COMMENT: ABC appear to have listened to our request for coverage of allegations of censorship and scientific malfeasance levied against the American Geophysical Union by a group of authors whose paper was rejected by editors of the AGU journal, Geophysical Research Letters. Their reports on News online "Climate 'deniers' accuse journal of censorship" and PM "Censorship or professional publication? Another round in climate science wars"were by environment reporter Sarah Clarke.
The reports provided both sides with an opportunity to air their views, but unfortunately they barely scratch the surface, leaving many questions unanswered.We assume for instance that an attempt was made to solicit comment from the editors of the Journal in question but no mention of this is made in the reports. Similarly Sarah Clark appears to have missed the opportunity to question researcher Kevin Trenberth about his statement:
"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." that appeared in emails allegedly leaked from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.
Reporter Clark could have also further explored Trenberth's claims of 'Denialism' that feature prominently, providing a headline for the ABC online report. Is Trenberth suggesting authors Mclean et al are denying climate change? (The journal article at the centre of the debate appears to agree that the climate is changing.) Or are they simply disagreeing with Trenberth's views on the significance and main cause of warming? Or is this simply evidence of petty namecalling on the part of Trenberth? If so it is sad to see the story focus so heavily on this attack, rather than explore the scientific claims in more detail.
News reporting is more than simple superficial broadcasting of a conversation. It's about asking the tough questions, about investigation, about research about lifting the lid. In a piece for Sunday Profile in 2006 investigative journalist Chris Masters was asked if ABC still have the money, the freedom and the guts to undertaken investigative journalism. He responded "I don't think so". It seems nothing has changed since 2006.
Chris Masters In Private publication
JULIA BAIRD:
In the foreword to your book Inside Story 15 years ago, your then Executive Producer, Jonathan Holmes wrote, “It would be nice to think that young men and women could aspire to a career in the ABC which will take them to the heights of investigative journalism. I only wish I could be certain that in 20 years or 10 the ABC will still have the money, the freedom and the guts to let them do it.” This was a somewhat gloomy assessment of the future but somewhere between 10 and 20 years have now passed, does the ABC still have the money, the freedom and the guts to let them do it?
CHRIS MASTERS:
I don’t think so.
JULIA BAIRD:
Why, what’s happened?
CHRIS MASTERS:
But I mean, I hope I’m wrong. I think a lot of this is organic. No matter how hard you might try to pressure the ABC there’ll be good people that will manage to do a good job as long as they see what the stories are and it’s not actually all about money as well we know at the ABC where in news and current affairs our budgets are a lot smaller than they are with our commercial competitors. So I absolutely hope I’m wrong about that and I also recognise that we’re just so naturally pessimistic in news and current affairs. We always think that it was better yesterday and we sometimes forget that there are lots of things that are far more better and I think that even when Four Corners was doing much bigger programs in the 1980’s it’s a smarter sharper program now than it ever was in the 1980’s.
An eye on ABC NEWS: Keeping the bastards who keep the bastards honest - honest.
Showing posts with label Mclean. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mclean. Show all posts
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Friday, March 26, 2010
Missing News: Censorship at AGU: scientists denied the right of reply
Update 2. Further views provided by Bob Carter and John McLean including comment on ABC "How we were censored" at QUADRANT
Update 1 14.23pm 26/3/2010-see 4 Corners generic reply below
ABC MISSING HEADLINE: "American Geophysical Union at centre of censorship allegations"
ABC HAVE NOT YET REPORTED ON: claims of censorship and scientific malfeasance levied against the American Geophysical Union by a group of authors whose paper was rejected by editors of the AGU journal, Geophysical Research Letters. The claims, outlined in an article published by the authors through the Washington based Science and Public Policy Institute (available HERE), include:
• Collaboration to attack scientific papers that provide evidence militating against a dangerous human influence on climate, by a group of scientists whose attitudes have already been exposed by the CRU email (a.k.a. Climategate) affair, namely Grant Foster, James Annan, Phil Jones, Michael Mann, Jim Renwick, Jim Salinger, Gavin Schmidt and Kevin Trenberth.
• The clear intention of this group has been to try to damage the credibility of an independently refereed paper whose conclusions they disliked, rather than to create and participate in a constructive scientific discussion amongst equals.
• Inappropriate contact between one of the authors (Kevin Trenberth) and the former President of the AGU (Mike McPhaden), in a way that can be construed as interference in editorial process.
• Inappropriate tampering with AGU editorial management by requesting an alternative editor, which resulted in the replacement of the original editor by editor-2.
• Unprofessional publication of Foster et al.’s critique on the Internet, in AGU journal format, before it had been considered or accepted for publication by AGU.
• Questionable editorial inaction, in editor-2 not rejecting the Foster et al. critique on grounds of its prior publication and formatting, both in direct contravention of AGU guidelines.
• Failure to follow the AGU guidelines regarding nomination of potential reviewers, by Foster et al. proposing persons (a) with whom they have close professional relationships and (b) in anticipation that they will be biased.
• Error of editorial judgement in accepting for publication a critique of a paper that contains incorrect claims about the content of that paper and focuses on peripheral issues rather than on the paper's substantive scientific conclusions.
• Failure to apply editorial power impartially, but instead acting in support of the prevailing hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming.
• Denial of a right of reply to those whose research was being criticized.
THE SUGGESTION: This story has all the ingredients of a Four Corners expose. Can ABC please engage the services of Chris Masters to investigate this further?
OUTCOME: Seems framing this as a suggestion results in much swifter treatment than if issued as a complaint, even if it is a generic!
Thank you for your email dated 25 March.
Your program suggestion has been passed on to one of our producers for consideration. We may be in touch with you again if we feel we can take this matter further.
Thanks again for taking the time to write to us.
Sincerely,
Program Assistant
Four Corners
ABC TelevisionCOMMENT: I wonder if ABC editorial staff will recognise the newsworthiness of this piece, or will they run another chicken run story?
Update 1 14.23pm 26/3/2010-see 4 Corners generic reply below
ABC MISSING HEADLINE: "American Geophysical Union at centre of censorship allegations"
ABC HAVE NOT YET REPORTED ON: claims of censorship and scientific malfeasance levied against the American Geophysical Union by a group of authors whose paper was rejected by editors of the AGU journal, Geophysical Research Letters. The claims, outlined in an article published by the authors through the Washington based Science and Public Policy Institute (available HERE), include:
• Collaboration to attack scientific papers that provide evidence militating against a dangerous human influence on climate, by a group of scientists whose attitudes have already been exposed by the CRU email (a.k.a. Climategate) affair, namely Grant Foster, James Annan, Phil Jones, Michael Mann, Jim Renwick, Jim Salinger, Gavin Schmidt and Kevin Trenberth.
• The clear intention of this group has been to try to damage the credibility of an independently refereed paper whose conclusions they disliked, rather than to create and participate in a constructive scientific discussion amongst equals.
• Inappropriate contact between one of the authors (Kevin Trenberth) and the former President of the AGU (Mike McPhaden), in a way that can be construed as interference in editorial process.
• Inappropriate tampering with AGU editorial management by requesting an alternative editor, which resulted in the replacement of the original editor by editor-2.
• Unprofessional publication of Foster et al.’s critique on the Internet, in AGU journal format, before it had been considered or accepted for publication by AGU.
• Questionable editorial inaction, in editor-2 not rejecting the Foster et al. critique on grounds of its prior publication and formatting, both in direct contravention of AGU guidelines.
• Failure to follow the AGU guidelines regarding nomination of potential reviewers, by Foster et al. proposing persons (a) with whom they have close professional relationships and (b) in anticipation that they will be biased.
• Error of editorial judgement in accepting for publication a critique of a paper that contains incorrect claims about the content of that paper and focuses on peripheral issues rather than on the paper's substantive scientific conclusions.
• Failure to apply editorial power impartially, but instead acting in support of the prevailing hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming.
• Denial of a right of reply to those whose research was being criticized.
THE SUGGESTION: This story has all the ingredients of a Four Corners expose. Can ABC please engage the services of Chris Masters to investigate this further?
OUTCOME: Seems framing this as a suggestion results in much swifter treatment than if issued as a complaint, even if it is a generic!
Thank you for your email dated 25 March.
Your program suggestion has been passed on to one of our producers for consideration. We may be in touch with you again if we feel we can take this matter further.
Thanks again for taking the time to write to us.
Sincerely,
Program Assistant
Four Corners
ABC TelevisionCOMMENT: I wonder if ABC editorial staff will recognise the newsworthiness of this piece, or will they run another chicken run story?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)