ABC Chairman Maurice Newman made a few comments yesterday that may go a long way to explaining some of the pressures editors and producers at the public broadcaster may be under – specifically on the issue of anthropogenic global warming (AGW).
This collective censorious approach succeeded in suppressing contrary views in the mainstream media, despite the fact that a growing number of distinguished scientists were challenging the conventional wisdom with alternative theories and peer reviewed research.
While claiming some of his best friends were journalists, Newman attacked the profession for uncritical group thinking on a range of issues (Enron, tech meltdown and the GFC) and further outing himself – with language that could only be described as that of climate skepticism.
Of course Newman is welcome to hold whatever views he wishes, that is not the issue.
As Friends of the ABC spokesperson Glenys Stradijot pointed out in a statement, “this looks like an attempt to influence ABC programming to be more favourable to global warming skepticism.
“Mr Newman needs to explain why he took the step of criticising the media’s coverage of global warming and why he addressed that criticism to ABC staff.”
Stradijot also alleged that Newman’s former position as chairman of the Center for Independent Studies (CIS) might be a factor in informing his world view on the subject.
A transcript of Newman’s interview and explanation with Brendan Trembath of the ABC can be found here.
Further reading: The inimitable Stilgherrian and Crikey’s Eric Beecher.
He should resign, he is clearly not fit to Chair. His Board should ask for his resignation at least. If he’s doesn’t, they all should.
No names mentioned, I notice.
Proponents or AGW also disagree about details, which is always the way within any complex paradigm. So, what is “*the* conventional wisdom”?
No citations mentioned, I notice.
He surely doesn’t consider Lord Monckton “distinguished”. Maybe it’s the comb over.
But seriously, this highlights just how captured the ABC has become by Howard’s friends – a noisy and unrepesentative rabble of reactionaries, culture warriors and agents of rent-seeking business interests who set out to emasculate the broadcaster’s editorial independence (and who appear to have succeeded).
Mr Neuman went on to declaim the censorious approach to alternative theories of disease, pointing to the complete suppression of the miasmatic proliferation theory despite the presence of ‘piles of evidence’ in ‘august medical journals’ that he claimed had been suppressed by the ‘germ-theory cabal’.
“He should resign, he is clearly not fit to Chair. His Board should ask for his resignation at least. If he’s doesn’t, they all should.”
That’s a bit hard on the new members Lynch and Schultz who have been appointed under the BBC style- government hands off- system, Eric.
Maybe the journalist should have asked him his opinion on the phlogiston theory of combustion, and flat-earth geodesy.
I’m sure his answers would have been equally entertaining.
What a pathetic mentality the man expresses. He’s an ‘agnostic’. He’s always been one. What will get him off the fence? ‘Compelling evidence on one side or the other’. But he happily concedes he’s not a scientist, so how is he going to judge whether the evidence is compelling? He doesn’t say. He’s just going to keep an open mind … presumably for as long as there is a single noisy denialist voice.
Oh Goody!!
This will help the debate on what caused AGW, its significance, and whether mitigation, adaption or nucleur power are the answer!!
Someone inside the ABC finally highlighted the problem with the lack of investigative journalism.
Ken Lovell @7: “…happily concedes he’s not a scientist, so how is he going to judge whether the evidence is compelling? He doesn’t say. He’s just going to keep an open mind … presumably for as long as there is a single noisy denialist voice.”
Great news.
Next we will be having reruns of the case for-&-against evolution. Another scientific “debate” where there are noisy denialist voices.
How about rerunning the cases for the Earth as the centre of the solar system, and the flat Earth argument.
Since the chairman is an agnostic non-scientist, anything goes, right?
With that dimwit at the helm, the ABC will be a total waste of time and money in terms of reliable, trustworthy, investigative journalism.
“With that dimwit at the helm, the ABC will be a total waste of time and money in terms of reliable, trustworthy, investigative journalism.
Exactly. Just change ‘will be’ to ‘is’. After all this ‘dimwit’ has been chairman for at least 3 years, along with other Ratty mates like Planet Janet, whose term has thankfully just expired.
Yay for Jock.
I think he’s included all the denialist bullshit.
Any reference for your ‘peer reviewed study which demonstrates that all of the warming is from natural causes, leaving no room for any anthropogenic warming.’?
Denialist tripe will not be published on this thread because it is OT. This post is specifically about the editorial independence of the ABC in light of the chairman’s comments, though you can touch on the issue if it’s germane to the specific discussion. My decision to delete comments is final and I decide what runs so don’t even bother complaining. No correspondence will be entered into.
Come on, Newman hasn’t been involved in CIS for over a decade. Who was talking about climate change then? Anyway, the only substantial thing CIS has published on the issue was to argue that a carbon tax was better than an ETS. That’s also what James Hansen believes. Newman was Chancellor of Macquarie University when Tim Flannery was made a Prfessorf. What do the Friends of the ABC say about that?
A Professor of course. Even I don’t know what a Prfessorf is.
Good response Phil. I shouldn’t have tried to stir him up.
joe2..yes indeed, but did he let his Board know he was going to make these public statements that clearly overstep the charter..? The Board are now placed in a laughable situation that requirres serious action. They should move on him, or away from him.
The ABC requires deeper and more radical surgery than the simple removal of the Chairman, as repugnant as his views may be.
For example the whole ridiculous notion of balance was introduced by the current MD.
Then there’s the question of the quality of its journalist.
Time to sack these Howard stooges, I’d have thought. They’re trespassing on public property. Having politcal stooges in charge of government owned media is something that happens in 3rd world dictatorships. Its over. boot them unceremoniously out the back door- now.
adrian..indeed..a move against him as unfit under the Charter, that saw a unified voice in the Friends, those Board members in opposition to him, the Union on behalf of the staff (and the front bench of the Government) would not only force his resignation but, in shaping a new Board, with a new responsible Chair could highlight the range of professional practices both journalistic and operational, that need attention or reform?
Who elected the ABC Chairman and MD?
If someone hands me a petition to have this wackaloon sacked I will most definatly sign it.
I think both positions are Howard government appointments, Elise, which explains everything, really.
There was a time when ABC journalists would have responded to this provocation by putting on a panel program on climate change. The panelists would have started with Clive Hamilton and moved leftwards from there. The journalists would have dared ABC management to discipline them for it. One of them might have been sacked, but that was a risk they were prepared to take.
It wouldn’t happen today of course.
This is a good thing.
I’ve said it before I’ll say it again. It’s a great sign when Rudd doesn’t get rid of political appointments made by his predecessor.
When Abbott gets in…then you will see a broom go through.
Exactly Sam. The sad fact is that many of them probably agree with him anyway.
Maurice Newman resigned his first term on the ABC Board partly in protest over an ABC staff member being included as a rep at board level. Labor proposed re- appointing an employee last election but so far have not done so.
If they got moving on that front, maybe he would throw another hissy fit and leave.
I don’t know or care whether they agree with him. That is not the point. What they should resist is the Chairman interfering with their work. The CEO should also be pissed off about this.
Newman should be sacked. Now. In fact Rudd should get rid of Scott and ALL other Howard cronies. It might be very nice to leave them where they are, of course, bipartisan, gentlemanly, apolitical, etc. As Newman has just demonstrated its also very bloody stupid.
Don’t kid yourselves, they’ll just put another set of cronies in. And so it goes: the revolving door of privilege, depending on which side of the trough you’re guzzling from.
Scott is the main prob imho. His main thoughts have been about ratings and redressing imaginary left wing bias and consequently he has turned Aunty into commercially orientated Liberal propaganda machine.
Scott is a careerist angling for a post-ABC job with Seven or Nine and trying to drain the editorial edge out of his current employer.
That’s right joe2 – this is about so much more than the Chairman.
It’s about the journalistic culture that now pervades the ABC thanks to Scott, the Board and their management cronies.
There are remnants of the old school journalists , but most of the recent recruits know how to get ahead in the modern ABC, know that any sense of professional integrity comes second to toeing the line.
Most of them were selected for their compliance, and that is what they’re providing, day after day, night after night.
Well, I think what Newman’s comments demonstrate is that he does not watch or listen to the ABC or read The Australian.
ewe2@29, actually the system that Labor has put in place to choose board members is pretty encouraging. It seems pretty much hands off in terms of political appointments. Trouble is so much damage has already been done and there is still this terrible dead wood to continue on, for a good while yet.
I took the effort to go to the link in the above article and read it all. What I read didn’t set off alarm bells. He is right about the dangers of group think and the need for credible media organizations. Lazy journalism, and group think is what we often complain about the MSM.
For example, the media group think on the insulation issue would have given most Australians the impression that the rate of fires had increased under the Garret scheme. But as Possum pointed out the fire rate per house actually dropped substantially under the Garret scheme, probably as a result of the measures he did institute to reduce risks. It is a bit harder to compare deaths since it would take about 16 years at he pre Garret rate to insulate 1.1 million homes.
The optimistic view of the speech is that it will encourage more in depth investigation and a wider range of views on the ABC. I wait with interest.
Maurice Newman’s speech was reproduced in the Rentseekers Review. He basically repeats a bunch of denier talking points about climate scientists having their emails hacked, attacks on the IPCC and so on. He claims that “Climate change is a further example of group-think where contrary views have not been tolerated, and where those who express them have been labelled and mocked.”
He appears to live in some parallel universe where climate change science is never questioned at all and deniers of the science never get heard. What a pile of nonsense! He only needs to compare the coverage of Monckton with the [lack of] coverage of Hansen’s visit to see how wrong he is. And if he is going to whinge about people being labelled and mocked, may he shouldn’t do the same thing to people who have had their emails hacked. And it is far worse for scientists to regularly experience threats of violence than that some deniers have their opinions being mocked. Besides, when someone (e.g. Monckton) says that Copenhagen will lead to a communist world government, they deserve to be mocked.
A call for resisting group think is certainly legitimate but this statement is an outright lie “a rowing number of distinguished scientists were challenging the conventional wisdom with alternative theories and peer reviewed research.” Not one distinguished scientist has published peer reviewed research challenging the central claims of climate research, and Newman knows it or he would have named them.
All challenges to AGW are done either outside the peer review process entirely, or by figures of limited if any scientific credibility, usually in dodgy journals like Energy and Environment.
It’s important to stress that this is not just a case of the chair trying to heavy journalists, he’s trying to get them to run things he knows are not true.
There’s a chair in there http://www.theage.com.au/news/in-depth/theres-a-chair-in-there/2006/12/13/1165685754452.html
David Irving @6: phlogiston! About time that got some decent news coverage. Too long have we laboured under this terrible scientific conspiracy about night and day. I’ll give that third Policeman a ring today to see what we can organise.
This explains, in part, why I have been so disappointed with ABC current affairs lately. I’ve been getting so frustrated with the lack of our favourite aunty’s bite.
While claiming some of his best friends were journalists, Newman attacked the profession for uncritical group thinking on a range of issues…
I’m sure that many of his best friends are journalists. Let’s see, Chris Ulhmann, Piers Ackerman, Andrew Bolt, Janet Albrechtsen, Alison Carrabine, Fran Kelly, Paul Sheehan, Miranda Devine, Barry Cassidy, Dennis Shanahan, Matthew Franklin, Michael Stuchbury, Sabra Lane, Leigh Sales etc etc…
It took six comments to mention “flat-earth” and seven to mention “denialism”.
For shame.
And your point is?
How come it took that long?
On the 7pm Adelaide TV News last night the announcer began a piece about the ‘clean-up’ of the insulation scheme with the comment “…even though the government has suspended its deadly home insulation scheme….blah, blah” Perhaps with Easter approaching we can all agree to donate $1 to charity every time we can recall the ABC referring to John Howards deadly Iraq Scheme!!!
That was the ABC 7pm TV news. Sorry!!
Ffreddy, the thing that occurred in Iraq was a war. The word war would imply deadliness.
Insulation schemes shouldn’t be deadly.
Good on Jonathan Holmes (Media Watch) and the science editor for getting stuck in to him from the pews. With any luck we’ll get a media watch special on it on Monday.
“Suppression of contrary views” has to be up there with “left-wing media bias” for denial of reality.
After years complaining about truth relativism, the Right sure have embraced it big time.
Thanks for the link to Stilgherrian, I especially enjoyed reviewing the McKibben video on risk management and Stilgherrian’s comments on what journalism should be about.
Just because Newman hasn’t been chairman of Centre for Independent Studies doesn’t mean that he no longer supports the views of the organisation. In fact if he used that position as a stepping stone to bigger and brighter there is every likelihood that he still supports the aims of the organisation. His career suggests that the CIS was a step to his current position.
Rudd needs to appoint new members to the ABC Board to provide balance otherwise the national broadcaster will sink into the same biased reputation as NEWS corp.
In fact the ABC blog websites like Unleashed and The Drum have become almost as loony as Online Opinion
As promised I am on to thje matter of the neglect of the work of de Selby and the ABC’s willingness to be part of a global conspiracy to silence the genius. Thank heavens for the tubes as at least some of the escaped brothers are able to post the truth. I last spoke to de Selby at a hotel on Parramatta Rd Concord then named “Swim to Birds”. He has since gone on the run again and the hotel, alas, has changed it’s name to something more mundane. He is aged but still vigorous.
HC I would of thought that insulation schemes, as well as construction work, mining, heavy industry etc. appear to be inherently ‘deadly’ in this country. Don’t you read the statistics!! The point is whether this scheme has been any more risky or deadly than previous industry standards and standards across the workforce generally and whether this justifies what to many appears to be confected outrage. My point about the Iraq war was to illustrate the contrast to the kid gloves treatment those responsible for our nations involvement in this ‘deadly scheme’ have recieved in this nations media (including the ABC).
Prof Stephan Lewandowsky has an excellent article at The Drum on the problem of “balancing” opinion vs evidence.
Calling Iraq a “deadly scheme” is incredulous. Soldiers invaded, they were resisted, there are going to be fatalities, and it will always be thus.
People don’t build stuff with in-built contingencies for deaths, builders don’t train to kill people, and efforts are being continuously made to minimise deaths in construction. Keep in mind that is talking about constructing large buildings, rather than laying insulation in an already constructed roof in a residential building.
It’s a false moral equivalence, but then you’re not alone on here.
Great article, josh.
You just don’t get it do you, HC. I don’t think FFreddy was implying a moral equivalence, just pointing out the contrast between the different treatments that our national broadcaster gives certain issues. Indeed how can there be a moral equivalence between an illegal invasion of a soveriegn country that was responsible for at least 100,000 civilian deaths, untold destruction and dislocation and a home insulation scheme in which some contracters provided less than adequate safety training and supervision.
LP has been accused from time to time of being a “hive mind”. I am of the view that this is totally incorrect and that in so far as a collective expression might best summarise common attitudes that “counter-hegemonising swarm” fits the bill. Hive mind describes the singular characteristics of Maurice Newman far better. I can hear the buzzing from here.
There is nothing but GW sceptics, Windshuttles and IPAs on Radio National’s Counterpoint.
The alarm bells are ringing about the ABC!
Since when does the ABC have competitors? Is there another federally funded National Broadcaster with a similar charter?
Perhaps they are connected (a-la string theory) by some some irresitable opposing force?
Something of Newman’s role in the CIS is summarised in this 2007 CIS tribute to Milton Friedman, as is the story of how he saved Australian freedom twice by helping us all to think like Milton Friedman.
glad he did . it must be clear to him as it is me that the abc has been totally infiltrated by reactionary green fanatics hell bent on driving us back to the stone age
Is it true that Robin Williams will have to provide equal time to an astrologist next time he has a session on astronomy in The Science Show?
Yes Ag@59, good link, it seems that “rational thinking” is only available in the Maurice and Milton World and the rest of us, including Fraser and Whitlam, should all just get out of the way of it.
What an egotistical s.o.b. he is. For him to suggest that he has “an open mind” about any thing and accuse others of “groupthink” would be just laughable if he did not have his freemarket hands all over, what was, our ABC.
Scott and Newman, I fear, have set the ABC on a course for sale as soon the Liberals can organise it. They just do not believe or understand the role of public broadcasting.
Having an “open mind” is a virtue with a strict time limitation attached. It has to close some time or thought and action will be postponed indefinitely.
BK @61, oh yes, absolutely! Totally agree. The ABC journos should take their Chairman and CEO’s position to heart. Post memos-to-self on their cubicle walls, to make sure they don’t stray.
Tell both sides, EQUALLY, no matter how stupid.
No point in having a reasoned argument, or a point of view, or a conclusion, just let it all hang out there, flapping in the breezes…
Eventually, even blind freddy will be sick of it, and demand a change of policy.
I will not be silenced on the matter of molecular transfer between the seats of bicycles and their riders any further and am calling for public support in drawing this entirely serious matter to the attention of cowardly ABC jouranlists as a matter of great urgency. In the original Gaelic it is, of course, known as “mollycular transfer” and I have to hand two excellent authorities, Sergeant Pluck and Policeman MacCruiskeen, who will attest to the vicious nature of this phenomena.
It is well known that over time, especially if ridden on rough roads, a bicycle will take on the qualities of it’s rider and so too will the rider come more and more to assume the qualities of his or (god forbid) her mount as the proximity of the riders arse to the seat exchanges molucules of humanity and machine the one to t’other. If ever there was a clearer explanation for the green madness of the theory AGW I never knew of it. Surely, as must be obvious, there is a direct association between the environmentalists’ encouragement of people to mount and use bicycles and the spread of popular support for their deranged views.
I fear it may be too late as there is indeed evidence also of the leader of the opposition in thrall to one of dastardly machines.
Nevertheless, it is never too late for balance on the subject. Notwithstanding the widespread plot to humiliate and terrorise de Selby by authorising what is virtually a rationalist fatwa against the man I think that the three good Policemen will provide such astounding evidence of the veracity of this theory that even the likes of the Chairman of the Board of the ABC will intervene to save humanity from a terrible fate. Just look at the dominance of bicycles in China and the effect they have had on that once great nation to see what dangers lurk if this issue does not immediate and widespread attention.
BK@61, if I was Robin Williams that’s exactly what I’d do!
Ah. I see the cousin slipped his confinement and gained control of the keyboard. Never mind. I’ve lured him back into his cell with promises of a rerun of that Cormack McCarthy novel cum movie “The Road” and a sufficient supply of lubricant.
Tragic really what happened to a strapping young Irishman fresh out of St Barrabas College of Dublin and gone to work full of hope as a researcher for the Centre for Independent Studies which, as some of you may be aware, is secretly funded by one arm of the Kellogs Foundation which uses the CIS to further John Harvey Kellogg’s campaign against self abuse. One of the conditions of his employment was that he employ Kellog’s recommended methods including an electrical device designed to startle anyone experiencing nocturnal erections. The consequences have been appalling as the public statements most CIS associates show.
What I’d really like to see given some air time is why the Masonic Lodge continues to steal my underwear from the line overnight.
Jonathan Holmes and Bernie Hobbs showed a bit of guts in standing up to the old fossil, apparently.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/climate-balance-urged-at-abc/story-e6frg996-1225839329115
anthony o’nolan
begorrah you got some strong points dere, sir; some very strong points o’ contention ‘n dese mollycules sounds just tarribull.
but what will come of it? the business news reports Australian Chicken Futures ‘ve shot up agin; we got too many fainthearted pollyticians;
was you ever in de company o’ Flann O’Brien, sir?
Indeed Ambigulous and he was man whose presence and wit dispensed with the need for hallucinogens to normalise an otherwise lopsided and unbalanced reality.
to be sure, and good luck wid your mollycule quest, Australia needs more lerts
and fewer alarums
AN and Ambigulous – surely the Chinese encouragement of their people to mount and use bicycles is just another facet of their one child policy? A brilliant contraceptive initiative, akin to their barefoot doctor health program. But no, your mollycular theory suggests it really is an environmental thrust aimed at the proliferation of bicycles through biological and natural means rather than an industrial and manufacturing process thereby saving energy and raw materials.
Damn clever those Chinese. But it’s not deranged environmentalism they’re encouraging. It’s their own imperial ambitions. Their influence is everywhere. Those gangs of bikers swarming around tell you that. You’re right, the Opposition leader doesn’t realise the pedalling he took up as a prophylactic measure to avoid the marital bed is in fact changing his biological molecular structure and nature. See how he’s become the champion of workers on building sites? How he’s taxing the rich to give to women because he thinks they hold up half the sky?
I wonder what the next big buzz will be.
Ambigulous and Patricia thank you for your encouragement in this most serious project. I was beginning to feel like your average “two gun” conspiracy theorist there for a while. Patricia – youse must be related as that’s a very fine ethnicisation of the problem that you’ve offered there and one destined I am sure to soon capture the attention of the Chairman of the Board of the ABC himself and finally soothe the wailing ghost of poor old bloody Vincent Clare Gair. You’ll note that the hour is early and I must away as I’ve been up all night letting the air out of their tyres to keep us safe. Keep up the good work kameraden.
Sooo, now that we’ve seen the Chairman of a national broadcaster publicly endorsing loonyworld, I’d say we’ve probably hit Peak Wingnut.
Can I get some bets on how long before the AGW denial position runs out of steam and dies a natural death?
Tobacco lobbyists were at their peak of influence for about a 20 year period, the salad days for Intelligent Designers lasted about 15 years, and anti-Vaxxers managed 10 years in the sun.
Let’s call that a trend and predict AGW denial dead and buried by 2015 — any takers?
I hope you are correct Mercurius. Though, in some ways, it is better to know who these types are, and where they are at, rather than the other little species …..happy little AGW accepters, who are still yet determined to drag the chain for, god knows, whatever other silly reasons.
And with new and wise theories coming forth every day, even on this thread alone, maybe we should be cautious of any petitions, to Maurice, to get on ya bike ya runt. A hybrid greenie/ friedmanite may well backfire on all of us.
Can we afford five years with the likely delays this will impose on government policy dealing with global warming?
Thinking of ways to make AGW-deniers, particularly powerful ones, legally and financially responsible for any consequences that can be attributed to AGW…
Given the temperature trend for this year, peak wingnut should die down sooner rather than later.
Mercurius, as long as mainstream politics panders to denialism for the sake of the votes of green-haters and the misinformed, we’ve got a long way to go to pass peak wingnut. It takes emphatic rejection by mainstream politics, business and media and that ain’t happening. Unfortunately I don’t see Labor as that much better than Liberals on climate change, just more capable of insisting the denialists in their ranks keep mouths closed for the sake of political expediency. People who really believe AGW is a major problem don’t actively encourage the maximum expansion of coal and gas mining and export or actively negotiate to weaken an already weak climate policy. Honestly, I don’t think Labor really wants a strong climate policy, but they do want to stem the flow of votes to the Greens; blaming the Liberals and Nationals is clever politics and screw the climate.