Sending Franks down the memory hole

Update below: 2/3/2012
In December last year ABC news (surprisingly) reported on the opinions climate scientist, Professor Stewart Franks, had on comments contained in a new batch of climategate emails. While the story titled "Leaked email confirms climate questions" has been censored, ABC having sent it down the memory hole, much of the content of the original  is preserved  in a post titled "IPCC too sullied to be credible" at Australian Climate Madness:

Stewart Franks says there is no evidence that carbon dioxide drives global warming and he blames the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for scaring people about a future climate catastrophe.
For the past decade Professor Franks has focussed his research on natural variability in climate as being the driver of extreme droughts and rain events, rather that CO2 emissions.
He says the emails from Kevin Trenberth from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, show fundamental flaws in their methodology, but the public is being kept in the dark.
Professor Franks says he believes the emails support his own argument that natural variability is responsible for warming.
“Now I’ve been criticised for talking about these modes that we’ve barely beginning to understand as somehow being some kind of a denier of climate change or a pure contrarian,” he said.a
“But it is really heartening to see that these scientists actually acknowledge and in fact one scientist went as far as to say ‘What if all the warming we actually see is just natural multi-decadal variability?’
“He then said, ‘They’ll probably kill us’.
“I think we do need an independent and judicial review of the evidence both for and against the likelihood of climate change beyond naturally catastrophic climate variability.
“I must say the IPCC is far too sullied by the leaks and some of the shenanigans that the emails show have be going on.
“It is now too sullied to be credible.”

There is no doubt that this is newsworthy, and it is a credit to ABC Newcastle for reporting on it.

Here's the reason ABC (Sydney?) give for removing the story. Posted to ABC News Corrections page on January 20 (thanks to an anonymous reader for alerting us to it) it reads as follows:

Climate emails

Posted Fri Jan 20, 2012 3:15pm AEDT

ABC Newcastle: This story published on December 5 was removed because it was in breach of the ABC requirements for balance and context. The story reported that a Newcastle University professor who rejects the science of climate change felt vindicated that leaked scientific emails “showed fundamental flaws in the methodology” of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.  These were not balanced by comments in support of the science of climate change and the article did not associate the leaked emails with the ‘Climategate' emails of 2009.

To say that Franks "rejects the science of climate change" is a gross misrepresentation of his views and work in the field. One that apparently defames his reputation. Seems a correction and clarification, along with an apology is in order.

ABC have previously published numerous news reports and articles featuring the views of "alarmist" climate scientists that were not balanced by dissenting opinions (see this one for example - still waiting for it to be corrected).    Previously ABC News have also later updated stories to provide "balance" and :"context". Why was this not done in this case?

Over the past 2 years we have established a convincing case that ABC's coverage of climate change is biased, lacks balance and is tainted by a lack of judgement and lack of inquiry. Sadly to the detriment of its audience its coverage is characterised by environmental activism over natural journalistic scepticism. We are constantly told the "ABC takes no editorial stance", however it is clear that at its Sydney office at least, ABC have institutionalised and are actively supporting one side of the climate change debate, across all its platforms. Throwing journalistic integrity out the window it actively promotes the notion that an impending climate catastrophe is nigh. ABC's own chairman Maurice Newman identified Groupthink reporting on climate change as a major issue but was unable to do anything about it.

The above provides yet another clear example of how deeply institutionalised ABC's Groupthink culture is. It seems that not only are its activist reporters infected by Groupthink but it seems the culture extents to ABC's Audience and Consumer Affairs unit, according to the ABC: "The unit is separate and independent from ABC program areas." (yeah right!)

Here's a copy of our complaint about the correction:


Your correction posted 20/2/2012 reads as follows:
(http://www.abc.net.au/news/corrections/)


Climate emails
Posted Fri Jan 20, 2012 3:15pm AEDT
ABC Newcastle: This story published on December 5 was removed because it was in breach of the ABC requirements for balance and context. The story reported that a Newcastle University professor who rejects the science of climate change felt vindicated that leaked scientific emails “showed fundamental flaws in the methodology” of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.  These were not balanced by comments in support of the science of climate change and the article did not associate the leaked emails with the ‘Climategate' emails of 2009.


The text  appears highly defamatory to Stewart Franks and totally misrepresents his views on climate science.


In regard to the reasons the story was pulled from ABC's archive. ABC have previously published news reports and articles featuring "alarmist" climate scientists that were not balanced by dissenting opinions (eg http://www.abc.net.au/news/2009-01-22/scientists-find-evidence-antarctica-is-warming/2575846).    Previously ABC News have also later updated stories to provide "balance" and :"context". Why was this not done in this case - (for an example see http://abcnewswatch.blogspot.com.au/2010/02/polar-bear-cannibalism-abc-provides.html). 
Publication of Stewart Franks opinion of the impact of the climategate emails was newsworthy and we congratulate ABC Newcastle for covering the story.


Please
1. Issue a public apology to Stewart Franks for misrepresenting his views on climate science and defaming his reputation as a scientist. He hardly "rejects the science of climate change"


2. Re-instate the story to ABC's online archive

Thanks again to an anonymous reader for noting the correction.


Update: 
ABC have thus far refused to restore the report to their archive. Our complaint to ACMA was turned down as it appears the story was not "broadcast".

Dear Mr Hendrickx

Thank you for your complaint to the Australian Communications and Media Authority (the ACMA) about material posted on, and removed from, the ABC News Online website. You allege a breach of the impartiality provisions of the ABC Code of Practice 2011.

While the ABC Code of Practice 2011 applies to ABC online content as well as to content broadcast on radio and television, the ACMA is able to investigate complaints about lack of impartiality in relation to ABC radio and television content only. Since your complaint is about online content, the ACMA is unable to assist you on this occasion.

The ACMA’s jurisdiction in relation to the internet is limited to the matters outlined athttp://www.acma.gov.au/WEB/STANDARD/pc=PC_90103. Your complaint does not raise issues of this kind.

Yours sincerely

Broadcasting Investigations Section

Received 2/3/2012: