JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

ABC – Agitprop for the Bureaucratic Class

The ABC is so afraid that the public might read comments from global warming skeptics that they frequently censor or delay reasonable comments, while allowing defamatory, unprofessional, and unsubstantiated ones through. (Guess which way the editors of The Drum vote?)

Marc Hendrickx describes how hard it is to get rid of a single baseless defamatory comment on the ABC taxpayer-funded-site:

The following anonymous comment was posted to [Sara] Phillips’s blog shortly afterwards:

Annie : 03 Dec 2010 7:07:53pm

The denialist clowns return again . . . climateaudit.org . . . run by Stephen McIntyre a known climate denialist and extremist right-wing provocateur . . . you are a joke as are your answers . . . laughing hysterically.

Marc Hendrix suggested it be removed as defamatory. The ABC editors protested, and here’s the weird thing, it would have taken them less time to just say “yes” — after all, it’s only a comment. But in the sum total editorial-calculation-of-the-day there was apparently some net benefit in fighting to keep an unsubstantiated insult visible among hundreds of other comments? (Go figure.) According to the ABC editors: “He [MacIntyre] could reasonably be described as ‘right wing’ as a speaking member of the George C Marshall Institute, which is known for its right-leaning politically conservative views. ‘Provocateur’ is a name given to describe those whose thinking goes against that of the status quo, another label that could reasonably be given to Mr McIntyre. As such, the comments from Annie are not unfounded and therefore not defamatory.”"

Hendrickx then passed on the ABC editorial point of view to Steven McIntyre, and he replied:

I am not a “member of the George Marshall Institute”. This allegation on your part is untrue. I once spoke at a briefing session sponsored by George Marshall Institute, but that does not make me a “member” or imply any endorsement on my part of their views. I would have been delighted to make the same presentation at a session sponsored by the Pew Centre.

Nor is there any basis for characterising my political views as “extremist right wing”. I have seldom expressed political opinions, though I once said that, in American terms, I would have been a Bill Clinton supporter. My only recent political contributions have been to a left-wing municipal politician in Toronto, Pam McConnell. I challenge you to provide any evidence that I hold “extremist right wing” political views. The comments by Annie are totally unfounded and defamatory. Yours truly, Stephen McIntyre

And only 6 days after McIntyre’s reply and three weeks after the initial comment was posted, the ABC managed to take the ten seconds needed  to  “delete” the offensive comment, long after the thread would have run cold.

Hendrickx asks:

Why did it take so much effort to remove the offensive comment? How did Phillips obtain permission to run such a biased and unbalanced opinion page at the taxpayers’ expense?

In an era where there are a multitude of opportunities for ABC staff to express their opinions by setting up their own blogs or personal web pages, how does Mark Scott justify the use of taxpayer funds to foot this bill?

Mark Hendrickx runs the blog ABCNewswatch.

Des Moore also writes this week on the ABC way of smothering complaints (read it at Quadrant).

Wes George captures it in comment #3 on the thread about spambots and black propaganda:

Here in the Lucky Country we don’t need no stinkin’ botware conspiracy to manage opinion. We do it the fair dinkum way:

We taxpayers fund a state-owned and operated Ministry of Information which is the de facto propaganda arm of the Green/Labor coalition. It’s called the ABC. It’s totally legit, operates with impunity day and night, 365 days a year… The ABC even has its own websites and edits all comments to perfectly reflect the latest groupthink.

And the Left is worried that software bots are comin’ to git ‘em?

ABC-Rejects

Please copy and log the comments you post to the ABC site (if you can be bothered wading in). I want to host an “ABC-Rejects” thread to show the kind of comments they allow, and the kind they don’t. (At least one reader has an interesting theory on the pattern of what gets through, that I’ll share soon). I could use a few more samples.

UPDATE: As Marc Hendrickx so rightly points out the real problem is the absence of stories.

It wasn’t so much the comment that offended. That comment is typical of the level of debate on the ABC – ignorant innuendo based on uninformed web gossip. It was that it received the support of a senior ABC journalist and the support of the supposedly “independent” ABC Audience and Consumer Affairs. This proves bias in regard to climate change reporting, thus explaining the absence of any significant coverage of Steve McIntyre’s work including his brilliant take down of the Hockey Stick graph and more recently his work with Chris O’Donnell, Nic Lewis and Jeff Condon refuting Eric Steig’s botched analysis of Antarctic temps. ABC have missed many more important journal articles that refute the iPCC consensus, and it’s clear now why this is the case.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 5.5/10 (2 votes cast)
ABC - Agitprop for the Bureaucratic Class, 5.5 out of 10 based on 2 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/4ug4unp

37 comments to ABC – Agitprop for the Bureaucratic Class

  • #

    OT I know but the Virginia AG Cuccinelli is going about this the right way and he’s not one to back off either. He went after Obama and the EPA so watch out Mickey Mann, because this guy is a Rottweiler.

    http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/20110223_A_climate_skeptic_in_Virginia_finds_an_ear_in_congress.html

    He’s relatively young but I’ve high hopes for him politically.

    Pointman

    00

  • #

    Hi Jo,

    its good to actually read a climate related area that hits my own area of expertise.

    I recently started my Doctorate, which is focused on censorship and propaganda online, and in particular on the role of bots.

    I had a site in development to enable people to report when they have been censored – with censoring of climate sceptics particularly in mind – to act as both a clearing house to show the amount of censorship by topic and by media outlet. Since having had the amazing fortune to secure funding for my PhD in October, the site has been put on the backburner, but it will see action soon: http://www.censoring.me

    I’m also working on specialised bots to automate seeking out censorship and also potentially identifying other bots that may be posting.

    I must say, as someone familiar with this area, that the continuing claims of bot astroturfing by climate alarmists (c.f. George Monbiot) are utterly ignorant, not to mention worryingly paranoid and self-important. There are some pretty sophisticated algorithms out there, but their users wouldn’t even think to waste their precious resources on a few climate-related threads; all the action takes place in ‘black-hat’ Search Engine Optimisation techniques; though if the incredibly insecure carbon trading industry continues I can see Black Hat SEO bots deployed to take advantage for phishing scams.

    If you or your users would be interested in taking part, or using the tools as I develop them, let me know.

    00

  • #
    Ross

    Looks like some interesting moves over at Channel 10. Maybe Australia will start to get some balance in the MSM

    00

  • #
    Joe Lalonde

    Jo,

    Is there a bullseye on my back?
    I have no doubt governments don’t like me. I keep getting e-mails of the governments position of backing the IPCC report. Even from the Australian government, Canadian government, the U.S. government and the British government.
    When theories are our best science, we are in deep trouble!

    00

  • #

    It wasn’t so much the comment that offended. That comment is typical of the level of debate on the ABC – ignorant innuendo based on uninformed web gossip. It was that it received the support of a senior ABC journalist and the support of the supposedly “independent” ABC Audience and Consumer Affairs. This proves bias in regard to climate change reporting, thus explaining the absence of any significant coverage of Steve McIntyre’s work including his brilliant take down of the Hockey Stick graph and more recently his work with Chris O’Donnell, Nic Lewis and Jeff Condon refuting Eric Steig’s botched analysis of Antarctic temps. ABC have missed many more important journal articles that refute the iPCC consensus, and it’s clear now why this is the case.

    00

  • #
    mags

    I stopped reading anything on the ABC site long ago. The plethora of vicious, one sided comments left me completely cold. To think that this cesspit is paid for by the public makes me sick.

    00

  • #
    wes george

    The ABC’s use of the smear “denialist” in referring to those who express scepticism about the AGW hypothesis is in violation of the ABC Code of Practice (See page 3.)

    2.7 Discrimination and Stereotypes. To avoid discrimination and stereotyping, content should not use language or images which:

    • disparage or discriminate against any person or group on grounds such as race, ethnicity, nationality, sex, age, disability or sexual preference; marital, parental, social or occupational status; religious, cultural or political belief or activity.

    • are not representative and reinforce stereotypes, or convey stereotypic assumptions.

    • convey prejudice.

    • make demeaning or gratuitous references; for example to, people’s physical characteristics, cultural practices or religious beliefs.

    The above requirements are not intended to prevent content which is factual or the expression of genuinely-held opinion, or content presented in the legitimate context of a humorous, satirical or dramatic works.

    The ABC, as a taxpayer funded agency, is aware that the use of the bigoted term “denialist” is a thinly veiled reference to Neo-Nazi apologists who “deny” that the Jewish Holocaust ever occurred. To link sceptical scientists and citizens in a nationally important socio-economic, political and scientific debate to Neo-Nazi hate speech is invidious slander of the highest order. To do so as a taxpayer funded news and content delivery organization whose core value is

    …to contribute to a sense of national identity and inform and entertain, and reflect the cultural diversity of, the Australian community; and

    (ii) broadcasting programs of an educational nature

    is contemptible and outrageously prejudicial behavior.

    We should call upon the ABC not only to cease and desist from employing bigoted language in its news reports but to announce a general ban of the term “denialist” in its opinion pieces as well, just as the ABC would never allow thinly veiled racist, sexist or religious smears or hate speech to appear in its opinion columns.

    Furthermore, the ABC should post online a formal apology for the thousands of instances where it has employed the bigoted terms “denialist” and “climate denier.”

    The ABC must admit its role in calumniating every Australian citizen who is sceptical of the AGW hypothesis and take measures towards reconciliation.

    This reconciliation can only begin when the ABC management and staff are made aware of their own institutional and cultural bias that is blinding them to the biggest story of the decade— To be skeptical of the AGW hypothesis isn’t the equivalent of any kind of denialism, but is, in fact, evidence-based and is one of several rational positions that can be arrived at by reasonable inquiry into the rapidly evolving science related to the climate debate.

    Through misinformation and omission of information about the climate debate the ABC has failed spectacularly in its duty to inform the public on an issue of great national significance, missing story after story, while misdirecting the public’s attention away from the salient issues. How much better could our democracy function if the ABC could rise above its petty prejudices and delivery the balanced information we as Australian citizens need in order to rationally execute our duty as an electorate?

    Should the ABC decide to continue the employ the term denialist, we should demand that the taxpayer-funded agency issue a statement in defense of its use of unwarranted and inflammatorily bigoted language in what should otherwise be reasonable socio-economic, scientific and political contexts.

    00

  • #
    wes george

    The ABC has repeated violated it own code of practice when reporting on the climate debate:

    3. News and current
    affairs content

    3.1 This section applies to content categorised by the
    ABC as news and current affairs in accordance with
    Section 5 of the ABC Editorial Policies 2007. This
    content will be accurate, impartial and objective and
    thereby avoid bias.

    3.2 Every reasonable effort, in the circumstances, must
    be made to ensure that the factual content of news
    and current affairs is accurate and in context.

    3.3 The ABC will correct a significant error when it
    is established that one has been made. When
    a correction is necessary, it will be made in an
    appropriate manner as soon as reasonably practicable.

    3.4 Content will be impartial. Editorial judgements will
    be based on news values. One perspective will not
    be unduly favoured over others.

    3.5 Balance will be sought but may not always be
    achieved within a single program or publication;
    it will be achieved as soon as reasonably practicable
    and in an appropriate manner. It is not essential
    to give all sides equal time. As far as possible,
    principal relevant views on matters of importance
    will be presented.

    3.6 The ABC will serve the public interest by investigating
    issues affecting society and individuals.

    http://www.abc.net.au/corp/pubs/documents/200806_codeofpractice-revised_2008.pdf

    00

  • #
    wes george

    The ABC is regularly publishes (and omits) content in breech of its core values and mandatory requirements, which apparently include: four fundamentals: honesty, fairness, independence and respect.

    The ABC publishes the most extensive set of broadcasting guidelines available in Australia. These include mandatory requirements such as the ABC’s Code of Practice, statements of principle and philosophy, program objectives affecting various areas of broadcasting, general policies and explanatory information.

    The most recent edition of the ABC Editorial Policies was published in March 2007 and revised 1 July 2008 and 1 March 2009.

    The ABC Board amends these policies to meet changing needs and circumstances including legislation affecting the ABC, and the booklet is updated regularly to incorporate new material.

    The Editorial Policies are freely available to all staff and understanding of it is essential for all who have editorial responsibility for ABC content. A copy of the Editorial Policies and the ABC’s Code of Practice can be downloaded from this page.

    These policies enable program makers and the public to understand the editorial and ethical principles that are fundamental to the ABC. They are developed with the experience of ABC program makers and take account of the requirements of current legislation and regulation. Most importantly, they seek to reflect the standards that ABC audiences expect of their national broadcaster.

    These policies offer a frame of reference as well as, on occasions, a check list of considerations aimed at helping program makers make difficult judgements for themselves.

    The policies encourage program makers to satisfy the expectations of their audiences. But they also allow room for the challenging and disturbing to be seen or heard from time to time. To that end the policies insist, directly and by implication, on four fundamentals: honesty, fairness, independence and respect.

    http://www.abc.net.au/corp/pubs/edpols.htm

    00

  • #
    Ken Stewart

    The local ABC is wonderful; the Qld wide radio during the day is balanced and entertaining; national radio news, TV, current affairs, and on line is a problem- the only reason I watch is because there’s little alternative.
    A bit like BOM’s structure really.

    Ken

    00

  • #
    wes george

    The ABC regularly violates its mandatory editorial policy on the “Labelling of groups and individuals” in its online news and opinion content by allowing the usage of the invidiously bigoted label “climate denialism” to stereotype those skeptical of the AGW hypothesis.

    5.17 Labelling of groups and individuals

    5.17.1 The overriding objective for the ABC is to report the facts clearly, accurately
    and impartially to enable audiences to make their own judgements and form
    their own conclusions.

    5.17.2 The ABC does not label groups or individuals except where labels provide
    valuable information or context. Labels, if inappropriately applied, can be seen
    as subjective, over simplistic or as portraying stereotypes.

    5.17.3 Where labels have been ascribed to an individual or group by a third party,
    this will be made clear within the broadcast.

    http://www.abc.net.au/corp/pubs/documents/EdPols07_updateFeb09_FIN%20tools.pdf

    00

  • #
    tony s

    In early January the Drum was shutting down comments about climate topics very quickly. On one posting they allowed just 12 comments. Not surprisingly the pro AGW bias was being slammed by sceptics.
    The ABC bias is more evident in the sheer volume of pro AGW articles published. Everyone is given a post, nearly every day as long as they’re from the right side. The funniest was the Science show’s Robyn Williams supporting Flannery’s prediction of impending Gaia.

    Environment reporter Margot ONeil was sent to Oxford to learn about the demise of climate journalism. Whilst there she learnt about the impact of Climategate. Is the ABC a sheltered workshop from the outside world?
    http://www.abc.net.au/environment/articles/2010/11/03/3056199.htm

    I’m sure I read somewhere that ABC environment reporters said in a forum, that they regarded everything from the IPCC as fact.

    00

  • #
    Lawrie

    Wes George,

    The ABC does have the best guidelines of all Australian media. That’s true. Unfortunately they just don’t apply them. It seems a common problem for those of the left,”do as I say, not do as I do”. As Andrew Bolt often states; The left are more often about seeming rather than doing.

    The situation will never change whilstever Labor are in power or trying to get there. So the best action is to continue sniping. Heave enough lead and you have to hit something.

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Apologies for the O/T but ther’s a ripper of a thread at Judith Curry’s site at the moment.

    http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/22/hiding-the-decline/

    Over a thousand posts now. The usual pretentious and bombastic examples of semantic gymnastics from the “hockey team”. Gavin Schmidt especially having a bad time when realising that he’s not in the moderator’s seat.

    Well worth a visit.

    00

  • #
    pat

    ABC now has this:

    24 Feb: ABC: Annabel Crabb: Government gains confidence, Opposition loses its nerve
    Of the short, difficult prime ministerial career Julia Gillard has so far experienced, trepidation has been a constant.
    The election was booby-trapped with issues that popular wisdom suggested she leave well alone.
    You can almost hear the briefing now.
    “Don’t say too much about climate change, because it kind of killed Kevin, and there’s definite traces of Gillard DNA on the trigger…
    Things have changed lately, though…
    And the confidence has leached into other areas.
    Gillard, Combet and Swan are prosecuting their climate change plans with vigour…
    Annabel Crabb is ABC Online’s chief political writer.
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/02/24/3147277.htm

    i’ve posted the following, and will check back later to see if it has gone up:

    why do u keep saying “climate change” when u mean anthropogenic global warming caused by increasing human emissions of carbon dioxide, requiring govt action such as a carbon tax or ETS?
    every human being knows the climate has changed, is changing and will change. when u use the false term “climate change”, u just sound silly.
    also, how on earth did u come to the conclusion that kevin rudd was “kind of killed” by “climate change”? what precisely does that mean?
    personally, i thought it was malcolm turnbull who was “killed” because of his support of an ETS, which was not popular with the public.

    00

  • #
    pat

    how quick was this concensus built!!!!!!!

    24 Feb: ABC: Gillard to lay out carbon price policy
    In the aftermath of last year’s election, Ms Gillard established a multi-party climate change committee to build consensus on what form a carbon price should take.
    The ABC understands the committee has now come to an agreement and Ms Gillard will reveal more details at 11:30am AEDT…
    The Government abandoned its previous emissions trading scheme last year after it failed to get it through the Senate.
    This backdown is widely believed to have led to former prime minister Kevin Rudd’s slide in the polls, and his eventual sacking.
    The Government has foreshadowed a system that would start with a fixed price on carbon, followed by a move to a market-based system in several years.
    With the Opposition set to vote against any market-based scheme, the Government will need the support of the Greens and the independents to get the legislation through Parliament…
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/02/24/3147523.htm?section=justin

    once again, ABC says Rudd’s sacking was due to his failure to get an ETS up. do any of you know anyone who thinks this is true, cos i don’t.

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Thanks Wes – some great research there mate. It will come in handy in my soon-to-be-moderated post at:

    http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/44406.html

    Where Mulga Mumblebrain (a CAGW regular who is almost as feral as the worst of The Drum/Unleashed crowd … not quite as bad as Zebe…washis/hername) posted a predeictable rant:

    “Oh McLean, you’ve done it again. Told porkies that is. The denialist pseudo-scientists number in the few score, most cranks or employees of the fossil fuel industry, The real climate scientists are almost unanimous, as are all the Academies of Science of the planet, in rejecting denialism as the mendacious, anti-Enlightenment, cult that it is.”

    So in response I borrowed some of your references Wes:

    “Why does the ABC continue to allow the use of the term “denialist” when it is quite obviously against the code of conduct for the organisation? The thinly-veiled reference to Holocaust denialism is an outright slur and in gross violation of the “Labelling of groups and individuals” policy 5.17, let alone the “Discrimination and stereotypes” section 2.7 in the Code of Practice.

    That the ABC continues to condone the use of this term as well as allow blog OPs utilising the term is an embarrassment to the broadcaster and a gross misuse of the taxpayers dollars. I did not pay taxes to be defamed by the ABC bloggers and posters without reasonable moderation. An expectation of an abscence of gross bias is expected, no?

    The ABC can take this matter in hand directly or it will likely be pursued from without.”

    Let’s see if this one gets up… where to next vs the ABC? I am all ears for petitions etc.

    00

  • #
    incoherent rambler

    start an organization named “Enemies of the ABC”?

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    PS> One of these days I am going to pull my finger out and spell check my posts before hitting “submit.”

    PPS> Today is not that day…

    00

  • #
    pat

    guess the “months” were squeezed into six days

    18 Feb: ABC: Carbon price deal is months away
    The Government’s multi-party climate change committee, which is chaired by Prime Minister Julia Gillard and includes the Greens and independent MPs, held its fourth meeting in Canberra this morning.
    Ms Gillard and Climate Change Minister Greg Combet were widely expected to unveil their preferred model after the meeting.
    But the committee says no final decisions have been taken on how to price carbon or what assistance will be offered to industry and taxpayers.
    It says the final design of the carbon price will only be decided when all the elements of the policy can be considered together, and that should happen in the coming months.
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/02/18/3142797.htm?section=justin

    00

  • #
    pat

    given the Opposition were not on the Committee, why hasn’t ABC or The Australian carried a response from them in this piece?

    24 Feb: ABC: Gillard unveils carbon price details
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/02/24/3147523.htm?section=justin

    24 Feb: Australian: Australia to have carbon price from July 1, 2012, Julia Gillard announces
    Ben Packham and James Massola
    Julia Gillard has unveiled the key principles of the government’s climate policy today, saying a fixed price would be placed on carbon pollution from July 1 next year.
    She said a “smooth transition” would follow, within three to five years, to a cap-and-trade system…
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/gillard-to-reveal-climate-policy-today/story-e6frg6n6-1226011223441

    some reports do not even point out that the Opposition was not even on the “multi-party” committee.

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Thanks for posting the carbon tax announcement there… here’s my volley:

    “Well I guess Labor can kiss goodbye to the last few seats in Queensland. The current Rainbow Coalition wants not only to hit the coal industry with the MRRT tax, but now a carbon tax on top of that…

    Please explain (as an infamous Queenslander used to be fond of saying) how two additional new taxes levied on the same industry are equitable let alone efficient?

    Also, if we know anything from markets, especially derivatives and mineral markets, let alone a derivatives market for the minerals industry (see a carbon trading market), they are extremely unpredictable. How does that give the much-preached “certainty” to the industry? The only certainty is increased risk (which in financial/economic terms is defined as variability of expected outcomes/returns).

    Of course I wouldn’t expect the current Rainbow Coalition to understand basic economics and/or finance because there isn’t more than a couple of years real world experience in the entire Cabinet.”

    00

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    For anyone interested SMH has a poll going:

    Do you think Australia should introduce a price on carbon to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?

    00

  • #
    wes george

    Bulldust @ 14

    Good work, mate. Knowledge is power.

    I would encourage everyone to arm themselves with a thorough knowledge of ABC’s editorial policy then take direct action by contacting the ABC and registering a complaint…

    The ABC is our national broadcaster, not a privately own media corporation, as such it has no right to any editorial policy other than impartiality. The ABC should serve ALL the people of Australia, not behave as a mouthpiece for a privileged political clique.

    The ABC, as a corporate culture, seems to willfully blind to the totally unethical and unprofessional standard of journalism it practices daily. Yet, clearly it has a whole swag of proper mandatory codes of journalistic conduct, which the ABC reporters and editors simply ignore.

    Provision of diverse opinion is a longstanding and legitimate aspect of the fulfilment by the ABC of its charter functions to inform, entertain, educate and to encourage and promote the arts. The clear separation of news, analysis and opinion from each other by the ABC is essential because—

    – The ABC has statutory duties to maintain its independence and integrity and to ensure that its presentation of news and information is impartial according to the recognised standards of objective journalism; and
    – The ABC does not adopt a single editorial position on public issues in the way, for instance, newspapers commonly adopt positions and express them in unsigned editorials

    —An ABC “guidance note” on differentiating analysis, editorial policy

    The hypocrisy is stunning. How do, we the people, hold our national broadcaster accountable to its own standards and mandatory rules?

    If the ABC can not manage the professionalism necessary to provide impartial journalism for Australian people rather than just the facade of impartiality, then perhaps it’s time to close the public purse and sell the news branch of the corporation. As a private media corporation the ABC would then be fully within its right to favor any sort of politics and bias it chooses.

    * * *

    Here’s an ABC treasure trove of documents well worth downloading…

    http://www.abc.net.au/corp/pubs/edpols.htm

    00

  • #
    pattoh

    “History teaches us that the countries and the economies who prosper at times of historic change are those who get in and shape and manage the changes. The time is right and the time is now.

    From HerRanganus Fabiana 24/02/11

    Does anybody know if the Dutch were savvy enough to tax tulips?

    00

  • #

    Bruce @ 23,

    I am in California, have never been in Australia, and they let me vote NO.

    Friends of Australia everywhere, you can vote NO too! The AGW thugs have cooked the books for over 20 years, we can return the favor by cooking the vote. Might not accomplish anything but making a few AGW thugs a little less sure of themselves. That just might be enough to turn the tide.

    Vote early and often in favor of freedom and an absolute minimum of government in all of it’s forms.

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    The carbon ETS tax price debate is hotting up in Parliament now as Tony pushed to censure Joolya for her broken election promise of no carbon tax:

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/peoples-revolt-looms-on-carbon-tax-abbott/story-fn59niix-1226011399307

    I suppose he is dog whistling in relation to the unrest in the Arab world when he says she can expect a peoples’ revolt if a carbon tax price is introduced.

    Meanwhile the lamestream media is pushing the need for carbon pricing … quelle surprise:

    http://www.smh.com.au/business/carbon-cuts-lack-urgency-20110224-1b6iu.html

    But as mentioned above, make your voice heard (for what it’s worth on the lamestream poll) here:

    http://www.smh.com.au/business/carbon-tax-plan-a-betrayal-abbott-20110224-1b6hl.html#poll

    So far the “nays” have it :)

    00

  • #
    Jannes Kleintje

    TVNZ is also mindlessly supporting the government’s stance regarding ETS and AGW.
    The TVNZ Charter also states that
    “TVNZ will provide independent, comprehensive, impartial, and in-depth coverage and analysis of news and current affairs in New Zealand and throughout the world and of the activities of public and private institutions”.
    They probably think that they can bamboozle the New Zealand public because the Charter also states that:
    “Play a leading role in New Zealand television by setting standards of program quality encouraging creative risk-taking and experiment”…
    Is that also in the Australian Charter?

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Until the Opposition gets serious and attacks the “science” of AGW and exposes it for the fraud that it is, then they are always going to be on the back foot.

    Just banging on about Labor’s Big New Tax isn’t going to do it. If it is shown that a new tax is based on fraud, well that’s a different matter. So, the question is: Why do they hang back? Methinks Abbott has his own band of “believers” to contend with.

    00

  • #
    pat

    jo,
    just reporting that my comment regarding annabel crabb’s article above was not posted, but dozens of later comments were, mostly of the julia’s great or no she’s not variety.

    just voted on SMH and it was 51% no to 46% yes, tho i doubt if that is even an honest result.

    00

  • #
    manalive

    Pat (15) raises a point:

    why do u keep saying “climate change” when u mean anthropogenic global warming caused by increasing human emissions of carbon dioxide, requiring govt action such as a carbon tax or ETS?

    It’s important, I think, in all these exchanges never to succumb to the alarmists’ deceptive nomenclature like “global warming”, “climate change”, “climate disruption etc.

    First of all it’s about warming; I don’t know of any mechanism by which atmospheric CO2 enrichment directly causes cyclones, floods, droughts etc.
    A CO2 enriched atmosphere alone is a benefit.
    The climate changes, always has, and the globe has warmed since the LIA; the question is, of course, is the alleged warming since c. 1945 due overwhelmingly to human GHGs and is it likely to be catastrophic?

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Amazingly my comment from 17 made it past the ABC mod squad.

    00

  • #

    I’ve been doing alot of research into legal strategies to rectify this censorship situation. It’s important to understand that the legal foundations of ABC’s new media enterprises are a tangled mess of caveats and deflection of responsibility. The ABC, like any corporation is shrouded in layers on legal ‘butt-coverings’ that need to be peeled back like and onion. Each document is qualified by other documents and breeches of those policy documents requires the public to follow resolution through a process chain. Big bureaucratic win for them.

    In addition to the documentation supplied by wes, documentation I have found to be relevant is section 4 of the Conditions of Use for the website itself:

    4. User Participation
    4.4 Your contribution may be edited, removed or not published if the ABC considers it to be:

    4.4.1 defamatory, or otherwise unlawful or that it violates laws regarding harassment, discrimination, racial vilification, privacy or contempt;

    4.4.2 intentionally false or misleading;

    4.4.3 an infringement of intellectual property rights or copyright. See below for further information on copyright;

    4.4.4 abusive, offensive or obscene;

    4.4.5 inappropriate, off topic, repetitive or vexatious. For example the ABC reserves the right to reject contributions that have been widely canvassed in the forum. It also reserves the right to reject contributions from participants who seek to dominate the discussion;

    4.4.6 compromising the privacy of yourself, other contributors or of ABC staff, or containing inappropriate personal information;

    4.4.7 seeking to endorse commercial products or activities or to unduly promote commercial products or services;

    4.4.8 seeking to directly solicit donations;

    4.4.9 deliberate provocation of other community members;

    4.4.10 a posting on behalf of a suspended member. This may lead to you also having your membership locked or terminated.

    And section 4.1 and 4.2 of the Editorial Policies 2007:

    4 Editorial responsibility
    4.1 Editorial responsibility and ‘upward referral’

    4.1.1 The ABC’s output through its radio, television and online networks and other
    outlets is vast. It is the responsibility of staff to ensure that the provisions of
    the ABC Act, the ABC Code of Practice, laws relating to broadcasting and
    the philosophies and policies of the Corporation are observed.

    4.1.2 Subject to normal editorial management and controls, staff are responsible
    both for making the content and for exercising editorial judgement. If a problem
    arises, or there is any doubt, staff must consult the next higher level of
    editorial management for guidance. This process, known as ‘upward referral’,
    can extend, through the relevant director, to as far as the Managing Director
    as Editor-in-Chief. If staff do not refer the issue upward, he or she will be
    responsible for the editorial decision made.

    4.1.3 Any matter with legal implications must be referred to ABC Legal Services
    for advice.

    4.1.4 If content is controversial or likely to have an extraordinary impact, the most
    appropriate senior manager should be notified in advance, even where
    specific editorial guidance is not being sought. More senior staff may be
    notified if appropriate.

    4.1.5 In commissioning content, the extent of delegation of editorial control will be
    agreed and the ABC will nominate a person to have editorial responsibility
    on behalf of the ABC to ensure that it is completed as commissioned. The
    nominated person may be:

    (a) the relevant departmental head or executive producer in ABC Television

    (b) the Director of News and Current Affairs or the delegated editorial manager

    (c) the relevant Radio Program Manager, Radio Editor or Manager Local
    Radio in Radio
    (d) the Head of Content Commissioning and Editorial, New Media and
    Digital Services, Editorial Manager or the relevant editor in New Media
    and Digital Services.

    4.1.6 ABC Online: All content published by ABC Online or associated Internet
    services is subject to editorial lines of responsibility. These are:

    (a) for web sites directly connected to a particular program or network,
    the editorial line of responsibility is the same as for the other output
    of the program area or network

    (b) for ABC Online national news and current affairs, the editorial line of
    responsibility is to the Head of National Programs in the News and
    Current Affairs Division via the New Media Executive Producer

    (c) for ABC Online Local and State news and current affairs, the editorial line
    of responsibility is to the Head of Network and State Coverage in the
    News and Current Affairs Division via the New Media Executive Producer

    (d) for web sites produced by non-program areas of the ABC, editorial lines
    of responsibility are through the existing management structure.

    4.1.7 Editorial decisions in the above cases may require consultation with New
    Media and Digital Services.

    4.1.8 For other web sites directly managed by or connected to New Media and Digital
    Services, the editorial line of responsibility is through to the Head of Content
    Commissioning and Editorial, New Media and Digital Services and specialist
    content areas in radio and television will be consulted where appropriate.

    4.1.9 In addition to the direct editorial lines of responsibility, New Media and Digital
    Services has responsibility for the presentation and production standards on
    ABC Online.

    4.1.10 The degree of the nominated person’s involvement can vary according to the
    style and complexity of the production, and the background and experience
    of the producer. The ABC’s approval rights, as carried out by the nominated
    person, will be incorporated into the commissioning agreement.

    4.1.11 In acquiring material (either completed content or content to be repurposed),
    the ABC will nominate a person to have editorial responsibility on behalf of
    the Corporation to ensure the content conforms to the Editorial Policies.

    4.2 Legal responsibility
    4.2.1 The media do not have an unrestricted right to say what they like. Laws
    relating to copyright, defamation, contempt of court, contempt of Parliament,
    suppression of publications, tape recording conversations, use of cameras
    to record or observe private activities, trespass, nuisance, privacy, contract,
    negligence and racial vilification all apply to the ABC. Particular activities might
    be governed by state or federal law specific to the circumstances. Staff are
    required to have a good working knowledge of how the law does or might
    apply to their work. ABC Legal Services is available to provide training about
    legal issues and divisions should make arrangements with Legal Services
    about the delivery of that training.

    4.2.2 The law is often difficult to interpret and, with different State or Territory laws
    often applying to the same content, decisions become even more complex.
    Staff have direct access to ABC Legal Services so that legal risk can be
    minimised. The costs of legal action and awards of damages can be very high.

    4.2.3 Staff are required to refer all content matters with legal implications to ABC
    Legal Services for advice. Legal Services is able to brief external legal Counsel
    as required. It is important to identify potential legal issues early and to involve
    Legal Services sooner rather than later. Staff must ensure that Legal Services
    has, wherever possible, appropriate time to consider the legal implications of
    the broadcast or publication, the facts or opinions upon which the content is
    based and the risks, if any, for the ABC. Staff may contact Legal Services at
    any time of the day or night.

    4.2.4 After considering the advice of ABC Legal Services, the final decision on
    whether to broadcast or publish, or in what form, rests with editorial staff. On
    the rare occasion when staff consider acting contrary to the advice of Legal
    Services, staff involved and Legal Services must upwardly refer the matter
    to the relevant Executive Directors.

    4.2.5 All threats of legal action, whether made orally, electronically or in writing must
    be referred to the Head of Legal Services. Any threat of significant legal action
    must be referred by the Head of Legal Services to the Managing Director,
    Director of Corporate Strategy and Communications and the relevant director(s).

    4.2.6 Plagiarism (the use of another person’s ideas, words, work etc as one’s own)
    is not tolerated by the ABC. The Copyright Act 1968 protects original ideas
    and expressions in a material form such as writing. However, a claim of
    plagiarism can be made in relation to ideas which are not in a material form.

    4.2.7 Attributing the source of ideas may overcome claims of plagiarism but will not
    necessarily satisfy the requirements of the Copyright Act. Except in special
    circumstances, the use of copyright material is prohibited without the permission
    of the copyright owner. Fair dealing provisions allow material to be used without
    permission, for criticism, review and reporting of news, but in the case of
    criticism and review a ‘sufficient acknowledgement’ must be made.

    4.2.8 There are three legal booklets to guide staff:

    (a) ABC All-Media Law Handbook (Fourth Edition), ABC Legal Department:
    http://win.abc.net.au/ff_and_ss/legal_services/lawbook/lawbook _default.htm

    (b) ABC Copyright Handbook, Grant Webeck and Lynett Houssarini:
    http://win.abc.net.au/ff_and_ss/legal_services/copyright_default.htm
    23

    (c) All Media Court Reporting Handbook, Phil Kafcaloudes:
    http://win.abc.net.au/ff_and_ss/legal_services/court/court_default.htm

    4.2.9 All program departments have copies of the first two booklets and additional
    copies can be obtained from ABC Legal Services. The All Media Court
    Reporting Handbook is available for sale from ABC Enterprises.

    4. User Participation
    4.4 Your contribution may be edited, removed or not published if the ABC considers it to be:

    4.4.1 defamatory, or otherwise unlawful or that it violates laws regarding harassment, discrimination, racial vilification, privacy or contempt;

    4.4.2 intentionally false or misleading;

    4.4.3 an infringement of intellectual property rights or copyright. See below for further information on copyright;

    4.4.4 abusive, offensive or obscene;

    4.4.5 inappropriate, off topic, repetitive or vexatious. For example the ABC reserves the right to reject contributions that have been widely canvassed in the forum. It also reserves the right to reject contributions from participants who seek to dominate the discussion;

    4.4.6 compromising the privacy of yourself, other contributors or of ABC staff, or containing inappropriate personal information;

    4.4.7 seeking to endorse commercial products or activities or to unduly promote commercial products or services;

    4.4.8 seeking to directly solicit donations;

    4.4.9 deliberate provocation of other community members;

    4.4.10 a posting on behalf of a suspended member. This may lead to you also having your membership locked or terminated.

    My plan is to go through their process which I fully expect to fail with. But, hopefully build up enough documentary evidence of managerial malfeasance to present to the Commonwealth Ombudsman.

    In the meantime, these are a good guide to the potential traps which are laid out for the unsuspecting poster at an ABC Online Forum. Avoid these, and you can establish good cause for redress.

    00

  • #
    Percival Snodgrass

    ABC News Watch……..

    http://abcnewswatch.blogspot.com/

    00

  • #
    wes george

    ABC smothers complaints

    by Des Moore

    February 23, 2011

    When will the ABC become “Balanced”?

    On 9 February the ABC’s Lateline ran an interview with three scientists, described as leading climate experts, on what was described as “the weather conditions that may be behind the recent natural disasters”. In his introduction Presenter Tony Jones set the scene from his perspective by claiming that “climate scientists admit they’re not certain how much global warming is influencing such disasters”. This of course provided a pre-judgement on the issue…

    http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2011/02/abc-smothers-complaints

    00

  • #
    Sceptical Sam

    My experience with Aunty has been that most of my comments get posted but some don’t. I suspect that rejection is somewhat arbitrary as I’ve found if I send the same comment the next day it’ll get a run. Two possibilities: 1. it depends on the political greenness of the particular ABC “censor” that first vets your proposed post. The same post with a different censor and you get a different outcome; 2. any delay is deliberate so that non-favoured views are swamped in a flood of others after the caravan has moved on.

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    ABC will play “Colonel Gadaffi” and cut off the Internet blog if they have to.

    I’ll bet there is a lot of fantasy out there about “internet censorship” and “denialists”

    00