The Strine

[angra]

The Oz keeps up its denial of climate science, and manages to combine this with its favourite hate target - the ABC.

" It's not all doom and gloom ABC - Don Aitkin
THE national broadcaster all too often assumes, incorrectly, what Australians want to hear. "

Google it. You'll find Aitken pillowries (I know) the ABC in the best possible taste by claiming it gives too much credence to climate scientists. Thus it is not 'balanced'.

Then there's "Alarmism provides no climate for debate" and Chris Kenny wades in. He says our regular scourges of heatwaves and drought are being exploited "by Labor and the Greens" for political gain. Climate horror stories promoted by the likes of Flannery are being used to dupe the electorate.

There are "climate thought police" who forced the Australian to retract a story it published claiming there had been no warming.

So the same old themes come together again at The Australian's increasingly paranoid and self-obsessed editors desk. Greens bla bla, Labor bla bla, climate alarmists bla bla, freedom of speech bla bla.

Why would anyone pay for a subscription to read this logorrhea?

"Examples of logorrhea might include talking or mumbling monotonously, either to others, or more likely to oneself. This may include the repetition of particular words or phrases, often incoherently. "

[jack]

Don Aitkin does have a point...

I would guess that most Australians are, in comparison to the ABC, and as attitude surveys suggest, rather more conservative, less internationalist, less sympathetic to the disadvantaged, less convinced about any human contribution to "climate change", less worried about endangered species, more critical of handouts to indigenous Australians, less welcoming of boat people, and so on.

Although their taxes also go to fund the ABC, their values may be more adequately expressed on commercial radio and television - the media to which they listen - and, at the extreme end, by the talkback radio hosts.

www.theaustralian.com.au/media/opinion/someone-please-tell-the-abc-its-not-all-doom-and-gloom-out-here/story-e6frg99o-1226556989384

Yep, the ABC really ought to cater more to people who couldn't give a rat's, and who follow extremist shock-jocks.

Oh but seriously, he suggests something more or less as stupid...

...if the culture is too strong to change, then the board needs to rewrite its code of practice and editorial policies so that they match what the ABC actually does.

Good grief! As if any organisation that doesn't have a perfect record of compliance with professed standards ought to dumb down accordingly.

Someone please tell Don it's not all doom and gloom, and to stop whipping up alarmism and panic.

[angra]

Jack - I believe Aitkin is wrong. Where's the evidence that the average Ozzie is such a redneck? The evidence shows that this is a tiny minority. How many rallied to Jones's cause of smashing the Lebs at Cronulla? A few dozen? And how many marched on Canberra to "ditch the witch"? And what happened to the great carbon tax revolt?

The righties have an inflated sense of their own self-importance. I'm still backing the average Ozzies sense of fair play and tolerance.

And maybe boredom.

[Matthew Of Canberra]

That is an odd article. It's hard to disagree with it, because it doesn't actually say all that much. He's picked a few instances where he doesn't think the ABC has done all that well, naturally they're all instances where the not-doing-well suits his own particular agenda, and uses them to support a general claim that the ABC seems, to him, to be a bit biased.

But stand back a bit and look at the overall theme and it doesn't actually amount to all that much. So don would be a bit happier of the ABC did a few more articles like "X". Ok, that's fine. I'd like to see more boobs, myself. Lots more. You know - tits. And girls with nice legs wearing shorts. That's what I want from My ABC. I wonder if the Oz would publish that for me ...

But I don't actually disagree all that much. I do also think that the ABC is a bit too cautious sometimes about the nutjobs alternative view that it gives airtime to. I suppose I do understand why - nutjobs iconoclasts have a history of using any mainstream recognition for maximum gain, but I think a robust, 2 hour panel session with lordy monckton and the rock-banger from adelaide uni on one side and a few local representatives of the pro-warmist camp on the other, with a moderator to stop the gish gallops now and then so that they could be debunked, could make for genuinely fascinating viewing. And the inevitable articles and columns on monday about how unfair and biased it was would be good reading too.

Aitkin mentions the "anu death threats" controversy, though.

Oooh, I don't think he should have gone there. Yes, the ABC's role in that business was initially less than ideal - as was robustly pointed out by Media Watch, on the ABC itself. The ABC got one crucial fact wrong, and it fed the stupid in the following weeks.

But no mention is made in aitken's column that another august tabloid covered itself in stupid with that story, and it happens to be the one that's publishing aitkin's column. I think it's a bit rich to attack the ABC for not correcting the one erroneous article it published, while the australian attempted to bend reality to avoid admitting that it had engaged in a nasty smear campaign over a period of weeks and had got numerous claims wrong in a gleeful personal attack on people who're simply doing their jobs.

And at the end of the day, the one media group that had the guts to take on that august tabloid and suffer the outrageous slings and arrows of multiple attack-pieces each day for a fortnight, in order to sort out the facts and set the record straight was ... Media Watch, on the ABC. And _that_ story is a centerpiece of aitken's column.

Don aitken might not have spotted that, because he's standing on the shoulders of trolls. I don't think you get to attack the ABC for bias and pursuing an agenda when you're relying on the australian to publish your story.

[jack]

I actually like to think you're right, angra. When you look at what he claims Aussies are really like, what Aitkin is referring to are the more vigorous extremes of mainstream media (as represented by Alan Jones et al), assuming that represents mainstream Australia. Basically he admits his assertions about Aussies are a "guess", and apparently weakly corroborated by something he calls "attitude surveys" (by which one hopes he doesn't mean the typical news.com.au reader poll).

Take, for example, his lazy formulation that Aussies are "less worried about endangered species." What does that mean, precisely? That Aussies don't have an understanding of the importance of biodiversity and the web of life? Could that be because Aussies are ill served by the education system abetted by media? You don't have to subscribe to any romantic notions about "mother nature" to be able to grasp that, as basic biology tells us, the diminution of biodiversity is generally a bad thing.

"Aitkin mentions the anu death threats controversy... The ABC got one crucial fact wrong, and it fed the stupid in the following weeks."

Indeed, and last I looked there were story pages on various News Ltd websites where the bad reporting remains unchallenged and uncorrected. It all was sourced from one of the wires (AAP, if memory serves, but don't hold me to that).

As MoC correctly observes, it was only ABC's Media Watch that finally unravelled the stupid, while the Oz chased its tiresome agenda. As we know, the ANU boffins were moved to more secure premises for good reason, though not on that occasion due to explicit death threats.

But the stupid fuelled a couple of FOI requests, attempting to disprove something that actually wasn't reported in the original Canberra Times article. The hapless FOIer is probably still dining out on the mistaken belief that he actually scooped something meaningful. And that boat is floated by people like Aitkin.

Meanwhile it didn't seem to matter to the agenda monkeys that there were actual instances in which boffins in other research establishments had received explicit threats. Or, if acknowledged at all, the threats were trivialised, and people who had been abused and threatened for simply doing their jobs told to "man up".

"he's standing on the shoulders of trolls"

And singing from the approved songbook. Aitkin's piece is "an edited version of an essay that first appeared in the Sydney Institute Quarterly."

Don has found a home.

[chookmustard]

It seems Don is only guessing so the rest of this article is a waste of time. 

The Oz gave him quite a few lines so I hope he it nicely paid. If I could do such a half assed job in my employment and still get paid for it I would be cheering! So I'm happy for Don to write this dross and get away with it.

Its funny how Don can reasonably explain that the ABC must have a certain way of looking at the world that would naturally lead them to employ more like minded people. He himself relates to these types (academics) and admits he gets a gig or two on the ABC from time to time as well. Some may just as reasonably argue the same process applies at the Oz or News. 

Can someone point me in the direction of Leftist opinion writings at the Oz?


'But in general I feel able to say that the tone of the ABC's treatment of global warming is not simply that it follows the orthodoxy, but that it does so quite uncritically. The orthodoxy is the position of the Gillard government, of the executive of the Australian Academy of Science, of the UN, of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and of Fairfax Media newspapers. It is hard to row against the tide.

This kinda reminds me of how George Pell became a climatologist by doing some reading and coming to the conclusion that it's not a big deal. Nick Minchin did the same thing and their mate Tony Abbott was convinced by those two old blokes massive experience in climatology studies. The trick is to keep reading until you find someone you can agree with.

But the science is not at all settled: it is most likely that the planet has been warming in irregular ways for the past century and a half, but it is by no means certain that human activities have been the major cause of the warming, let alone that the warming is likely to be catastrophic for humanity.'

So it seems it's a question of balance for Don, (although he gets a go on the ABC as do others with similar views), but he needs to familiarize himself with the concept of false balance. I think that's really what he is talking about although he may not realize it. he points to some of the many organizations that agree with the concept of AGW but then dismisses them, because of uncertainties. Perhaps the concept of 'weight of evidence' should be on his reading list too? it's basically the attitude that ' look, thise ABC peeps don't agree with me, the must be wrong!'.



'Whether or not the seas are rising in an unprecedented way depends on which article you read, and which scientists you think are authoritative. My memory may be faulty, but I cannot recall the ABC telling any good news stories about rising sea levels. More generally, more trees are being planted, the Great Barrier Reef seems to be doing well, though from the media perspective it is always under threat, conservation farming is increasing, national parks are growing in number, waste disposal is being done more carefully, and so on.'

He states these things uncritically. Perhaps these things happen in Australia and are good, but Australia is only a small part of a larger whole. You know, that thing we call the Earth. And good news stories about rising sea levels? Hurricane Sandy was such a feel good tale, Don!

'I cannot give a day-by-day account of examples, and am not equipped to do so. What sticks in my mind are three themes.'

He can't think of any examples of uncritical and unbiased ABC AGW reporting but he can think of themes, which turn out to be 1 theme and 2 examples.

1. Doom and gloom about environmental reporting: 

call me biased, but there is not a lot of good news in environmental issues. He didn't bother to link to any major good news items so I won't either.

2. Misreporting example re a scientific paper on Australia's climate being withdrawn from publication: 

This is the usual way for deniers to mislead people. What you do is point to a single paper that your opponents made an error on, or got delayed in producing or had some issue associated with it and hey presto! Your argument is proven, AGW is a hoax. 
(The trick is to ignore all other evidence). Then you make a massive deal out of it, in this case accuse the ABC of not making a huge deal out of it as well, thereby proving your point.

I'm not touching the FOI stoopidness issue. You guys covered it already.

3. Political correctness theme. I.e, slag off everyone and anyone you don't agree with while at the same time include some dog whistling commentary. Gish gallop anyone?:

'A regular ABC listener/viewer will learn that environmentalists are always virtuous.'

I'm a regular listener but I haven't noticed this, but hey, I'm indoctrinated,ok!

' Species always seem to be in danger of extinction'

You know, bio diversity is so diversly overrated. 


' Women are always coming up against patriarchy and glass ceilings'

Yeah, stoopidness is catching. 

'Outside the business news domain, corporations always seem to be acting badly.'

Gross generalization here, but hey, corporations aren't really into making money and doing everything humanly possible to not have any impact whatsoever on the environment. 

'Rich people are likely to be mean.' 

Gina is a really a lovely person, as are her children. I think the situation may be different in places like America where there is a positive culture of donation and patronage by the wealthy. I don't think the same can be said here. Dick Smith has spoken of this before.

'Health and education seem to be in a disastrous situation, and the fault is plainly that of government. '

Two words. Campbell Newman

'The UN is a good thing, and international organisations such as Greenpeace are plucky and well-intentioned.'

No examples provided, just the vibe. Personally, I listen to the ABC quite a lot and I don't get that impression at all.

'"Boatpeople" are always "asylum-seekers", which suggests a political reason for their emigration, though on the face of it they simply have more money than those in refugee camps.'

Racist dog whistle 

'Scientists who are sceptical of the AGW scare, like Jennifer Marohasy, are  subject of what seem to me tendentious personal attacks, in this occasion on Media Watch.'

That's his only example, and from what I read MW gave both sides of the story, so what the hell is he talking about?

'"For they are not the only values that Australians can possess. I would guess that most Australians are, in comparison to the ABC, and as attitude surveys suggest, rather more conservative, less internationalist, less sympathetic to the disadvantaged, less convinced about any human contribution to "climate change", less worried about endangered species, more critical of handouts to indigenous Australians, less welcoming of boat people, and so on."'

I really want to meet some of these people he is talking about here. I've met people with some of these attitudes, but not all. 

Then again, they sound really unpleasant so perhaps I will give it a miss. maybe they are the average Oz reader, which this article may suit.

What it boils down to is that the Oz, as a private business is well within its rights to be mean and misrepresentative to all comers and to all topics, at least in its opinion pages anyway.

 The ABC however, as a public broadcaster, must present all views, regardless of taste, sense, scientific credibility etc. Like you guys have pointed out, Don has gone looking for examples and themes that suit his argument and stu his audience and it's no surprise the Sydney Institute published it either. 

This bloke is an academic and I'm only a TAFE educated nobody and even I can see that what he wrote had no substance! 

[Matthew Of Canberra]

"Can someone point me in the direction of Leftist opinion writings at the Oz?"

Ask bolta - he sees it EVERYWHERE!

That's a very strange article, isn't it? What he's saying isn't new, but I'm sure I've seen it better argued elsewhere. I agree that it would be more interesting to hear a broader range of views at the ABC, but I'm not sure that means they should just hire dickheads. And I love this "some people think" line of argument. Don, just tell us why YOU think there should be some gun-totin' anti-world-government screw-the-poor grand wizards reading the news on 666 canberra.

It's frustrating to have such a big argument supported by such vague, bogus claims. The few falsifiable claims he makes are (to say the least) highly contestible

I see he dared to "go there" with the "ANU Death Threats" story. Yes, the ABC fubar'd with one news article, and made a claim that was not supported by the original evidence (which still stands, incidentally). They were slow to correct it, yes. But media watch wasn't slow to criticize the ABC for that. And the ABC's crimes were nothing, compared with the obscene feeding frenzy that NEWS launched to try to paint climate scientists as lying liars who lie - publishing article after editorial after blog after editorial after article to push a case against australian climate scientists that was just factually wrong. I find it very curious that don, an ex-VC, would pick on the ABC for that one story, but not think to even mention the rest of the hate-storm. And I'm curious that he completely ignores the actual story - which shouldn't have been the ABC's coverage at all, but the claim (which has not yet been refuted) that australian climate scientists have actually been threatened. Don? Any thoughts on that?

As for the great barrier reef "seems to be doing well" - wow, that's spectacular. The great barrier reef still exists, sure. But there isn't a study in existence which doesn't show long-term die-off in coral cover, despite the whole thing being a marine park since the 80's. The figures seem to rage between 22% and 50% die-off in the last twenty years. I'm not sure what measure don is using to support that "doing well" claim, unless he hopes to hide behind that "seems" hedge (hey - it looked ok when I flew over it on my way to singapore once). Maybe he thinks all those studies are wrong? Well that's fine - but don't beat up on the ABC for reporting them.

I think he gives a bit too much away here:

"AGW, now transmuted into "climate change""

The implication is wrong - no, the terminology did not "transmute". At least not any time recently. Climate Change and Global Warming have been used interchangeably for decades.

I could go on - it's a rich field. But my favorite line has to be this:

"I cannot recall the ABC telling any good news stories about rising sea levels"

Uh-huh. Don, would you like to perhaps nominate some of this "good news about rising sea levels" that the ABC should be reporting?

[zoot]

I'm with Don. I think it's shameful that the ABC refuses to give air time to The Flat Earth Society. And they never publish my explanations of the geocentric universe, even though George Pell agrees with me, and he's done some reading about it. (That's George Pell, our butcher, not the fella in a frock).
Where is diversity of opinion??

[chookmustard]

Was this article online only? What a waste of space if it was actually published!

Good news stories about rising sea levels indeed. The GBR doing fantastically.

I suppose the ABC could do more stories on ChemTrails.....

[jack]

Demonstrating the virtues of Rupert's vaunted Free Press, the Oz tacked the following on to the end of its report on Rupert's IPA speech...

Anti-capitalism protesters attempted to disrupt the event. Melbourne Lord Mayor Robert Doyle had his entry briefly disrupted when his car's tyres were slashed.

www.theaustralian.com.au/business/free-markets-offer-better-life-for-all-rupert-murdoch/story-e6frg8zx-1226612815431

Such despicable violence! But wait, did it actually happen...

Melbourne's Lord Mayor Robert Doyle also received a noisy welcome, with protesters jumping onto his car.

Some reports suggested his car's tyres had been slashed.

www.abc.net.au/news/2013-04-04/rowdy-scenes-outside-gallery-for-murdoch-visit/4610280

Which reports? Because Doyle actually explained fairly clearly what really happened...

Cr Doyle said he returned to the gallery after the incident to hear Rupert Murdoch's speech at the dinner, determined not to let "self-righteous d---heads" ruin his night.

"They let our tyres down," he said.

"We had to go and get them re-inflated but we’ve done that and I’m not going to let them (the protesters) stop me attending."

www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/lord-mayor-robert-doyles-car-hit-by-protesters/story-e6frf7kx-1226612755290

Like the tyres, the Oz's story was somewhat inflated too.

[Matthew Of Canberra]

Did anyone notice this story last week?

[url=http://minister.innovation.gov.au/gregcombet/mediareleases/pages/australiaandchinaagreetoworktogetheroncarbonmarkets.aspx
]Australia and China agree to work together on carbon markets[/url]

It's a bit of a big deal. The reporting about it was pretty low-key. The Oz had a couple of related stories:

www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/china-to-tax-carbon-by-2015/story-fn59niix-1226238633181

www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/chinese-ets-will-be-here-in-months-combet/story-fn3dxiwe-1226607864109

But the significance seemed to be lost. What this means is that anyone who tries to roll back our ETS is going to get some very confused and pretty irritated responses from a major trading partner which has committed publicly to going down the same road. If china says it's planning a national emissions trading system, they'll have already planned it out for the next decade.

I'm still betting that coalition voters are going to get a big shock when the libs don't repeal the carbon price. They'll tinker, sure. But eliminate it? Nah.

And I don't think they'll kill the NBN, either. If they try to, they'll get push-back from business (other than NEWS and Telstra, obviously) who'll do the sums and realise that stopping now is financially and economically daft. They'll undoubtedly change aspects of the rollout, maybe to focus on low-hanging fruit, but I don't think they'll stop it. If they TRY to do fiber to the node, they're going to end up with angry customers.

[jack]

The Oz's Chris Kenny apparently endorses activist journalism...

In my experience, journalists in Canberra who dare reflect anything like mainstream views on, say, border protection or climate change are immediately on the outer. This is the peer pressure that generates groupthink.

And this is why journalists who challenge the consensus, especially from within the press gallery and even inside the ABC, show commendable fortitude.

www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/lefts-anti-establishment-vindictiveness-should-have-us-worried/story-fn8qlm5e-1226618653281

"Journalists who challenge the consensus" - I think he must mean those who troll for the likes of His Lairdship Viscount Monckton.

[chookmustard]

Chris Kenny is an odd chap. Not a journo, but tries to act like one and then backs off for being one at times. Party Hack fits him more appropriately