commie leftist projection are you on about now?
Pretty convenient for you thieves to keep this one going one supposes.
I bitterly disagree with a lot (most, even) of the stuff that comes from the CIS, but it is a gross libel to to call them “astroturf”. In fact they are rightly proud of their transparency, independence and tolerance of unorthodoxy (so long as the writer is vaguely free market).
The CIS’ writers usually infuriate me because I question their values, not their integrity. I wish I could say the same of Wilson’s article.
It’s not so much a libel to question the IPA’s independence by describing them as astroturf as it is an inaccuracy. Sure they generally toe their sponsor’s line (and that often really hurts the quality of their work), but they don’t pose as a grass-roots operation. An astroturf operation corresponds to what the right used to call “a communist front”. We have few of them here (thank god) and the IPA’s not one..
“Steve Munn, you have no academic distinction to speak of, no point engaging with the likes of you. Ypu’re a mediocrity with nothing to contribute.”
Is this arrogance? And if so Left or Right?
Jason, this was not a good look!
I agree with WPD that Jason sounds uncharacteristically - disappointingly - ad hominem here. I hope that my opinions aren’t routinely ignored because I’m not a published academic.
Ignore me on my merits!!!
wpd, why don’t you take on Steve Munn for calling Andrew Norton a puppet?
I have already apologised.
I was very pissed off by the likes of Munn and Wilson, who as far as I know, have never done any original piece of substantive intellectual research in their life (unless you count hack journalism written while working as a PR flack - it’s clear to Blind Freddy who weathergirl is now given they have the same obsessions and writing styles) attacking the intellectual integrity of others who have.
It’s perhaps not surprising that someone who can only find a job in private enterprise as a PR flack, pushing things they don’t even agree with and barely understand might come to attribute totally mercenary motives to people with a publications record who happen to not actually hate capitalism and are the same time not forced to be PR mercenaries (a species that I personally despite my libertarian inclinations look down my nose at along with telemarketers).
FDB
I think I’ve already made it clear from my previous comment the context behind my blast at SM. The whole article is ad hominem and SM’s blast at Andrew Norton was totally ad hominem.
Jason, my respect for you has been restored. But your comments do suggest an underlying arrogance, which tends to be typical of contributors to this site.
But then again, the intellectual horsepower contributed to this
site is about as good as it gets.
Arrogance is not so bad if there is some basis. And on this site it is there in spades.
Just sayin…
Has anyone read Sharon Beder’s “Global Spin: the Corporate Assault on Environmentalism”?
It was so depressing I stopped reading half way through.
As I say, we don’t have a level playing field or a free market. In the market place of ideas we have an oligopoly dominated by the Right.
I suspect there are many people on the Left capable of producing great ideas but we are unlikely to ever hear them because there is no-one to pay the piper.
“Sacha, you would think the deniers are going to be terribly embarrassed in their own lifetimes. But these people are beyond embarrassment. WMD-believers like pro-war Greg Sheridan never seemed to get embarrassed about past contradictions.”
What are you talking about Weathergirl. There was no WMD scandal. And CO2 is good. You certainly haven’t been able to counter these two propositions.
The emporer has no clothes in these cases.
“Norton has a CIS job because he does the job the puppeteers expect of him- the fact that they needn’t actually pull the strings is beside the point.”
Just remember Jason when you want me to be civil to these guys that this is what they think of you. And why wouldn’t they? The guild of thieves has got you corralled and always giving them the benefit of the doubt. Remember how Norton used to freak out if I even criticised one of these slave-philosophers? And you were the same.
They had you housetrained man. So why would they give you even the slightest respect. No wonder they assume you are some sort of puppet on a string.
I agree with Jason: the IPA and CIS are not Astroturf. And to be honest, I think the furore caused by someone’s (I can’t be bothered re-reading all the replies) conflating the two is pretty counter-productive. It’s clear the thrust of the article is about someone coming here to instruct others in setting up astroturf organisations / activities. And that is what we should worry about.
The problem with the IPA and CIS is that they appear to me at least to have a disproportionate share of government attention and approval which they screen with constant complaints about the alleged stranglehold which so-called “leftist” ideas on society. How long has it been since any remotely “leftist” idea has come withing cooee of the corridors of power?
“I was very pissed off by the likes of Munn and Wilson, who as far as I know, have never done any original piece of substantive intellectual research in their life (unless you count hack journalism written while working as a PR flack - it’s clear to Blind Freddy who weathergirl is now given they have the same obsessions and writing styles) attacking the intellectual integrity of others who have.”
Oh FFS Jason, we’ve got to have PhDs before we can comment? I normally find your contributions reasoned and thought-provoking even if I don’t always agree with them. But, really, you’re coming across as an absolute prat. Give it a rest.
And BTW I found Wilson’s article interesting and well-written, essentially exposing Irvine as a hucksetr.
And his website is indeed reeking of the bollocks.
I chose not to renew my Overland subscription.
Partly it was because of mendacious reviews like that one that totally misunderstood the other lot’s think tanks and quasi-social movements, and misunderstood actual ideological difference and class enmity, mistaking it for underhandedness. There’s nothing inherently wrong with the corporate bastardry that goes along with Gordon Gecko capitalism, that’s what they’re supposed to do, and the rest of us organise as we can. Apart from the vulgar Marxism and uncritical petty fixations on so-called ‘democratic’ instruments like the Public Service it’s still a pretty good magazine, far better than Arena.
…
No, the main reason I didn’t renew Overland was the fucking horrible poetry.
Although I appreciate cruelty when I read it, especially from Ian Syson, whose turn of phrase is often brilliant. Of whom does this paragraph remind this blog’s readers?
Hmmm, maybe I can skip the poetry for the sheer nastiness. Yeah.
What absolute twaddle!
$600 for this seminar? What did they learn? Nothing they couldn’t have picked up the perusal of a few Piers Ackerman and Andrew Bolt columns. Man, they got totally conned by someone who told most of them exactly what they wanted to hear.
Yeah, link grannies with terrorists groups because they’ve complained to the council about a neighbourhood chemical plant that has poisoned their roses.
This is some kind of academia, is it?
It’s very simply for corporations to save millions on law suits and PR. Don’t destroy the environment, don’t take advantage of people, show respect to anybody who is reasonably likely to be affected by your grand plans and don’t poison people. Is that too much to ask?
Pro-conservation corporatism is already proving immensely profitable, and popular, across the world. To go backwards, to return to the super-exploitation of the past is just asking for trouble that you will surely get, and rightly deserve, regardless of how much you spend on shoddy seminars trying to learn how to fight activists.
Anybody want to buy a $500 ticket to my new seminar? It’s called “You Are So Right About Everything And Everyone Who Doesn’t Agree With You Is A HippyLeftieWanker”.
I disagree, wpd. What basis do you make that comment on? I think we vigorously disagree with each other, and occasionally get snarky in the process, but I hope that we’re generally good humoured about it. I mean, we even like Comrade Graeme and some of us were quite fond of EP. Well, me, anyway. But my general point is that this forum we’ve built here at LP attracts all sorts of different debaters, from all sorts of different perspectives, and though we might violently disagree with others at some points, there’s also a lot of camaraderie and good feeling created by the site.
FWIW, I haven’t yet read the article from Overland linked to, but I’ve read others of Katherine Wilson’s before, and I like her work.
I’d never heard of the “Astroturf” thing before - as in not knowing what it meant. So I’ve learnt something. But with reference to the points Jason has made, I think the CIS and IPA have different styles and levels of cred. The CIS I think often have a point to make, and do so in a fairly disinterested way, given their beliefs. The IPA seem like a bunch of shrill nutters who put out papers on tax policy ranting about theft, blah blah in a sort of more intelligent version of Comrade Graeme’s nonsense. John Roskam’s columns in the Fin, are usually extremely partisan and arguing a pro-Liberal point of view while the Andrew Nortons of the world are intellectually honest and argue their view without being afraid to criticise Australia’s biggest taxing and most welfarist government, the Howard Liberals.
So I think perhaps Ms Wilson ought to have made a bit of a distinction there. Not to do so devalues her point.
Anyway, Mr Mark’s flatmate is off catsitting and I’ve been Marksitting in case he gets lonely and he’s finally come home from some sort of Alibi Room expedition, so Kimberella will now sign off…
With all due respect to Comrade Bird, Jason, Exxon could better spend their money on a more coherent commenter. If that’s what they wanted to do.
Dunno, Liam, who do you reckon?
An example of an astroturf organization is the Australian Environmental Foundation.
Thanks, Tim. What’s the origin of the term “astroturf” in this context?
Liam. Heh.
I had Mr now Dr Syson as a tutor when I was a UQ undergrad for an English subject. Also Lefty E was my first year politics tutor. But Lefty E doesn’t remember me! The shame of it all! I put it down to too large class sizes!
The IPA may not be an astroturf, but it supports other astroturfs ideologically. I’ll wager it’s the same with the CIS. Let’s see the lying bastards lie their way out of this.
Jack, by “men” do you mean to write “humanity” or don’t you believe women can be either public or intellectuals or both?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing
Thanks, silkworm.
I wanted to sign my name to that comment as well.
Kim, Im sure I would have remembered you. Are you quite positive I was your tutor?
Yes, good piece by Kath Wilson. Im mostly stunned that they´re silly enough to pay 600 bucks to hear that sort of half-arsed rubbish from PR conmen. Still, good to know their tactics, and if you got busted peddling a ‘how to’ on loopy, fruitcake, fringe whacko climate denialism, well, try to take it with grace. You deserved to be busted. Its in the greater good that you fail. You are wasting everyone’s time, and it time to shuffle off with the other discredited flat earth losers.
Well.
Jason Soon is very perceptive. While he’s wrong that I’m a PR flack with no academic record (Google my name and you’ll get a million Katherine Wilsons doing various work), he’s right about one thing.
Yes, I wrote the article. I’m out and proud.
Fancy. Coming out on LP at 3:30am.
Now. The CIS point. I didn’t write that the CIS was Astroturf. I simply accurately reported that the CIS was alleged to be Astroturf. This was on public record at the time of writing my article. It is also in my interview notes.
But I think Jason Soon has a good point. It was a mistake to report this within this particular article, not least because it seems to have distracted people from the (very important) message of the whole article. And the whole article, the representation of what occurred at the IPA seminar, was accurate, which is why I point out to readers that, if they wish to verify everything that was reported, they can request an electronic recording of it, which I gained with permission but which is not, as far as I know, for broadcast.
Is the CIS Astroturf? Now I’ve thought about it & discussed it with Mark, I think not. There’s a distinction to be made between front groups and groups that, directly or indirectly, are industry mouthpieces or freemarket lobbyists. I don’t like the “work” the CIS does, but that doesn’t make it Astroturf. Nor do industry connections in and of themselves suggest dishonesty. I’ve read Paul Norton’s comments and, while I generally don’t agree, I think he has valuable, well-reasoned and honest things to contribute. I’ve met one other CIS staffer, on the other hand, and I believe him to be a blinkered ideologue and a, well, shall we say, fibber.
And despite not liking the work the CIS does, it’s not quite the same beast as the IPA. The IPA I would classify as Astroturf, simply because it is a front group that poses as an independent research body but fails to disclose its funding sources (which are nonetheless well-known). It’s unaccountable and untransparent — the very thing it accuses NGOs of being. (It also accuses NGOs of being undemocratic and having disproportionate influence on government. The evidence shows NGOs have widespread electoral support and minimal influence on government.) This is important because it enjoys disproportionate representation in the media. I don’t believe it should enjoy any. In my mind the IPA is a glorified PR agency.
Aside from all this, I’m prepared to defend everything I wrote in the article because, as you might observe for yourself from the recording and the quoted references, it’s the truth. (I’m also prepared to admit to any possible errors.) But the feature had to be accurate, as there are libel laws to fear and reputations to uphold (mine, I’m talking about). And everything I’ve reported is verifiable on the recording. I also have written verification from those who attended the workshop who were every bit as appalled as me. I have named these people in the article.
weathergirl, good on you. We live in a climate (and there’s a bit of an allusion to climate change there…) where the truth cannot be spoken, because of the sort of corporate/media love-ins that you document in the piece. But we have to chip away, piece by piece of a seemingly impenetrable rock, to try to change that climate. Speaking truth to power is like Max Weber said about politics, like drilling through hard boards. So I, for one, applaud the work you’re doing.
weathergirl, Jason’s reputation for perspicacity is well deserved. I echo Kim’s comment. Although I think that it’s clear that I’d also draw a bit of a distinction between the loopy right of the IPA (as I said in the post) and the CIS, who as Kim said, have the courage of their convictions (and her comparison of Roskam and Andrew Norton is to the point), we do need to know and read about what lies behind the presentation or representation of corporate and conservative interest in the media. And Overland, as I also argued (and I’m very fond of the mag, which under Ian Syson’s editorship, published my first ever non-student media piece, an unfavourable review of Mark Latham’s Civilising Global Capitalism back in 1998), provides a very important and worthwhile counterpoint to the dominant media voices. And one to which you contributed, I might say, as an editor.
Cheers, Kim. I hope your gravitar is an accurate depiction of what you hold in your hand, right now.
Oh, weathergirl, I think you mean to refer to Andrew Norton in your comment. Paul Norton shares a surname but is an LP blogger and a Green Party member and very far from the CIS.
Thanks, Mark. I think at this late hour you mixed up the order of the IPA & CIS, but the message is clear. (I think the latter should adamantly distance itself from the lunatic fringe of the former.)
weathergirl - heh.
Not quite accurate. C.L. was kind enough to draw my gravatar from a photo - where I’m pictured toasting the world at large with a glass of red wine. But I now have a tumbler full of Glenfiddich in my hand as I listen to “Blade Runner Blues”. It’s that hour of the dark Brisvegas night where warm bodies and warm scotch go hand in hand. Just choosin my words carefully… as I know you’re doing!
Ooops, yes, Mark. I did. Sorry Paul.
Oopsy, yes, thanks, weathergirl, I did indeed mix up the order. Mutual correction time! I’ve exercised an editor’s privilege and corrected my comment accordingly. As Kim says, it’s a dark Brisvegas night, the candles are lit, and perhaps the last dram of Glenfiddich before retiring does not conduce to accuracy.
Cripes… go to bed you lot. Its 830pm here in Copenhagen, so it must be well and truly beddy bo-bos for Brisvegans.
Me, Im off to have Fynsk Ale. Mmmm, fynsk.
“The IPA seem like a bunch of shrill nutters who put out papers on tax policy ranting about theft, blah blah in a sort of more intelligent version of Comrade Graeme’s nonsense.”
Come on sister. If you want to dispute something I’ve said off with the moderation and lets thrash it out. May the best Lesbian win.
Well, Lefty E, it’s encroaching on 5am.
Only been to Denmark once. The beer is far too expensive! Some sort of legacy of mad Nordic Lutheran puritanism!
GMB, I wasn’t aware you’d said anything. But let me assure you I’m the best lesbian. Since you asked. I’m not sure why.
I find the IPA despicable. I would like to kick Roskam in the nuts. I had a heart palpitation when I found out “The Age” had taken him on board as an op-ed writer.
But the IPA does NOT meet the definition of Astroturf. Let’s not be sloppy with our terminology. The IPA does NOT pretend to be a grass roots, moms and pops type of organisation.
Sorry for being a pedant.
Let me again say that Sharon Beder’s expose on corporate fronts and astroturf - “Global Spin: The Corportate Assault on Environmentalism” is an absolute ripper.
Not surprisingly, the IPA describe Sharon’s book as “vile”.
ps I usually think Far Left types are wankers but Sharon Beder is an exception. I would like to see and hear more from her.
Jason Soon:
The cheque bounced?
OK, I withdraw my more un-civil remarks about Weathergirl. I think if she had left out the gratuitous potshots by Sharon Beder at the think tanks instead of conflating the issue with genuine astroturf, she would have had a better article.
Bill Posters - you are welcome to take a look at the CIS publications record
http://www.cis.org.au/
Of late their output has been in family policy, welfare and education. Some CIS supporters, including myself, have had a word to CIS people such Andrew about the need to broaden their research back to the good old days when there was significantly more output on economics and also to take a look at technological issues including GMO and the Internet.
But family and education has remained the CIS focus recently. The family stuff, to be honest, I am not a big fan of. Who do you think astrotufs that, Bill Posters? the Vatican?
“I think if she had left out the gratuitous potshots by Sharon Beder at the think tanks”
Then Jason your problem’s surely with Sharon Beder, not messenger weathergirl.
“…good old days when there was significantly more output on economics…”
We need yet more output on economics? Lord help us.
“The AEF’s spokesperson is Kersten Gentle, Victorian State Manager of Timber Communities Australia, another astroturf organization.”
TCA is the rebadged Forest Protection Society, a coalition of forest industry interests (including companies, unions, government forestry departments and sympathetic scientists) which formed in 1987, and which arose in turn from the tripartite coalition of logging interests which came together under the auspices of the Forest and Forest Products Industry Council, which was one of the tripartite bodies created by the Hawke government pursuant to its Accord with the ACTU. The ACTU under the leadership of Bill Kelty, Simon Crean and Martin Ferguson played a generally reactionary role on forestry policy in particular, and environmental issues in general, during the 1980s. Things have improved under the current leadership.
The use of the term “timber” rather than “forest” in the TCA’s name is possibly intended to promote the impression that Australian native forests are mostly harvested for timber rather than woodchips and wood pulp.
The TCA’s 2006 National Conference was held in May. The keynote speaker was the notorious greenhouse denialist Bob Carter. See http://www.tca.org.au/TCA_home.html
Yeah, enough chick shit from the CIS I say.
Bring back proper economics! For proper Blokes!
Go weathergirl. But i still wanna know who pulled it? & has the TCA any role/part in the Gunns 20 case? & you have to wonder about the professionalsim of a PR industry that allows its members to design & orchestrate campaigns based on deception. Isn’t there something somewhere about dishonest or false advertising? Or did that get swept away in Howard’s shiny new Oz as well?
& what’s the response to Natasha Cica’s piece out there in LPblogville?
& further to responses to journals - Amanda Lohrey will be in discussion re her Quarterly essay “Voting for Jesus” at gleebooks in Sydney next Friday, the 7th at 6:30pm. Followed by Carmen Lawrence on “Fear & Politics” the Wednesday after.
Bernice, here’s a link which sheds some light on the relationship between Gunns and the TCA.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Timber_Communities_Australia
And here’s another suggesting a close kinship:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/items/200506/1397436.htm?tasmania
weathergirl/Katherine,
I “outed” you yesterday afternoon here http://paulwatson.blogspot.com/2006/06/activism-and-pr-theatrics-theres-great.html Re whether you’re a “PR flack”, your own Googled record says “yes” http://larvatusprodeo.net/2005/11/05/bloggers-beware/#comment-36163
Mildly puzzled as to why you used an alias as late as last night (on this comment thread of all places), but mainly intrigued by how you got such a cracker of a story. Both Mark and I (coincidentally) use the “undercover” word, but you give nothing away in your piece as to how come the usual suspects were so candid in your presence.
“Yeah, enough chick shit from the CIS I say.”
OT but Marie of Roumania read my mind. The only libertarian family policy is to have no policy and to let whatever combination of consenting adults enforce whatever contracts they want.
To bring it back on topic, this is the other aspect of the think-tank business which gets shrouded under this approach of treating each think tank like a hive mind with a particular objective. The community of supporters and donors associated with each think tank form a broad church, in this case of libertarians and conservatives who at times look askance at each other. And mediating these different tensions is the head of the think tank who ultimately sets the research agenda based on his view of priorities.
I think I should write an extended post at some stage about how the think tank and consulting business (with which there is some analogy but where the analogy actually works in favour of greater transparency by think tanks) actually work. To preface this, just remember that everytime you read a report by, say, Access Economics, it is actually directly commissioned by a private client. Yet participants in the debate still treat the case on its merits as there are forces at work which mean that excessively partisan ‘commissioned works’ just lose any credibility and therefore lose the raison d’etre of their commissioning. In the case of think tanks there isn’t even a profit motive or a ‘direct’ client and the client cannot sue the think tank if the right results are not attained - which means that think tank research, though it may be circumscribed by the philosophical prejudices of its self-selected contributors, is actually less likely than the respected albeit commissioned work of profit maximising commercial entities like Access Economics, to be even more directly contrary to the private motives of its patrons because it has substantially more discretion.
Correction: that should read
” think tank research, though it may be circumscribed by the philosophical prejudices of its self-selected contributors, is actually more likely than the respected albeit commissioned work of profit maximising commercial entities like Access Economics, to be even more directly contrary to the private motives of its patrons because it has substantially more discretion.
Jason, serious question: does the CIS list its corporate contributors anywhere? Can’t find it, but the website is a bit of a mess.
Jason said (many comments ago!): “I still find it laughable this theory that you must be paid to hold a non-left opinion - for chrisssakes isn’t the proliferation of conservative/libertarian blogs proof to the contrary? or is that evidence of astroturf too? The inability of the left to believe that people can genuinely hold other opinions is just absurd.”
I wouldn’t class myself as “left” and I’m not paid to hold my ideas!
Birdy - I havn’t “refuted” your claims about CO2 because it isn’t my job to do so and I do not have the knowledge/expertise to do so. Don’t claim that your ideas have merit just because no-one says they don’t. It’s obvious to me that you don’t even know that you don’t know much about it. I’m sorry - but I had to say this.
Eg - answer these questions for me: what are the effects of increasing temperatures on
(i) the Hadley cells,
(ii) the desert like regions on the Earth,
(iii) the temperature differentials in the oceans,
(iv) the ability of the ocean algae in regulating climate
More importantly, what is the effect of increasing temperature on the Earth’s ability to regulate climate?
And further - what effect do increasing temperatures have on the formation of clouds via the production of dimethyl sulphide by ocean algae?
What’s clear to me is that you don’t understand that the Earth system is complicated and tremendously hard to understand.
No idea where it is on their website, Bill but it is on most of their brochures.
Look, some of these companies actually *want* to be known for sponsoring certain programs. Years ago the CIS’ most successful research program, which produced some of this stuff I’m less interested in, was called ‘Taking Children Seriously’ and that’s where its initial family policy stuff came from. And there was a list of contributors for just this particular program - it included charitable trusts as well as companies that wanted to be known as family friendly.
Jason, you’re on hyperdrive with comments today - are you at work? I’m on my one day a fortnight off to do maths papers - now I’m going to do that!
Not at work today, Sacha, took day off to do some chores and other stuff but at my computer for a while.
Thanks Paul for the links, though I’m not sure whether thank is the right word. What really pisses me off about the tactics of the big players in the timber industry is the manner in which they manipulated & treated the small players. Groups like TCA recruit the subbies who fell & haul logs, encourage them to attend protest rallies etc etc but as has recently occurred in Tasmania, when the the poor buggers’ contracts are cancelled, leaving them with huge debts on plant & equipment & little prospect for other income sources, oddly enough the TCA is strangely silent on their plight.
As an end consumer of timber product in my professional life, I cannot begin to describe the immense frustration of having to deal with the consequences of a national forestry policy that is consumed with the needs of large players involved in resource provision aimed at high volume, low margin output, while crippling the ability to provide a sustainable supply of high quality wood product for the architectural & manufacturing areas. An area of timber provision that is high profit, high employing & would go some way to reducing the ridiculous importation of over 5 BILLION dollars of timber product into Australia.
“Years ago the CIS’ most successful research program, which produced some of this stuff I’m less interested in, was called ‘Taking Children Seriously’ and that’s where its initial family policy stuff came from.”
I remember it well - Lucy Sullivan’s infamous attempts to deduce causation from correlations between the incidence of working motherhood and ex nuptial births on one hand, and rising crime on the other. She sent me a dirty letter after I had a letter published in The Australian taking the piss out of her “findings”. I should really write back thanking her because she, more than any other individual, stimulated my own fascination with statistics on trends in work/family choices, family structures, fertility and the like.
Bernice, as the proud owner of a Fender acoustic guitar which is labelled “Made In China”, I think I know what you mean.
A case of my guitar gently weeps…………
A few points of clarification.
STEVE MUNN: I agree, Sharon Beder has published some magnificent work. Another great book of hers, about electricity wars, is called Power Play. But I’d be cautious of branding her on “the far left”. Why do you feel the need to categorise people this way? Simply because they scrutinise power? Is that what being left-wing means, or is that simply being an academic or journalist?
The other point that may be misleading in this thread is that I did not directly quote Sharon Beder alleging this about the CIS, possibibly with good reason. There were 3 sources I interviewed about Astroturf in Australia–Sharon Beder, Bob Burton, and another source who wishes to go unnamed. I also used what was already on public record (on sites like SourceWatch).
I’m in Brisbane at present, without my computer and notes, but when I return to Melbourne I can clarify where I sourced this allegation. It may not have been Beder.
BERNICE: I can’t say which broadsheet commissioned me. I got a handsome kill fee and that was the deal. (There was no gag clause.) As much as I’d like to believe it was sinister industry pressure or conspiracy that killed the story, I don’t necessarily think this is the case. The piece was commissioned by one section editor, and then taken on by another. It’s a long, protracted story, and by the time things were resolved it was stale news. Features get killed, for one reason or another.
PAUL WATSON: unfortunately I’m on a dodgy computer with zero bandwidth, and can’t access your links, but I assure you you can Google Katherine Wilson to your heart’s content and there will be confusion about it. One literary site has got me entirely wrong because there are so many of us, and at least two other writer Katherine Wilsons. I have a very common name.
How did I end up at the workshop? Well, kind of undercover but perfectly legitimate, and within the MEAA code of ethics. My friend, who runs a PR agency, found out about it (you can still find the ad online). I pitched a story to the broadsheet, which paid for me to attend. I’ve done work for my friend’s charitable clients before. I went in the capacity of her associate but I was upfront about being a freelance writer who wished to write a feature on the workshop. I even mentioned the publication. Irvine was certainly happy for me to report him. I got permission from the PRIA to record. Fortunately, the ethics of this are watertight, as I have my correspondence with these people in email files. They’re confidential, of course, but if I’m challenged I can whip them out for all to see. And the PRIA themselves made a video recording of the event, which is actually available for sale (you hear, people working in television?). I don’t think this story is done with yet.
I was gobsmacked at getting the material I got - not because I didn’t know these things go on, but that they were discussed so openly. (It’s hard, mind you, to get across some of the inflection and mood: when the PACIA guy said those things about “gay-lesbians” some people laughed at him. The recording, if you want to hear it, would give you an idea.) But I suppose I was very suited-up for the event & they felt they were safe with a smallish, corporate-looking chick with a state-of-the-art computer and fashionable haircut. How could she possibly be on the side of activists?