Lead buried
February 28th, 2010 by Phil | Published in Activism, Blogging, Climate change, Energy, Environment, Ethics, Markets, Media, Politics, The Web | 76 Comments
Drum Editor Jonathan Green appears to have capitulated to braying demands for a false balance.
Next week: The Drum-Unleashed will feature a series of pieces commissioned from noted writers on the sceptic side of the climate science debate. Included will be Alan Moran, Tom Switzer, Mark Hendriks, Bob Carter and Jo Nova.
My questions to him are these:
Will the commissions be drawn against the ABC’s editorial policies that demand information be factually accurate?
Or will he give these already widely published writers a pass and allow them to disseminate their speculative theories without them having been drawn against the scientific facts for accuracy prior to publication?
Will this opinion at the Drum defy gravity; somehow exempt from objective fact?
Update I: Alan Moran is first cab off the rank and sure enough there is at least one big misrepresentation. A total misquote of Phil Jones’ position on the pace of warming.
Warming itself has appeared to have stopped, perhaps temporarily, a fact that even the defrocked high priest of the rising temperature trend, CRU’s Professor Phil Jones, has been forced to concede.
Moran cops a hammering from the smarter commenters but the usual denialist trolls come out to play, and Green cynically gets what he wants, with 498 comments to date.
Update II: John Quiggin gives us a whole post centered around Phil Jones’ quote. Another reason why Green should pull Moran’s post and abandon his misguided “project balance”.
Update: [by Mark] Bernard Keane takes aim at the ABC’s “balance without judgement” and rebuts Moran and Tom Switzer’s Drum post today.
her majesty’s broadcasting service in the colonies falls for one of the denialist strategies hamilton himself articulated….pathetic, ignorant, dangerous…the drum should be banged..hard.
Oh goody. Let’s hear the Drum run some “balance” on these issues as well:
- NAMBLA provides illuminating new insights into paedophilia.
- The blogosphere knows all: the Truth About 9/11.
- Elvis sighted at a bowling club near you!
- The noble marine life of Japanese whalers.
- The caring sharing face of people smugglers.
- Fond memories of my boys’ own adventure as a Child Soldier.
- Piracy on the high seas: It’s arrrgh rollicking good time.
- Hey man, don’t step on my land mines!
- And let’s not forget the good things Hitler did.
“analysis and views on the issues of the day” doesn’t say anything about FACTUAL.
Nice one Mercurius!
The initial mistake was giving Clive Hamilton five columns to pursue every left wing conspiracy theory under the sun. One column, tightly edited and on topic, would have sufficed.
The Drum will now be publishing ten crap articles instead of one.
This means it isn’t onward and upwards for Switzer’s political career, right? Or am I missing something about the Libs being perfectly willing to preselect someone who is advocating something with so much blowback potential?
What a load of fucking predictable, pathetic bullshit.
I think I’ve spotted Green’s mistake.
He mistook Andrew Bolt for a journalist.
Well, it’s a natural mistake to make, Katz, and I think Green should be forgiven for it. After all, Bolta claims he’s a journalist, and he’s never been known to lie …
Three-step recipe for making BlogScience:
1. Start with real science.
2. Remove the accuracy, rigour and accountability.
3. PROFIT!!!!
Um .. is that ‘lead’ as in dead metal .. or ‘lead’, as in directional leadership?
(gah, ferget it. Won’t ask again).
I suspect it’s the lead that [cue drumroll] ‘The Drum – Unleashed!’ should’ve been kept on, Davo. A short one, with a choke-chain.
Quite true DI(nr)!
Thus we can add one more potential subject to Mercurius’ excellent list of “balance-restoring” topics.
“Andrew Bolt, the Pulitzer of Australia.”
Thanks for this, Phil. I missed the note at the bottom of his article.
Sack Green if he’s going to be an agnosophist.
@Davo: lead
You put a few too many letter in Putz, Katz.
Exactly Zarquon. Pedantry was expected. I had contemplated using the American journalistic term of ‘lede’ (which I prefer BTW) but that is not common practice in Oz.
For sucks’ fake, Switzer already has a gig at the Institute of Public Affairs. How many tax-exempt platforms do these dittoheads want?
Meanwhile on Insiders this morning a “poll” in one of the sunday rags says Coalition now polling %50.
It’s getting more and more like Fox News, except on a fully publicly funded network.
More insidiously on Landline there were 3 items which mentioned changing climate. specifically the 2 about dairy mentioned reduced irrigation water [Rochester] more variability in rainfall – shorter sharper rainfall [Jamberoo] and both diary items stressed that even if you are not sure about whether AGW exists if you don’t adapt your operation to changing conditions you won’t survive.
In short I think ABC editorial policy has given the climate deniers free air time.
Yes, billie @ 19, there is a widespread view in the bush that the climate has always changed and always will. It’s part of ancient folk wisdom from those who remember the droughts of the 1940s, or whose frebears experienced the the Federation drought etc.Now this recieves ‘scientific’ supported from Plimer et al. Hence the need to adapt, but human activity, CO2 emissions etc have nothing to do with it.
The ABC has realised that the tide is turning, is all, and the terms of the debate have changed. When even the Institute of Physics has a go over Climategate, it’s simply no longer realistic to exclude the sceptics’ point of view, whatever you might think of it.
Katz – you do a good job of running with the hare and hunting with the hounds. You do this for fun, correct?
…And the laughs keep coming:
Fair and Balanced Editorial on Your ABC:
***************************************
- Barbarism: Don’t knock it ’til you’ve tried it
- It’s time for pyrophiliacs to reclaim the proud, misunderstood label of Arsonist.
- Son, where’s my car? Hilarious tales of dementia
- Racism: Bringing together neighbours who have nothing else in common
- Don’t tell the kids: The little-known fun side of drink-driving
- Putting the “career” in “career criminal”: Your neighbourhood car-rebirther
- Somebody needs me: the upside of being stalked
- Hey! It really hurts when you call me a Loan Shark
Thanks, I’m here Tuesdays. Try the fish.
From Climate Progress, a link rich post of stuff for Green to think about before he publishes.
Fashion tips. How to accessorise your suicide vest.
Global cooling: real estate opportunities in prized coastal locations.
Transubstantiation, the scientific proof.
Update on the anti-Christ, news snippets from Iran.
Brian – Landline got the farmers to make these statements about whether or not you believe in global warming this was what we did to adapt to changed climate. In the case of the dairy farmers these operators believe that global warming is occurring, in fact its a widespread belief in northern Victoria and southern NSW which is reinforced by years of 50% water allocation or 0% water allocation and you still have to pay your sizeable water rates.
The drying climate was also mentioned in the story about Lentils.
Now may be the residents of coastal NSW and Qld can’t believe there is global warming but it looks fairly obvious in the other 93% of Australia.
I get deeply offended at the manner in which climate deniers impugn the lack of integrity of climate scientists. Most people are not as opportunistic as Lord Monckton, Andrew Bolt and John Roskam.
Many years ago I processed the country party membership lists and I was struck by the very small sums the farmers were paying in annual subs and the timing of the subs. I concluded that the political party had a subscription drive in the 1950s when Australia rode on the sheeps back and the farmers paid their annual subs by direct debit when the wool cheque, wheat cheque or butter cheque came through the bank account. Over time inflation had eroded the value of the sub so you might think it was a bank charge, definitely not worth hunting for $2,10 $4.20, $6.30, $8.40, $10.50 or $21 that disappears annually.
The National Party is kept afloat by large donations from corporations.
To get an appreciation of the COALition read Chapter 25 of The Big Fella – The Rise & Rise of BHP Billiton.
Hey, Rob, could you please hook me up with your drug dealer? I’d love some of whatever it is you’re adding to your Kool Aid.
Ahhh, so the BULLIES on the Right, including those tentacles from the ever-bullying Murdoch EMPIRE have got their way again.
And we wonder why our so called “civilised” nations are still caught up in hysterical, stress-filled finger-pointing & community-divided days…times of ongoing conflicts & wars…fraudsters the likes of which we’ve never seen…extreme environmental vandalism & hesitation to deal w/ increasing climate change problems…and insane financial rollercoasters.
Seems pretty obvious to me.
One media EMPIRE is willing to do & say anything to win the day.
And their supporters and copycats will oft do same to gain attention & profit.
Not unlike a certain Liberal leader.
N’
Perhaps they’ll add a food segment:
Cannibilism – the new BIG idea in food!
@ 27 – David, certainly:
A certain person
A certain place
A certain handshake
A certain face
See you there.
Ha ha ha Mercurius Shostakovitch you are very amusing man. Here in Soviet Republik of IPA we have sayink: we paid for rubbish now here is message from sponsors. At last we have ABC for soviet not irrelevant taxpayer. If it not provide glorious platform for IPA groupthink its back to drawingboard and Christopher Pyne. Remember in Soviet ABC, news explains YOU.
The is HUGE disconnect between reporting on climate change and actual scientific opinion, as can be clearly seen in the following distribution curve
http://climateprogress.org/2010/02/25/max-boykoff-media-balance-deniers-contrarian-climate-change/
Thanks, Rob. It must be at least as good as anything Owsley ever cooked up. I’m looking forward to it.
It’s only the local supermarket, David.
Your ABC, now Balancedier than ever!
********************************
- After seven years free board and lodging, these hostages could show a little gratitude
- How Nauru owes its unique, fascinating landscape to the phosphate mining industry
- The TaliCAN-do spirit that drives global Jihadis
- These torture allegations prove we were humane enough to let the captives keep their tongues
- The Matrix sequels: The fans just weren’t ready for these works of cinematic genius
- My children have freedoms I never dreamed of, thanks to my 18 hours a day on the pokies
- Extinction, like a flawless 10-carat diamond, is forever
This post with the tags: climate change debate; abc – australia; has failed to bring out the usual angry old denialists. They must all be having their Sunday afternoon naps. Best to be refreshed The Collectors on your commie ABC.
Sorry: refreshed FOR The Collectors on your commie ABC.
I knew I should have had my nap today!
Mercurius @ 34 You have decided me. I won’t after all contrive to have a few Philip Nitchke peaceful pills available just in case. There are other pleasant ways to go, in fact a conscious death has more appeal anyway. To die laughing must be the ultimate. You and others almost provided that coup de grace for me today. Have to find a way somehow to distil that in some readily available form.
Of course I know it all reflects our ironic desperation and the truth is we have to laugh or we’ll just keep on crying about the human condition.
Back to the thread’s main topic – Phil raised the question of “the ABC’s editorial policies that demand information be factually accurate.” If that’s required across the board why are they getting away with the news and commentaries they’re churning out 24/7? How can we challenge the ABC on that, let alone Drum giving space to the AGW sceptics lobby?
Rob, why would anyone do anything that wasn’t fun?
Patricia, stick with us! Remember: Rome wasn’t destroyed in a day!
ABC promos aren’t ads. Here, take a proper look at them.
The Songs that Don Bradman loved that John Howard thinks are really good, the PM’s cut.
Why blond newsreaders are better.
ABC satire: enough is enough.
Maybe the tidal wave got ‘em?
“Tsunami? What bloody tsunami!? It’s just a conspiracy to stop us enjoying the beach on a perfect Sunday. C’mon in, the water’s fi-”
Not to rain on the “2 minutes hate” here, but mightent the bloke just be giving some of his critics enough rope to hang themselves with?
Sure most of the articles will try and get away with generalised statements, but if they make errors of fact, in black and white, on a national forum, it will damage them right?
Geez Machiavelli would be dissapointed in you lot, this might be a cunning plan of Greens. (Baldrick if it goes pear shaped though)
The ABC is not bothered their political bias is obvious as you can do nothing to stop them. When you think ABC you should be thinking Liberal Party marketing agency and more particularly Young Liberals.
@mole when have those errors of fact damaged the anti science crowd? They appear to receive even more oxygen the greater their noise, errors and misrepresentations.
The more outlandish, like Mr Monckton, are feted all across the country by some of our biggest media outlets and given all the airtime they need despite his easily refuted nonsense.
Not to mention their pass on his even wackier ideas about conspiracy of all kinds.
One would think any news org/platform worth its mettle would avoid your double reverse pike with twist theory (Machiavelli), play a straight bat and ask, is the information accurate? If it isn’t it just does not run. Simple really.
Green ain’t no Machiavelli, just a journalist/editor probably attempting to wriggle his way around a touchy issue and drive traffic. In this he has taken the easy way out – particularly so if, as he has argued in the comments of the site that attacked him, that all requirements for balance have been met.
If so, then why this now?
All this ageist stuff has me despairing of maturing like my pre-war peers. Not.
Zarquon
Feb 28th, 2010 at 10:59 am
@Davo: lead
O, thanks fer that. Can never quite figure out if have reeded something, or am about to read it.
Lede on, MacDuff ..
Though have to admit to a certain amount of peevishness now that the Yanks have taken the ‘you’ out of color.
It’s disappointing. I understand the need for public broadcasters to be balanced in their coverage. Unfortunately in the case of climate change the alternative informed view is that climate change is pretty much the end of life as we know (as opposed to a costly change that can be adapted to), not that climate change isn’t occurring. More on this point at:
http://j.mp/9CmfK8
@Mercurius
From what I’ve seen, that is exactly what they will run.
Here’s one I need to see for balance:
Bandidos, Commancheros and Hell’s Angels: small pharma meeting people’s needs.
Yes the IPA and its clones have too much say and influence.These people epitomize the one dimensional man of our times (Marcuse). Or T S Eliots hollow men
They get to write regular opinion pieces in the Age as well as the Oz–why?
There was a report in the Sunday Age re a possible new science curriculum, which among other things would include non-western perspectives on the natural world, including aboriginal dream-time perspectives.
Somehow in the scheme of things John Roskam was quoted re his opinion of this new curriculum.
Why of all the people who could make some kind of informed comment on this topic was the opinion of this one-dimensional dingbat chosen?
Recently overhreard at ABC/Fairfax/News Ltd ‘news’room:
We must have the balance. Quick, ring a balance provider – you know there’s always someone available for comment at the IPA, and you know, their name sounds quite authoritative and independent.
Hey, and they told me that journalism was difficult and involved research skills and stuff like that!
anthony nolan, I know you were joking, but the ABC got there before you.
Oh Liam, what can I say? I’ve been an adviser to ‘Fezza’ for years and now you’ve outed us.
Alan Moran has got his article at the Drum up – it’s a vile piece of crud with the talking points the above posters have already guessed what would be in there – including the recent quote mining to misrepresent the views of Phil Jones and no significant warming (yet at the same time saying defrocked and discredited – what is with the stupid, to quote from people they don’t regard as quote-worthy)
The comments have the denialists drooling at their new “evidence” – sad stuff
Thanks Dave, the original post has been updated to reflect Moran’s submission and I’ve added a link to a brand new post by John Quiggin that pretty well dismantles Moran’s misrepresentations of climate scientist Phil Jones. One post in and it’s apparent that Green has screwed the pooch with this nonsense.
500 plus comments already. Green is earning his keep sad to say.
We know Green reads this blog Adrian, and it’s instructive to note that he hasn’t appeared to answer my questions and those of our readers that but he had no problems answering the demands of the denialist crowd. Where is the balance Jonathan?
While I despise the justification of “balance” being used to give liars such as Moran a public platform to air their superstitious nonsense, at least it gives those who actually examine the evidence, and “think and analyse” in order to arrive at a conclusion (sceptics), a chance to confront the denialist ratbaggers in a forum where all responses are placed upon the record, and the lies and chicanery of the denialists can be exposed to all for what they are.
This may be important to any who are not already convinced that they are “right” and keep an open mind wrt AGW.
So far, the series has unequivocally demonstrated that the the “best” “arguments” the denialists are able to mount comprise of recycled lies and misrepresentations.
Further, it has been clearly demonstrated (in the comments throughout the series) that apart from lies and misrepresentations, the abuse seems to all originate from the denialist camp.
The denialists are hugely upset at this (descriptive) and accurate label, and are attempting to characterise it as “abuse”, presumably in order to justify the sorts of insults which seem to be what they rely on when their lies are exposed, and treated with the contempt they deserve.
I’m going to substitute ratbag for denialist from now on. Having had a look at the blog comments at the Drum I have to say that the value of a virtually unmoderated site is nil. It really is rubbish as it allows the sort of space and time to the swollen prostate brigade that they just wouldn’t get at a public meeting. They’d be ejected or there’d be a decent old fashioned stoush which is clearly what these cowards want except that but they wouldn’t have the bloody spine to turn up and do it in person.
There used to be a bunch of Larouchites who hung around the route from my office to lunch about every other month. One day, passing close enough for this same age as me nutter to talk to me, he offered some comment to which I replied that it was my view that Lyndon Larouche was a neo-fascist and anyone who took him seriously was certifiably mad. Possibly because I was the first person he’d spoken to who even knew who they were or what they are on about he got so upset that he spat in my face. WTF. I knocked his bloody head off and then offered the same to his associates who bravely fled someone at least 15 years their senior.
My view for Jonathon Green: show some responsibility about maintaining a civil space in which reasoned argument counts for something. At the moment the Drum has all the class of a shithouse wall.
The decision by The Drum to run those pieces is the equivalent of having a creationist respond to a piece on evolution or a holocaust denier respond to a article about the horrors of Auschwitz.
It is intellectually lazy and confers a false legitimacy on spurious arguments.
@60, @61
I agree with comments about the intellectual laziness, and the general (lack of) class of any organisation who gives such clowns a soapbox to spruik their rubbish.
Just trying to find a few pearls among the general shit that JG has created with the drum.:-D
I thought (perhaps wishfully) that the ABC was supposed to have a commitment to accuracy in what it reports in its charter, and wonder how this rubbish can be permitted, when rather than “opinion”, readers are subjected to a crude propagandist effort composed exclusively of lies ? A legacy of Windschuttle perhaps ?
I mean, it’s hardly subtle, and all of Moran’s lies have been widely canvassed and exposed as such, as anyone with any reading comprehension should be able to ascertain.
Although the
Empty VesselDrum may give the appearance of being unmoderated, I can assure you it isn’t.The other day, Fran Kelly had some piece of idiocy up about the latest poll showing a less-than-MOE shift in Labor’s vote. I posted a rather snarky remark, asking her if she’d actually examined the poll, or if she was just channelling Dennis Shanahan which, as far as I can tell, wasn’t allowed to appear.
I think all the ABC sites do pre-moderation, David. It would be disappointing if comments were not allowed to appear on the basis that they’re critical of ABC journos.
I suspect that the comments threads are of such low quality because:
(a) Topics such as climate change denialism attract all the wingnuts, and probably Bolta et al sent the proverbial flying monkeys over;
(b) As with most MSM comments threads, it’s all a bit random, and there’s no real commitment by those commenting to community and dialogue.
That’s why I very rarely read any comments at all on those sorts of sites.
If you thought’s Moran’s piece was ordinary, have a gander at today’s effort by Tom Switzer.
It’s about time that this government funded site started showing a bit more balance. Sauce for the goose, etc.
I don’t normally bother either, Mark, but I was irritiated enough with Kelly’s idiocy to comment (at that point, I don’t think there were any other comments up), then vain enough to go back after a suitable interval to see if my barb had struck home. Clearly it had.
Whenever I feel the slightest doubt about the reality of AGW, I find the arguments put forward by the best and brightest in the “CRU Truth” camp restores my pessimism. Seriously, if this is the best critique of mainstream scientific opinion they can come up with, it must be pretty rock solid.
Yeah Duke@65 embarrassing effort. I love the pic though, how did that get in? Is that J Greens tongue in cheek? Might be doing us all a favor to drag these characters into ‘neutral ground’ so they can expose themselves for the gaggle of geese they really are. By the looks it is quite a civilised turkey shoot. Even the likes of Andrew Glikson, wearing khaki, gum boots and gloves, is wielding his double action.
And as for the Quad, agree Gummo T, fair shake of the sauce bottle!
Update: [by Mark] Bernard Keane takes aim at the ABC’s “balance without judgement” and rebuts Moran and Tom Switzer’s Drum post today.
Another good article from Bernard Keane. He seem to be just about the only journo awake to what’s going on at the ABC and its gradual self-destruction as a quality, independent news organisation.
I’d like scientists to boycott the ABC until they sign a pledge to follow their charter to the letter.
I’d also like all media treated with utmost suspicion to:
1. taping of all inteviews to test veracity of “quotes”
and
2. preference to all journos who do a checkback
3. All journos who verbal or repeated pseudo-scientific claims to be given one opportunity to retract or be black-balled (no interviews)
4. Some media outlets to be banned permanently until they pledge to abandon their war on science (established through organised violations of 3 at the editorial level)
Pseudoscience (e.g., climate denialism) would have to be established at the peak scientific body level and only the most egregious examples chosen to allow genuine scientific disagreements and differences in interpretation to survive. A register of such examples would need to be made public.
Therefore I would not expect anything like this to get up (cannot see any peak scientific body acting in its own interest in such a risky way).
And before anyone complains about freedom of speech, it’s freedom not to speak because what you say will not be reported accurately.
For those who might be interested in the intricacies of comment moderation at the ABC, there are two separate moderation teams. The ABC personality analysis stuff gets moderated in the Brisbane News Online office, and the Unleashed stuff that’s commissioned from outside the ABC (which includes Hamilton’s pieces and Moran, Switzer, etc) gets done by the moderators who moderated Unleashed before it came under the Drum banner. I believe they’re in Tasmania? So that may explain some of the apparent inconsistencies.
Maybe it is time that we came up with an AGW equivalent of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster
And then demanded equal time on the ABC and other fora for our views in the interests of balance.
It clearly needn’t have any relationship to real science. In fact, the less the better. I actually think that AGW data is a scientologist plot. Perhaps we can get some senators to raise the matter in Parliament.
Any better suggestions?
@anthony nolan
Umm – the CotFSM is already an AGW church. There’s a graph and everything.
OK. I’m a Pastafarian then and off to the Drum to advance the cause ASAP.