ABC environmental activist misrepresents state of knowledge on sunscreen nano-particles

ABC's resident activist (one of many) Sara Phillips has another piece on nano-particles that misrepresents the science, and gives activists precedence over experts. Titled: Nano sunscreen may be made dangerous by detergent the article commences with an outright lie and just spirals into nonsense from there on.

"While the jury is still out on the safety of nano-particles in sunscreen, when combined with common household products, it may react in unexpected ways."

The jury is not out, it came in a while ago! Nano-particles in sunscreen are safe! 

The following comes from the CSIRO's website: 
Are sunscreens that contain nanoparticles safe to use?

The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), which is responsible for regulating sunscreens in Australia, reviewed the scientific literature in 2006 and concluded that:

• 'There is evidence from isolated cell experiments that zinc oxide and titanium dioxide can induce free radical formation in the presence of light and that this may damage these cells (photo-mutagenicity with zinc oxide).'
• 'However, this would only be of concern in people using sunscreens if the zinc oxide and titanium dioxide penetrated into viable skin cells.'
• 'The weight of current evidence is that they remain on the surface of the skin and in the outer dead layer (stratum corneum) of the skin.'

The TGA updated its review in 2009, and again in 2013. The 2013 review concluded that ‘on current evidence, neither TiO2 nor ZnO NPs are likely to cause harm when used as ingredients in sunscreens’.

The following by Paul Wright (Associate Professor, Head of the Nanosafety Research Group, School of Medical Sciences at RMIT-University, founding co-ordinator of both Nanosafe Australia (www.rmit.edu.au/nanosafe) and Asia Nano Safe research networks, and nanosafety advisor to the Australian Nanotechnology Network (ANN). 

Time to dispel the fear of nanoparticles in sunscreens

Not all nanoparticles behave in the same way biologically, nor are all of them potentially hazardous. Indeed, many engineered nanoparticles are designed with both function and safety in mind. The substance that the nanoparticle is made from is of vital importance in any hazard assessment. And nano zinc oxide has been thoroughly assessed for safety when used in sunscreens and in lip products.

Excessive UV light on the other hand, poses a serious risk for skin damage and cancer. Rest assured that the nano sunscreens can be used safely, so don’t stop using the most effective broad spectrum sunscreen as part of your sun protection measures.

I recommend using non-aerosol zinc oxide sunscreens containing either nano or bulk particles. Their broad spectrum UV filtering ability (including the UVA range), and high UV resistance and negligible skin absorption make them the safest and best way to protect yourself from sunburn. If still in doubt, know that the same conclusions were made by the USEnvironmental Working Group in their 2012 sunscreen report.

Re-writing climate commission history

UPDATE:
Seems I am wrong on this. In 2010 the then Gillard government did indeed promise a climate commission. However it did promise it would be independent, sadly history shows it was not.

Our apologies to activist Sara on this point she is indeed factually correct. I should know by now not to rely on ABC news as a reliable source of information.

see http://web.archive.org/web/20100820211502/http://www.alp.org.au/federal-government/news/building-consensus-in-the-community/


Original post below.

ABC's resident environmental activist, Sara Phillips writes the following in a blog post:

"The Climate Commission was an election promise from the Gillard Government during the 2010 poll."

No it was not!  What was promised was a "citizen's assembly". 

Let's re-wind to July 2010. From: Gillard to ask the people on climate change.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-07-22/gillard-to-ask-the-people-on-climate-change/916006

"A re-elected Labor government would ask a new "citizens' assembly" for climate change advice, under a key part of the ALP's new climate change policy set to be launched by Prime Minister Julia Gillard today."

From The World today: Labor's revised climate change policy

JULIA GILLARD: Consensus on this issue should not depend solely on a fragile agreement between political parties. Adopting a market based mechanism to price carbon will transform the way we live and the way we work. 

Such a major change cannot be made and unmade on the oscillations of the political pendulum. 

If we are re-elected I will deliver a dedicated process, a citizens' assembly to examine over 12 months the evidence on climate change, the case for action and the possible consequences of introducing a market based approach to limiting and reducing carbon emissions.

7/10/2013: Julia Gillard scraps climate assembly

http://www.news.com.au/national-news/julia-gillard-scraps-climate-assembly/story-e6frfkvr-1225935583350

PRIME Minister Julia Gillard has ditched her election policy of a climate change citizens' assembly.

Ms Gillard went to the election promising to bring together an assembly of 150 citizens to discuss ways to tackle climate change.

Speaking at a media conference after the first meeting of a new multi-party climate change committee, the prime minister said the policy would not go ahead.

"The committee concluded that in view of the creation of this committee and its intended outreach work that the proposal of a citizens' assembly should not be implemented and that there will be other ways of harnessing public dialogue engagement in the science of climate change and engagement in questions of pricing carbon,'' she said.

The Government will also set up a climate change commission.

Facts, such malleable items in the ABC hands.

ABC cross the 400ppm barrier..well sort of.

ABC's environmental activists were quick to report on levels of atmospheric CO2 from Mauna Loa that are approaching 400ppm. Based on a NOAA press release ABC claimed Carbon pollution hits highest point in 3 million years.

 "atmospheric carbon dioxide reached 400 parts per million for the first time in over three million years".

However after ABC's activist reporters jumped the gun with some rushed opinion pieces, NOAA adjusted the figure slightly downwards resulting in this update being posted, after we pointed it out (it seems ABC's fact checkers asleep at the wheel)...

Update

"Since this article was published, NOAA revised the reading of the CO₂ levels at Mauna Loa down to 399.89ppm, not 400ppm. The milestone has not therefore yet been reached, however the CO₂ levels remain higher than at any time in the past three million years and continue to trend upwards."

ABC have not offered any further corrections (See below-only took a week). See how the LA times covered the correction here:  Carbon dioxide in atmosphere did not break 400 ppm at Hawaii site

SO with the northern hemisphere spring bringing plant growth that will soak up some of that CO2, we may need to wait until next year to see that magical figure of 400ppm daily average atm CO2  passed.  Mind you, with the climate's sensitivity to CO2 being lower than IPCC projections it seems in the long term that this will pass as a Y2K moment, rather than the climate Armageddon being actively promoted by the ABC. But of course those missing stories don't fit the ABC play book.

Update May 23
Hello Mr Hendrickx
Thanks for writing about this item on AM.
The story you refer to is a transcript of the program as broadcast on 11 May at 8am AEST.

While our original broadcast item did not make specific reference to a date on which the 400 PPM figure had been recorded, it was based on information from the NOAA that this had happened on 9 May, which at the time of our broadcast on 11 May we believe was still its advice.

As you point out, NOAA subsequently revised its reading for 9 May to below 400 PPM.

We are adding a note to the transcript of the program to reflect NOAA's revision of the 9 May reading, and to also note that the 400 PPM reading has at the time of this writing been recorded on a number of other days in May.

Sincerely
Shane McLeod
National Editor, Radio
ABC News

Missing News - ice melt-not that much of a problem

ABC Science, care of its activist reporter Sara Phillips, follow a familiar theme on sea level with this story titled "Ice Melt a weighty problem:expert". Other experts perhaps less prone to influence of  Henny Penny, and Goosey Loosey than the ABC's appear to disagree, reporting:  that, if current ice sheet melting rates continue for the next four decades, their cumulative loss could raise sea level by 15 centimeters (5.9 inches) by 2050.  Nonetheless the authors caution that considerable uncertainties remain in estimating future ice loss acceleration.

That's 15 centimeters. In their alarmist article ABC highlight the physically possible but apparently unlikely figure of 5 meters. Why the focus on the high-end scenario? Where's the balance?


The less scary perspective, missing from ABC's report, is apparently not felt important enough for ABC's audience. Where's the Balance?


This bias and personal activism apparently flies in the face of ABC's new Editorial standards that state:

1.3 Ensure that editorial decisions are not improperly influenced by political, sectional, commercial or personal interest.
4.1 Gather and present news and information with due impartiality.
4.2 Present a diversity of perspectives so that, over time, no significant strand of thought or belief within the community is knowingly excluded or disproportionately represented.


4.5 Do not unduly favour one perspective over another.  
The new Editorial Policy appears to have done nothing to reduce the influence of Groupthink in the ABC.


Complaint lodged, we'll report the findings.

ABC Bias yields no apology for Mr McIntyre

In an article published in The Australian last year we speculated that ABC's biased and unbalanced coverage of all things climate was not malicious but born from sensationalism and naivety. It seems that we were wrong and for one ABC reporter at least the basis for decided what news is worth reporting on is based on idle internet gossip and ideology rather than facts. Read why in an article titled Bias at the national broadcaster is as easy as ABC in today's Australian newspaper. This goes a long way to explain why there are so, so many peer reviewed papers sceptical of a climate catastrophe that are missing from ABC's news coverage. Maurice Newman, ABC's chairman, recognised Groupthink in ABC's climate reporting, here's a clear example of it.
Meanwhile there is no apology for Mr McIntyre, and his important research remains a mystery to ABC's Audience. We attempted to contact ABC's reporter on this but she declined to respond (see below).

As Jonathan Holmes put it last week regarding an unrelated ACMA finding..."But how anyone could conclude anything from this one, other than that the regulator is an ass, I have no idea." ABC regulates its own, its audience and consumer affairs section finding nothing wrong with ABC's moderation process. 

Update: Brief interview on the issue of ABC bias with Gary Hardgrave on Brisbane's 4BC this afternoon.

Email correspondence with the ABC (in italics) related to the matter is presented below...
To: Audience Consumer Affairs
From: Marc Hendrickx
Subject: offending comments on ABC's environment blog
Date: 06/12/10 12:53
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABC program: ABC enviroment-Cancun may see the abandonment of the UN process
Date of program: 30/11/2010
Contact type: Complaint
Location: NSW
Subject: offending comments on ABC's environment blog
Comments: The comments at the bottom of this complaint appear on ABC's Environment Blog under the post "Cancun may see the abandonment of the UN process" by Sara Phillips. The comments are defamatory and should not have been posted by the Blog moderator, contravening the following sections of ABC Online condition of use. I request ABC withdraw the comments and issue an apology to Mr McIntyre.
 Sections 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;
4.4.4 abusive, offensive or obscene;
4.4.5 inappropriate, off topic, repetitive or vexatious. 4.4.9 deliberate provocation of other community members.

from ABC Corporate_Affairs7
to marc hendrickx
date Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 5:08 PM
subject Re: offending comments on ABC's environment blog
Dear Mr Hendrickx
Thank you for your email regarding a comment from a user published in the comments section under the article 'Cancun may see the abandonment of the UN process' on the ABC Environment blog. I understand you believe the comment contravened the ABC Online Conditions of Use.
I should explain that the investigative remit of Audience & Consumer Affairs encompasses the ABC's editorial standards (as set out in the Code of Practice and Editorial Policies) only. The Conditions of Use are not editorial standards; they are the conditions under which users contribute to the ABC's interactive services.
Section 9 of the Editorial Policies sets out the principles and standards relevant to user-generated content (UGC) such as comments submitted on blogs. In particular, sections 9.4.3-8 set out the various types of UGC moderation available; section 9.4.10 provides that the ABC is not required to verify the accuracy of UGC or correct inaccuracies in UGC, but may exercise its discretion to edit, remove or clarify UGC containing errors; and section 9.4.12 requires the ABC to "be open to the spectrum of views and give users a fair opportunity to participate".
The moderator of the ABC Environment portal has advised that the comment to which you refer was approved for publication, following the pre-moderation process (see section 9.4.4(a)), as it was deemed not to be defamatory or otherwise in contravention of the Conditions of Use. The moderator has explained this decision as follows:
"Mr McIntyre is described by "Annie" as being an "extremist right wing provocateur".
Mr McIntyre's views are seen by some as extreme. "Annie", clearly, believes they are.
He 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."
I appreciate that you may disagree with the moderator's decision. However, Audience & Consumer Affairs is satisfied that the relevant standards set out in section 9 of the Editorial Policies were met. The moderation process took place, as required, and users were given a fair opportunity to participate.
Nonetheless, please be assured that your comments have been noted and conveyed to the moderator. Thank you for bringing your concerns to our attention. For your reference, the ABC's editorial standards are available here: http://abc.net.au/corp/pubs/edpols.htm.
Yours sincerely
SM
ABC Audience & Consumer Affairs

from Marc Hendrickx
to scott.mark@abc.net.au,
Newman.Maurice@abc.net.au
date Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 8:22 PM
subject Fwd: offending comments on ABC's blog
Dear Mr Newman,
I refer the reply received from ABC complaints below above. What a low bar ABC now sets for itself.
Regards
Marc Hendrickx

from Marc Hendrickx
to ABC Corporate_Affairs6
cc smcintyre
date Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 10:15 PM
subject Fwd: offending comments on ABC's environment blog
To Head of ABC Audience & Consumer Affairs
Dear K,
Can you please review this response. It seems that ABC Audience & Consumer Affairs are editorialising on the part of the anonymous blogger concerned. There is in fact no way of knowing the reasons behind the defamatory post, unless ABC have contacted the blogger concerned. In regard to Mr McIntyre, ABC claims that "He 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." The fact that Mr McIntyre has spoken at the Marshall institute does not make him a member of the "extremist right wing", it in fact says nothing about Mr McIntyre's political views whatsoever. As there is no foundation for the anonymous blogger's comments they can indeed be seen as defamatory.
This is perhaps the weakest argument I have had from the ABC and surely one beneath the usual high standard one expects from ABC Audience & Consumer Affairs. How does ABC contend this is the basis for the anonymous bloggers view point. It seems to be the uninformed view of the ABC staff member(s) concerned. Can you please clarify if this is the case?
Will ABC now retract the comments and issue Mr McIntyre with a formal apology?
Regards
Marc Hendrickx

from Steve McIntyre
to ABC Corporate_Affairs6
phillips.sara@,
CORPORATE_AFFAIRS7.
cc Marc Hendrickx
date Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 1:23 AM
subject RE: offending comments on ABC's environment blog

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 Center.
Nor is there any basis for characterizing 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

from ABC Corporate_Affairs7
to marc hendrickx
date Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 4:34 PM
subject Re: offending comments on ABC's environment blog
Dear Mr Hendrickx
Thank you for your emails.
I wish to clarify that the section of my previous email explaining the reasons the comment you referred to was considered to be consistent with the Conditions of Use was a direct quote from the moderator. Audience & Consumer Affairs did not investigate the veracity of the moderator's position, and certainly did not editorialise on behalf of the user who submitted the comment. Instead, Audience & Consumer Affairs satisfied itself that the moderation process took place and the relevant provisions of section 9 of the Editorial Policies were met.
Please be assured, your additional comments have been brought to the attention of the moderator. The comment in question has now been removed from the comments section under the article.
Yours sincerely
SM
ABC Audience & Consumer Affairs

from Marc Hendrickx
to ABC Corporate_Affairs7
cc ABC Corporate_Affairs6
phillips.sara@abc.net.au,
smcintyre
Bruce Belsham
Newman.Maurice

date Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 7:30 AM
subject Re: offending comments on ABC's environment blog
Dear SM (Audience and consumer affairs),
Given your response it seems there is a problem with the moderator's judgement in allowing the comments through in the first place.
It surprises me that it has taken almost 4 weeks to sort this matter out. That the comments were posted in the first place is unacceptable. That it has required mine and Mr McIntyre's intervention to correct the matter speaks volumes about ABC's lack of capacity for independent investigation. For instance why didn't you contact Mr McIntyre in the first instance to independently confirm the moderators response, so that a quicker resolution to this complaint could be achieved?
Can you ensure:
1. An apology to Mr McIntyre will be posted to the ABC environment blog in the form of an editorial comment. Here's an example:
"Defamatory comments regarding Steve McIntyre were posted to this blog due to an error in judgement by the blog moderator. The comments have now been removed and ABC Environment apologies for any offence it may have caused Mr McIntyre. The moderator has been provided with additional training in ABC Editorial Policies to prevent such an event recurring."
2. The moderator will be provided with additional training in ABC Editorial Policy and condition's of use to prevent such a failure of judgement reoccurring.
Given Item 1 is not forthcoming, please pass this complaint on to ABC Complaints Review Executive for further consideration.
Regards
Marc Hendrickx

from Marc Hendrickx
to phillips.sara@abc.net.au,
ABC Corporate_Affairs6
ABC Corporate_Affairs7
date Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 7:00 AM
subject Fwd: offending comments on ABC's environment blog
Dear Ms Phillips,
I am in the process of writing up this episode for a possible opinion piece for an Australian Newspaper. Can confirm you are the moderator referred to below. Did you advise ABC Audience and Consumer Affairs the following:
"Mr McIntyre is described by "Annie" as being an "extremist right wing provocateur".
Mr McIntyre's views are seen by some as extreme. "Annie", clearly, believes they are.
He 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." Sara it's your blog I'll presume it's you, unless you tell me otherwise. By the way have you provided an apology to Mr McIntyre yet?

K and SM,
Given you are independent of the ABC, if Sara declines to admit the comments are hers can you please confirm she is the originator of the comments quoted above.
Regards
Marc Hendrickx

from ABC Corporate_Affairs7
to Marc Hendrickx
date Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 1:27 PM
subject Re: offending comments on ABC's environment blog
Dear Mr Hendrickx
Thank you for your email.
Audience & Consumer Affairs has nothing further to add to our previous responses in relation to this matter. Your correspondence has been brought to the attention of ABC Innovation.
Yours sincerely
SM
ABC Audience & Consumer Affairs

We received no reply from Sara Phillips

ABC Complaints Review Executive correspondence
From: Marc Hendrickx
Sent: Thursday, 30 December 2010 11:57 AM
To: ABC Corporate_Affairs6
Cc: Steve McIntyre
Subject: Re: offending comments on ABC's environment blog
Thanks for your reply K,
As no apology to Mr McIntyre has been posted on the ABC Environment Blog can you please forward this matter on to ABC CRE for further deliberation. The grounds for further investigation are as follows:
1. Absence of independent verification of ABC Moderator's claims by ABC Audience and Consumer affairs. In this case ABC audience and consumer affairs have failed to be independent.
2. The failure in moderation process that allowed the offending comment to be posted and subsequent editorialising by ABC Moderator to support the defamatory post, who in the absence of other advice is assumed to be the author of the blog piece, namely Sara Phillips.
3. Absence of an apology to Mr McIntyre who was defamed by the ABC.
Regards
Marc Hendrickx

from CM
to marc hendrickx
date Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 2:53 PM
subject ABC Complaint - Acknowledgement
Dear Mr Hendrickx
The ABC’s Complaints Review Executive (CRE) has received your complaint concerning a blog posting on an online ABC Environment story published on 30 November 2010.
The CRE will consider the matter against the ABC’s editorial requirements and aims to complete the review by 1 February 2011.
Yours sincerely
CM
Assistant to the Complaints Review Executive

from
Marc Hendrickx
to "CM
cc ABC Corporate_Affairs6
date Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 6:13 AM
subject Re: ABC Complaint - Acknowledgement
Dear C,
Thankyou for the eacknowledgement. Further to the points raised in correspondence with ABC Audience and consumer affairs I challenge the claim that the complaint was not upheld. While the defamatory blog posting may have been moderated in the first instance, clearly the moderation failed to accord with ABC's Code of Conduct. That the moderator can hold such ignorant views appears to support Maurice Newman's claims of Groupthink in the ABC. That the views are held by a senior ABC reporter (Sara Phillips) is flabbergasting and suggests Ms Phillips needs help to distinguish environmental activism from environmental journalism. The biased views help account for the lack of coverage of the work of Mr McIntyre by the ABC.
Regards
Marc Hendrickx

REVIEW OF COMPLAINT
Background
On 24 December 2010 a request for review was received from a NSW reader of the ABC Environment blog, dissatisfied with a response from Audience and Consumer Affairs (A&CA). The complainant was advised that the Complaints Review Executive (CRE)would aim to complete the review by 1 February 2011.
Content
On 30 November 2010, the story Cancun may see the abandonment of the UN process was published by Sara Phillips on the ABC Environment blog with a number of subsequent contributions by members of the public.
Correspondence
On 6 December, the complainant wrote:
“The comments at the bottom of this complaint appear on ABC's Environment Blog under the post "Cancun may see the abandonment of the UN process" by Sara Clarke. The comments are defamatory and should not have been posted by the Blog moderator, contravening the following sections of ABC Online condition of use. I request ABC withdraw the comments and issue an apology to Mr McIntyre. Sections 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;4.4.4 abusive, offensive or obscene;4.4.5 inappropriate, off topic, repetitive or vexatious. 4.4.9 deliberate provocation of other community members.

A&CA responded on 16 December and advised the complainant that A&CA is responsible for the ABC’s adherence to the Editorial Policies and the Conditions of Use are not editorial standards; they are the conditions under which users contribute to the ABC's interactive services. The item was assessed against Section 9 of the ABC’s Editorial Policies and found to be in keeping with the ABC’s process of user generated comment in that a moderation process was undertaken and that users were given a fair opportunity to contribute their views. In subsequent communication with the complainant, A&CA advised that the moderator of the content was made aware of the complainant’s views and the comments made by “annie” were removed from the blog.
Dissatisfied with the response the complainant replied on 24 December and requested a review by the CRE.
Basis of Assessment
Comments submitted on the ABC’s Environment blog are subject to Section 9 of the ABC Editorial Policies, which sets out the principles and standards relevant to usergenerated content (UGC). In particular the following:
9.4.10 Accuracy and corrections. The ABC cannot reasonably be expected to verify the accuracy of UGC or to correct all inaccuracies in UGC, other than for UGC that is used by the ABC in another content category (see section 9.1.6). However, where the ABC is satisfied it is necessary or appropriate, it may exercise its discretion to edit, remove or clarify UGC that contains an error or is otherwise false or misleading.
9.4.12 Mindful of its duty to maintain its independence and integrity, the ABC will be open to the spectrum of views and give users a fair opportunity to participate.
Assessment
I have read the relevant material contained on the ABC’s Environment blog as well as the email correspondence between the ABC’s A&CA and the complainant. In investigating this matter I note that the moderator of the Environment blog posted the “annie” comment on 3 rd December. Following correspondence between the complainant and the ABC, including additional comments sent to A&CA on 16th December (these comments were brought to the attention of the moderator), the “annie” post was removed from the blog.
This is action which conforms with Section 9 of ABC Editorial Policies, whereby the ABC may exercise discretion by editing or removing UGC considered to be false or misleading.
It also appears that under the terms of the ABC’s Editorial Policies relating to UGC this is all that the ABC is required to do in this matter.
I note the difficult task faced by journalists (in this case online moderators) having to quickly and accurately assess UGC, while maintaining an ongoing conversation with contributors used to rapid responses. Part of that difficult task involves dealing with the unpredictability of defamation law.I note that the complainant claims that the “annie” comment was defamatory, but this has not been legally tested.
In first choosing to post the “annie” comment I find that the Environment blog moderator was applying Editorial Policy 9.4.12 i.e. treating the “annie” comment as one which was within the spectrum of views.
I conclude that the moderation process did take place, as required, and users were given a fair opportunity to participate.
Finding
Having assessed the content and the concerns of the complainant I consider that ABC editorial requirements were met. Therefore the complaint is not upheld.
MARK BOWLING
COMPLAINTS REVIEW EXECUTIVE
DATE: 27 January 2011