Not content with being on the ABC board, Janet Albrechtsen also wants to single out individual ABC journalists for public praise or censure depending on their political opinions.
In this column, the Board member gives Chris Uhlmann the thumbs up, and Barrie Cassidy the thumbs down, for their recent comments on Insiders:
On this front, the ABC’s Chris Uhlmann stands out as a rarity in journalism. He provides the sort of skeptical, rational analysis rarely seen in some media circles…
…Sadly, even more striking than Uhlmann’s genuinely inquiring journalistic analysis was the response by Insider’s host, Barry (sic) Cassidy, to Uhlmann’s comments. Making it clear how far Uhlmann had strayed from journalistic orthodoxy, Cassidy thanked him – with a laugh – for “a very unique perspective.”
Is the impartiality of the ABC Board damaged when a member expresses approval or disapproval of ABC employees’ views, from behind the fig-leaf of a News Ltd. column?
Should be an interesting next meeting…
The prostitution of the national broadcaster for and by the neocons is a shameful disgrace. On the one hand they tell us they are ideologically against public enterprise – and on the other they cannot climb onto and seek to steer the bandwagon fast enough.
Sooner a broom is put through the Board, and the necon limpet hangers-on, the better.
The Board member seems to have overstepped the mark here. I can only wonder what she’s been saying or writing in private?
And if she can’t even get his name right, what else is she getting wrong?
Uhlmann’s comments about the “theological” nature of anthropogenic global warming on The Insiders astounded me. How can a so called investigative reporter completely dismiss all of the scientific evidence, as well as the 540-odd page Garnaut Report, out of hand with such complete disregard.
Shocking.
Stealing oxygen as always is our Janet. I suggest we no longer inhale.
Like, um … the snow on the ski-fields isn’t already disappearing? I, Ikniw it is acrual some vast left wing conspiracy engineered by evil left wingers on the ABC who went to all the trouble of creating a set of Thredbo without snow just to scare us. Or maybe they just broadcast picrures of Thredbo in autumn before the snow fell and seaid it was winter?
– Will Rudd turf ALL the neocons on the ABC Board as soon as the Senate goes back? Kev, its time for a serious de-Howardification of Auatralia, in the public service, in statutuary authorities and through a repeal of ALL of Howard’s evil legislation.
After all, that’s what Howard did to Labor.
Is the impartiality of the ABC Board damaged when a member expresses approval or disapproval of ABC employees’ views, from behind the fig-leaf of a News Ltd. column?
Possibly, but I think it’s really an attack on the professionalism of the ABC. It’s like a manager attacking or abusing an employee in public. It’s just not done – not if one want to preserve company morale. If there’s an issue with staff, it should be done in private – preferably in an office with doors closed.
But you just have to have listened to Chris Uhlmann on ABC Canberra morning radio up to when he left for TV to know that there’s nothing objective or unbiased about him. He was clearly and unashamedly a Liberal supporter in the late 90s and early 2000s. No wonder Janet likes him! Nothing professional about him as far as I’m concerned.
“Uhlmann’s comments about the “theological” nature of anthropogenic global warming on The Insiders astounded me. How can a so called investigative reporter completely dismiss all of the scientific evidence, as well as the 540-odd page Garnaut Report, out of hand with such complete disregard.”
He didn’t “completely dismiss” anything. Here’s what he said:
“As a former seminarian one of the things that strikes me most strongly about this debate is its theological nature and that’s essentially that we’ve sinned against the environment, that we are now being punished and the only way we can escape that punishment is to wear a hair shirt for the rest of our lives and hope that in the next lives, in the lives of our children and our children’s children things will get better. Now I am willing to sign up for that but this is a very long caravan and there are a lot of lunatics attached to the end of it. I do not believe every proposition that has been put. When the weather department can tell me what the weather’s going to be like next Friday with any certainty and treasury can get within a million dollars of what the surplus is going to be next year, I’ll believe an economic model that marries those two things and casts them out over a hundred years. I’ll make one prediction that whatever number Garnaut puts on where we’ll be in 2100 it will be at least a trillion dollars either way wrong.”
Thanks for that Geoff. It’s actually worse than I thought, particularly the peurile argument re the failure to predict the weather next Friday.
So why is it a bad thing to have at least one reporter at the ABC who announces scepticism of such a massive scheme, and the rush to offshore any polluting industries?
Apart from the “great global warming swindle”, which was presented with a pro-AGW talking heads session at the end the ABC has so far failed to do a lot of critical looking at either the science, or more critical, the policy coming from the AGW groups.
It should be fairly telling that in the 4 or so years of AGW becoming mainstream this is possibly only the 2nd time a member of the ABC has voiced any concern. And that was based on the political and “cure” side of things, not on AGW itself.
Yeah, Mole, we need more ABC reporters balancing truth with falsehood?
Why bother turfing Windschuttle, Albrechtsen et al from the ABC? Their influence was pretty minimal when they had a sympathetic government, and is even less so now.
Broader “DeHowardification” would be pointless. The governemnt would only create more animosity in the public service and statutory bodies. As history often shows, the enablers of even the worst regimes become happy to serve the new top dogs when they assume power.
Furthermore Rudd does need to do some heavy lifting with a few new projects (i.e. that ETS thingy) which it would be useful to have as people on board for as possible.
Folks, sorry to do some comment policing, but I want to keep this thread on the topic of the ABC Board, impartiality, and what it means for a Board member to be publicly playing favourites with ABC journalists on political questions.
If you want to debate the climate change arguments, there’s only seventeen million three hundred and sixty-eight thousand seven hundred and forty-nine other internet threads where you can do that. They’re all terribly fascinating and not at all repetitive, really. Enjoy.
Obviously trying to intimidate Cassidy and shape what he does, among other things.
Albrechtsen promised when she was appointed to the board that she would discontinue her campaign against the ABC. Perhaps that didn’t include attacking and praising particular ABC employees. But what happened to “responsibilities of directors” 101?
And Uhlmann has form as far as I’m concerned, having forced me to complain to the ABC on more than one occasion about his preposterous interviewing style (obsequious when interviewing Howard, aggressive bordering on outright hostility when interviewing Rudd).
Mole I suppose, will be happy when the ABC gives prominence to anti-AIDS campaigners and holocaust deniers. Nutters all.
“1.5 Unless individual Directors receive specific delegations from the Board they must refrain from participating in the day-to-day management of the organisation, making representations or agreements on its behalf, or influencing management as individuals.
2.3 No Director should act in a way likely to bring discredit to the organisation.”
Two clauses of the ABC Board Protocol that make interesting reading in light of the above.
Perhaps Ms Albrechtsen is daring the government to dismiss her?
The GGWS show picked out (some) faults with Gores movie.
Those errors were the point of the GGWS.
The ABC bookended the show with pro AGW shows.
That was the ABC realising it couldnt bury the show, but doing their best to editorialise against it anyway. And it would be difficult to call Tony Jones an impartial umpire in the panel show following the program either.
Why is it so difficult to get AGW people to realise its a theory in motion. Changes have and will continue to be made to the science as more info comes in. Thats not the same as dismissing it all out of hand. To die in a ditch defending errors of data which have been corrected weakens your case not strengthens it.
The ABC should be attempting to pick the Garnaut report apart for errors or mistakes, as should the opposition (and of course they will play them up and “we’ll all be roooined” blunders). Thats how mistakes and errors will be corrected, to rubber stamp it would be foolish.
The ABC shouldnt take sides, however it has failed to be critical so far, it would be refreshing to see them devote 1/10 the scrutiny to Garnauts report as they did to the immigration debate during Howards time.
Adrian @ 17: I think that’s a possibility. If Albrechtsen deliberately makes her position untenable by a sustained series of breaches of the Directors’ code, they’ll have to take some kind of action – leaving her free to bleat about how she was expelled from the Board for having a politically incorrect view or some rubbish. Instant martyr for the cause.
Another possibility is that she’s thinking of resigning the post anyway, and is getting ready to unload…
Maybe it’s also her lack of imagination. Only so many columns you can write about teh evil conservative judges, how feminism is teh evil, and now Mark Steyn is no longer being crucified by political correctness? Her range of topics is pretty limited.
Still, for someone who has a PhD in Law, she still continues to amaze with her ignorance of actual law and ethics…
What’s offensive is this notion that there is still room for debate about global warming. It’s tantamount to arguing over whether the Holocaust occured or whether the Earth is flat.
The fact is there is a mischievous and irrational right wing element, epitomised by Albrechtson and Uhlmann (a Liberal Party stooge), who argue that “objectivity” equates to denying known facts.
Presumably the loathsome Albrechtson will be happy only when the ABC is completely staffed by neo-con nutters like herself.
Rudd should have sacked her and the rest of Howard’s ugly culture warriros from day dot.
Uhlmann was asked for his opinion and obliged. It wasn’t reportage, so for mine the complaints about bias are off the mark. As for Albrechtsen failing to abide by the conventions of her position – hardly surprising – it’s not so much what she does, but her presence on the ABC Board that does the damage.
So what has the opinion of an ABC political journalist got to do with climate change, unless he was gibving his opinion of the politics of the situation – which he wasn’t.
It’s ludicrous!
on the Friday before the Gippsland by-election C.Uhllman appeared on the TV midday news show. He was asked a dorothy dixer by the host about whether the ETS was bocoming an issue. His answer was yes blah tough decisions blah blah blue-collar blah blah blah. He finished his comments by saying people in the region are having to come to terms with the fact that under an ETS assets (whose assets?? individuals, power retailers etc he didn’t say!!) would be reduced by 80%!!! Is this true, where did he get this figure. I have no idea myself although given my limited knowledge on this subject I acknowledge it could be true. However given the average homeowner in the Latrobe Valley could have been foregiven for thinking their house price would be cut by 80% by a ETS was it professional to allow a statement like this to go to air without any reference or qualification.
This sort of thing is inevitable when you have shows like “Insiders”. Why is it automatically assumed that “Insiders” – who are all actually journos or columnists – have an opinion on politics worth listening to? There’s actually a huge role conflict here that they would scarcely be aware of, I would think. Because they report political news, their opinions on politics matter. And of course, conversely, their opinions come to colour their reporting.
“Sadly, even more striking than Uhlmann’s genuinely inquiring journalistic analysis was the response by Insider’s host, Barry Cassidy, to Uhlmann’s comments. Making it clear how far Uhlmann had strayed from journalistic orthodoxy, Cassidy thanked him – with a laugh – for “a very unique perspective.”
Ms Albrechtsen obviously has a special psychic skill for determining dubious motive if Cassidy is to be damned for this three word comment.
What I suspect pissed her off more was his comments on the poisoned dewarf earlier on in the show, for “turning a complex issue like climate change into political pap in 48 hours”.(see it in the “a look at the paper section”)
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,23974940-5006301,00.html
This was the first time that Cassidy has had enough gutse to let the cat out of the bag that journalists like Milne, are involved in actually making and manipulating the news.
21. Mr Denmore
Point taken and not disputed with. However (to use your analogy), someone was to claim the figures of people killed was out by a large amount, or claim groups not affected were in order to ramp up the effects of the Holocaust Id expect them to be pulled up for it. If someone was to say 100,000 died its not denial to call them either wrong or a liar.
There are people who stand to make as well as lose massive amounts of cash from this policy, it would be foolish to assume all the AGW proponents are on the side of the angels. Large money attracts shonky dealers, regardless of the morality of the cause. The job of the ABC is to sort the shonky from the facts, if they take an unquestioning line then the shonks will prosper.
Even a partisan hack like Albechtson has a part to play. If the AGW models arent robust enough to counter her, then Id say it would be a pretty poor model to base a major economic set of changes on.
But, Mole, she doesn’t actually offer any criticism worth the name of the Garnaut Report. She just asserts it should be criticised.
“So what has the opinion of an ABC political journalist got to do with climate change, unless he was gibving his opinion of the politics of the situation – which he wasn’t.”
If you read his comments you’ll see that he was giving his opinion of the politics of the situation albeit in a singularly entertaining manner. It can be confronting and annoying not to have one’s opinions and prejudices confirmed on a constant basis but it is the way of the world, nevertheless.
It’s been amusing to watch Chris Uhlmann’s “known” persona move ever rightward as the comment thread lengthens. I’m picking that he’ll be a known LaRouchite by the time we hit 50
Mr Denmore wrote: “What’s offensive is this notion that there is still room for debate about global warming. It’s tantamount to arguing over whether the Holocaust occured or whether the Earth is flat.”
I disagree Mr Denmore. The thing about science is this: every statement, every hypothesis, every reported experimental observation, is open for debate, for criticism, for refinement, for rejection. It’s science, not poetry. It’s science, not theology. It’s science, not pronouncements by an infallible and omniscient being.
Even when a set of scientific propositions has majority support by well-qualified and knowledgeable scientists, that set of propositions can (and MUST) be tested, questioned, examined closely etc.
To say otherwise is, I believe, to take a “theological approach”.
cheerio
It is neither ‘confronting or annoying’ not to have my opinions or prejudices confirmed. In fact I like to have my opinions challenged when it is done so in an intelligent and informed manner. This unfortunately happens rarely.
What is extremely annoying is that a partisan hack like Uhlmann can infest the ABC with his opinions that are clearly beyond his area of expertise. I am old enough to remember when the ABC had journalists of integrity and impartiality, like Andrew Olle, that make Uhlmann look like the tired propagandist that he is.
And I suggest, Geoff, that if you really believe that he was giving an opinion on the politics of the situation and not on the report itself og climate change in general, you re-read the comments that you so kindly provided.
There is a willful misuse of the word ‘criticism’ that is rife around this issue.
I speak of the assumption that to believe the mainstream science on AGW means one isn’t looking critically at the evidence, and the converse – that one is only looking critically if one comes to negative conclusions.
Exactly. As if Garnaut’s report won’t be subjected to criticism. But there’s a difference between legitimate disagreement and critique, and head in the sand propaganda as Albrechtsen wants – which isn’t actually in the cause of “skepticism” but in the cause of energy companies who don’t want their “assets” devalued.
Ambigulous: that’s undoubtably true when the skeptics are climate scientists, making specific critiques or raising genuine questions of methodology.
When they’re industry-paid stooges and newspaper hacks endlessly recycling fallacious debunked arguments in a disingenous attempt to mislead and confuse, not so much.
“This unfortunately happens rarely”
I’m sure that’s so, adrian
I disagree with you on Uhlmann. He’s neither a “partisan hack” nor a “tired propagandist” in my view. In fact, I thought his Insiders contribution was a refreshing change from the ponderously self-important prognostications of “Dr” Kelly. The fact that Janet Albrechtson appears to have interpreted Barrie Cassidy’s delighted – and no doubt relieved – acknowledgement of same as, “Leftie dismissiveness,” is equally hilarious.
I don’t think you understand the job of a company’s Board of Directors, Mercurius. The Board is under no obligation whatsoever to be in any way impartial. A company Board of Directors’ brief is to make the company popular and profitable, by second-guessing the decisions of the CEO and seeing that the Shareholders interests are served, not the CEO’s. Nothing more.
If Albrechtsen see’s the shareholders (taxpayers) interest in a certain way, thats her job, thats why she is on the board. She has no obligation to be impartial regarding the way the company is run.
Furthermore, you don’t see many articles casting doubt and asserting the nonexistance of, say, gravity – despite the scientific shitfight over how the hell it works outside the Classical Limit.
There are thousands of points where scientific communities have achieved consensus and moved on, and Anthropogenic Global Warming is one of them – yet there is a concerted campaign to obscure this point.
So it’s a usual thing for board members of an organisation to criticise and praise employees of that organisation in their weekly newspaper column, Stephen?
Stephen,
The ABC board is NOT a company board, and has a far different set of criteria for it’s operation.
Stephen – what rot.
To make public statements designed to undermine customer confidence in the corporation’s product – this is appropriate behaviour for a Board member?
Stephen what a load of tosh – try reading the two extracts from the ABC Board Protocol that I posted @ 17.
If Albrechtsen see’s the shareholders (taxpayers) interest in a certain way, thats her job, thats why she is on the board. She has no obligation to be impartial regarding the way the company is run.
That’s not her problem. Her problem is that she doesn’t seem to know how to use her boardroom powers to make the ABC better (as she sees it). Instead, she’s carping at underlings from an external venue. She could say “these are problems with the ABC” without naming any particular employee. As a taxpayer, I should expect something like “And this is how we will make it better!”, even if I disagree with her views. Simply put, Janet is a shithouse CEO who doesn’t understand the responsibilities of her position, or how to use them.
She can be inside pissing out, or outside pissing in, but inside pissing in is just dumb.
This is typical Machiavellian BS emanating from the Murdoch camp (supposedly Mr. “Green” these days, Murdoch suddenly has no probs w/ promoting the so-called “independence” of his journos…yes, conveniently he lets them off the leash during the MELTDOWN…what a load of horse poo!…he’s playing it both ways…KERCHING!)…
I reckon this is partially a crafty, yet predictable move to try & save the butt of Barry Cassidy (Insiders has been BIASED and unbalanced under his guidance for ages now)…it’s another “strawman” argument…& in the process Albrechtson gets fed ideas on how to try & turn the Global Warming “censorship debate” on its head…
we all know that it was the Global Warming “skeptics” like the Busheviks & Howeirdians w/ the help of the Murdoch media & others, that did the CENSORING/GAGGING. The idea that somehow the corporate (benefitting & related to oil/coal/cars) media are robots/sheep promoting the views of the Garnauts is a load of RUBBISH. Look at the SKEPTICAL piece on Ch.9s Sunday program the Sunday before last.
This is just the media wank*rs who support the too oft enviro-damaging & war-creating energy industries trying to create confusion & undermine the change to alternative forms of energy. And they are painting a bogus picture for the public by using the very same arguments that WE used against them. Not an ORIGINAL idea in their heads.
Break the MIRRORS, blow away the FOG. And REMEMBER. Who were the ENABLERS? People don’t change their views/approach on a dime, usually. Not unless they are forced to, or playing GAMES. Or feel the need to REDEEM themselves. Or are able to rid themselves of the poison/conditioning somehow.
Barrie Cassidy…:) Think about it.
Except that’s not really what’s going on here. Concerns about scientific truth aren’t what’s driving the Albrechtons. The fact is these people are still fighting Howard’s culture wars and see in global warming an opportunity to wedge ‘the left’.
The problem is that that odious war is over and these people – and the rear vision-looking mainstream media giving them far too much oxygen – haven’t woken up to it.
Piping Shrike’s blog today makes this point better than I can.
Damned technology. Here’s the link:
http://thepipingshrike.blogspot.com/2008/07/crunch-time-update.html
Adrian, the two clauses you posted, only one of them is relevant to this conversation.
Clause 1.5 is the same with every corporation, it is a clause which delegates the board’s management powers to the CEO, and the directors have no individual power of agency, that is, a director by themselves cannot enter into agreements on behalf of the company as the board’s powers are only in a majority vote from all board members. The CEO can, because the CEO position embodies the collective power of all directors transferred to him for day to day management decisions.
The other clause you posted is definately relevant.
I would cheer if Media Watch went after Janet tonight
I hope the Rudd government moves away from the “lets stack the board” game of the last 50 years and insteads appoints people based on their history and dedication to broadcasting, but i wont hold my breath.
She’s a joke and a broken record; columns like this show she has nothing important to write about.
#6 Paul Burns
If I follow your argument: no snow on Thredbo is proof of global warming. In which case, these snowcams should adequately debunk it.
Too late I fear to post a comment, but…
Albrectsen needs to make a decision: whether she is on the Board of The ABC and thus shuts her public mouth, or whether she is a Murdoch journalist with definite opinions who can say and write what she likes.
It’s really as simple as that.
Pitting one journalist of decades of experience in all facets of the media against one who was a brekkie announcer a couple of years ago and has now been elevated above most of his longer serving, experienced and talented colleagues to a prime position of national reporting is a definite no-no.
And the thing is that Uhlmann gets it so damn wrong, so damn often.
His “House Of Cards” analogy regarding the Labor Party (a few months before they won last year’s election) was a memorable occasion. But there are plenty of others.
Albrechtsen is abusing her position, and has been for years. She can’t have it both ways: it’s either resign fromthe ABC and rave on a much as she likes, or shut her trap and do the job she is paid to do.
“I reckon this is partially a crafty, yet predictable move to try & save the butt of Barry Cassidy (Insiders has been BIASED and unbalanced under his guidance for ages now)…it’s another “strawman” argument…& in the process Albrechtson gets fed ideas on how to try & turn the Global Warming “censorship debate” on its head”
Of course! Thank god someone is on to their dastardly plan, nasking……
Yes Geoff, I reckon ol’ Nas has been overdoing it with Ockham’s Taser.
i.e. the most electrifying explanation is most likely to be true.
Do those in the Media in other countries waste so much page space and airtime indulging their bitchy little in-gripes?
.
Enquiring minds wanna know.
Yes, Cassidy once worked w/ Hawke. So did Graham Richardson.
“Moving to Washington, Cassidy worked as a correspondent for The Australian, owned by Rupert Murdoch. He returned to Australia, where he hosted a program on Network Ten called The Last Shout.”
(Wiki pedia)
Once Murdoch knows YOU…he KNOWS you.
There’s quite a few so called “die-hard Laborites” who make excuses for this media mogul & his crew who helped give us THE WAR. I wonder why? Even some Labor pollies who feel the need to promote that networking site.
The ABC board should not be run/overseen by individuals who have had influential positions in competing news companies…insider info, running campaigns, use of news shows to promote companies (showing of papers etc.)etc.
It’s NOT ON. Once upon a time when people really thought it thru they GOT THAT.
Some refreshing comments above. Some not.
I don’t want to see another Red Bee swarm. Look at the ever-growing, evolving, consuming BBC Corporation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC
Albrechtson & others shouldn’t be there in the first place. Conflict of interest, to begin with.
N’
As a board member or before, has Albrechtson ever published her vision for her preferences for the ABC? Any published views on suggested content, illustrative examples? Alternative programming ideas? Anything positive from her perspective as to how she would see the ABC to be?
Thing is you can’t bag Murdoch if you wanna win government in Oz. It’d be suicide – fact. Thing is the politicians brought that one down on themselves.
As I understand the situation, Rudd is waiting to put the legislation to parliament which will create an independent committee to recommend board members for both the ABC and SBS. If anyone goes early, a vacancy will be left until that sytem is in place. It also contains a staff rep on the ABC board; Conroy has already talked to Maurice Newman the chair about this to calm the horses since he resigned last time on this very issue.
There will also be a short, sharp enquiry into both broadcasters prior to the next triennial submissions according to everyone who claims to know anything. The issue is whether it will hear public submissions or not. I don’t think anything will be gained by opening it up yet again, since the positions are well know.
People tend to talk mostly about the ABC board, but SBS has slid towards commercialism as fast as its little legs will take it, and this is a question of policy, open to discussion.
Mr Denmore
Thanks, I wasn’t specifically referring to Prof Albrechtsen’s very learned views on anthropogenic climate change. I was referring to what I thought was your expressed view that a certain part of modern scientific enquiry is now closed and completed.
I believe that this is not the case, and that science’s main asset (apart from its delightfully logical and open and enquiring mind) is its determination NEVER to declare any part of its mighty edifice “complete”.
Everything should be “up for grabs”, I think. That’s not to say I believe in a Flat Earth. It’s also not to diagree with those who say that some of the climate warming “skeptics” spout utter bollocks. They misunderstand some of the physics for example.
cheerio
She’s Murdoch’s lackey on the ABC board there to facilitate an ideological “harmonising” of ABC TV, as an extension of the Murdoch Press. A sort giant de facto privatising of a public broadcasting entity without a dollar being paid, along lines suggested vis a vis the AUSFTA.
Uhlman is not atypical, he is a prototype for Murdoch TV, and when you read the drivel that spumes forth by the second from Murdoch Media, get alarmed.
Get- very- alarmed…
And don’t be deceived by the presence of Labor as inheritors of Howard’s plans. The likes of Costa, Iemma and other roosters ought to inform people of what real hope exists for public broadcasting surviving as broadsheet media for much longer, in our dying democracy.