Backward briefing: a case of foot in mouth UPDATE

(Beware, this is a fairly long post.) In July ABC's Wendy Carlisle made a number of factual errors in a report on Lord Christopher Monckton. We raised a complaint with the ABC over these. We also suggested that Ms Carlisle's objectivity was severely compromised due to her emotional entanglement with her subject, and as a result the report lacked balance. The following is a summary of our complaint and ABC's reply. Oddly it seems ABC's managing director has become directly involved and has chosen to employ "director's privilege" to avoid dealing with the factual errors in the broadcast. We are somewhat mystified that this matter required his attention, and it seems ABC have taken unusual steps to avoid admitting they are wrong. In owning up to their mistakes it seems ABC people will need to grow thicker skins.
In the broadcast we hear two claims made by Lord Monckton about aspects of climate science, about polar bears and about sea level rise. In attempting to refute these claims Ms Carlisle misrepresents the facts in both cases. As the claims made by Ms Carlisle are incorrect we expect ABC will apologise for the following statement made by Ms Carlisle in the report: "And the show continued like this for another 50 minutes, with Lord Monckton repeatedly misconstruing the scientific evidence." Based on Ms Carlisle's errors it appears the opposite is true, and it is Ms Carlisle and the ABC who are guilty of misconstruing the scientific evidence.
ABC's editorial policy in regard to accuracy and factual information is quite clear, factual errors require correction.
In regard to accuracy ABC states:

2.1 Make reasonable efforts to ensure that material facts are accurate and presented in context.
2.2 Do not present factual content in a way that will materially mislead the audience. In some cases, this may require appropriate labels or other explanatory information.
In regard to making corrections:

A commitment to accuracy includes a willingness to correct errors and clarify ambiguous or otherwise misleading information.  Swift correction can reduce harmful reliance on inaccurate information, especially given content can be quickly, widely and permanently disseminated.
Corrections and clarifications can contribute to achieving fairness and impartiality.
Standards
3.1 Acknowledge and correct or clarify, in an appropriate manner as soon as reasonably practicable:
a). significant material errors that are readily apparent or have been demonstrated; or
b). information that is likely to significantly and materially mislead.


We have now passed this on to the ACMA for further action.

The complaint (sent 18/7/2011)

Factual errors

#1  Four Polar Bears drowned due to Global Warming

In the program Wendy Carlisle states:
The scientific paper Lord Monckton cites does not say that the polar bears drowned because of a big storm. The paper suggests that the polar bears most likely drowned because there was less sea ice for them to seek refuge on because of climate change, and that the drowned polar bears could be statistically significant.

This is what the paper in question states about the polar bear deaths in relation to climate change:Monnett, C., and J. S. Gleason, 2006. Observations of mortality associated with extended open-water swimming by polar bears in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea. Polar Biology, 29, 681-687.
Although a number of published papers have discussed implications of climate change on polar bears (e.g., Stirling and Derocher 1993; Stirling et al. 1999;Norris et al. 2002; Stirling 2002; Derocher et al. 2004), to date, mortality due to swimming has not been identified as an associated risk. Evaluations of future population dynamics and the significance of sources of human-related and natural mortality in polar bears may need to consider this previously unidentified source of natural mortality which may be significant in some years (e.g., mild-ice or late-ice) and may become important in the future if Arctic pack ice continues to regress. from page 686.

While future deaths may be possible it is clear the paper does not claim the deaths in question were due to climate change but instead due to storms: Our observations suggest that polar bears swimming in open water near Kaktovik drowned during a period of high winds and correspondingly rough sea conditions between 10 and 13 September 2004. No other deleterious environmental conditions were present that might have led to the deaths of those polar bears. P.684

There is also the decision by a Justice of the UK High Court on this specific issue.
In a 2007 UK High Court case brought by Stuart Dimmock against the accuracy of Al Gore’s film, An Inconvenient Truth, Justice Burton concluded, after examining the film and scientific literature, that Gore committed nine counts of scientific inaccuracy.
On Polar bears he concludes:
Justice Burton:  Mr Gore says: "A new scientific study shows that for the first time they are finding polar bears that have actually drowned swimming long distances up to 60 miles to find the ice. They did not find that before.” The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm. That is not to say that there may not in the future be drowning-related deaths of polar bears if the trend continues.

Factual error #2 Melting Greenland raising sea levels
Lord Monckton: “As Al Gore says in his movie that because of the melting of two ice sheets Greenland and the West Antarctic, sea level will rise by 20 feet imminently. But in fact, the IPCC says that because of those two ice fields the amount of contribution to sea level rise will be over the whole of the next 100 years 6 cm which is 2.5 inches, not 610 cm which is 20 feet. So there is a 100 fold exaggeration.”
Then Ms Carlisle comments:
Ms Carlisle: “On this occasion, …..Lord Monckton’s assertion that the UN’s Climate Change panel that the sea will rise by 6 cm this century is pure fiction, According to Chapter 5 of its report on sea levels the sea is expected to rise by between 20 and 50 cm this century”.
The Facts:

Al Gore alleged a sea level rise of 7 meters due just to the melting of Greenland and West Antarctic sheet. Lord Monckton’s retorts that from IPCC data, the expected contribution of sea level rise from melting of Greenland and West Antarctic sheet alone, works out to be only 6cm, therefore a 100 fold exaggeration. Ms Carlisle claims the IPCC AR4 report states a much higher sea level rise of 20 to 50cm, yes, but this figure is from all causes of sea level rise, namely thermal expansion (17-28 cm), the melting of glaciers and ice caps (10-12 cm), in addition to the loss of ice from the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets.

Climatology at University of Winnipeg

In discussion with Tim Ball Reporter Wendy Carlisle states: No, Background Briefing received that information from the university itself. In email correspondence, which we'll post on our website, the university says, 'there is not and never has been a department of climatology'.'

In fact the correspondence spoke of a "program" rather than a department. Ms Carlisle has misrepresented what was stated in the correspondence, we repeat below.
"Wendy. Dr. Ball was a Professor in our Geography Department until 1996. We have never had a Climatology program. Any correspondence the University may have had with Dr. Ball is confidential.
I trust this responds to your query. "
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/backgroundbriefing/documents/bbg_20110717_hurley_email.pdf
A search of the web archives reveals that U. Winnipeg Department of geography indeed offered the following "climatology" courses in 1999 which seems to contradict statements received from the University. Perhaps the ABC could have spent a little more time investigating this to clarify the facts to its audience.
PHYSICAL GEOGRAPHY COURSES
http://web.archive.org/web/19990209145331/http://www.uwinnipeg.ca/~geograph/Courses/geog2.htm
2205/6 CLIMATOLOGY (Le3,La2) The course expands upon the information introduced in the climate half of Physical Geography 1200/6. The first half of the course will review and elaborate upon the global pattern and fundamental mechanisms of climate. The second half will examine meso- and microclimates, including topics such as bioclimatology, agroclimatology, urban climatology, and applied climatology. Students with standing in 2205/3 cannot receive credit for 2205/6. Prerequisite: 1200/6 or 1201/3 and 1202/3. Corequisite: Introductory Statistics advisable.
2206/3 WORLD CLIMATOLOGY (Le3) This course examines the fundamental mechanisms of macro-scale climates and surveys the distribution of climates across the surface of the Earth. Issues related to global climate change and modelling will be introduced. Prerequisite: 1200/6, or 23:1201/3 and 23:1202/3. Restrictions: Students with standing in 2205/6 cannot receive credit for 2206/3.
2207/3 PHYSICAL CLIMATOLOGY (Le3,La2) This course examines the micro-scale and meso-scale processes by which energy and mass are transferred between the Earth and the atmosphere. The spatio-temporal characteristics of these processes are used to study climates and climate variability. Applications in bioclimatology, agroclimatology, and urban climatology will be discussed. The labs provide an introduction to the use of computers in the analyses of climatological data and the modelling of climatic processes. Prerequisite: 23:2206/3. Restrictions: Students with standing in 2201/6 cannot receive credit for 2207/3
3206/3 SYNOPTIC CLIMATOLOGY (Le3) This course examines the relationship between atmospheric circulation systems (at the surface and in the upper atmosphere) and weather and climate at the surface. The nature of atmospheric circulation variability and teleconnections is discussed and used to explain climatic anomalies such as El Ninos, droughts, and floods. Prerequisite: 2210/3.

Balance

In the course of the program it was clear that reporter Wendy Carlisle felt she was being intimidated by crowds attending Lord Monckton's talks and protest rally's the resulting broadcast is hopelessly compromised as a result of Wendy Carlisle's emotional entanglement with her subject and as a result lacked balance and objectivity.

ABC's reply: 8/9/2011 (with some comments by me in bold )
Thank you for your emails regarding the edition of Background Briefing broadcast on Radio National on 17 and 19 July 2011. Please accept my apologies for the delay in responding to you.

Under section 2.2 of the ABC Complaints Handling Procedures the Managing Director, who is also Editor-in-Chief, can determine matters as he thinks fit (Ed. Why would the MD waste his time getting personally involved in a complaint???) . In the case of the Background Briefing program to which you refer, the Managing Director took the view that the program was not an occasion for detailed enquiry into the science of climate change. (Ed Ms Carlisle, who is not a climate scientist, makes some specific claims about the science that are shown to be false, clearly it forms an important part of the report, and reflects on the lack of scientific credibility Ms Carlisle implies of Lord Monckton.) It follows that it would be disproportionate for the handling of complaints received about the program to become such an occasion. (Ed there were two specific items raised, that ABC require to correct, hardly requires a "detailed enquiry".)

The program established that the current debate in Australia over a proposed carbon tax was the context for its look at the style of debating used by some opponents of the proposed tax. Lord Monckton's style was examined in conjunction with his then current speaking tour of Australia. Others whose approaches were referred to included the Galileo movement patron Alan Jones, David Archibald, Professor Timothy Ball, Dr Wes Allen and Professor Fred Singer. Criticisms by Lord Monckton of the film 'An Inconvenient Truth' by former US Vice President Al Gore were referred to in the course of examining Lord Monckton's technique (Ed. I can find only one very mild criticism of Al Gore made by the reporter " Yes, Al Gore did overstate his case"). The program was not an assessment of the science of climate change, and it would be inappropriate for this response to embark on one. Nor was it appropriate to assess the program by reference to what it had omitted from amongst the many reactions to Al Gore's film. Those reactions have generated a vast amount of material. The program had a more specific focus than climate change per se.
 You have criticised the Background Briefing reporter, Wendy Carlisle. The Managing Director concluded that she had not been unduly aggressive or hostile towards Lord Monckton (Ed. this was not suggested in the complaint). Her questioning of him had been persistent and firm, but it had also been civil. She had not described Lord Monckton in terms as robust as his description of her to a crowd as an 'appalling woman'. (Ed. and being described as an 'appalling woman' would not have influenced her report and affected her objectivity???)
The Managing Director considered that some of the language used in the program would not have been understood by the audience as being literally applicable, much in the same way that Lord Monckton's presentation style employs techniques which a reasonable person would not take literally. For example, when Lord Monckton ridicules Al Gore's Tennessean accent Lord Monckton is not to be taken literally as suggesting that a person's accent affects the merit of what they are arguing. When Lord Monckton's asserts, as he did to at least one crowd, that the ABC now represents hallmarks of fascism exhibited in Germany in the 1930s, reasonable people do not take him literally. (It is noted, however, that the ABC reported this harsh criticism, both in its news coverage and in Background Briefing.) (Ed this is not relevant the complaint)
The ABC does not have concerns about the fact that Background Briefing applied scrutiny to the styles of debate of those examined in the program. As a seasoned media performer, Lord Monckton would reasonably expect media scrutiny. He also received opportunities to put his perspective on various ABC platforms during his recent Australian visit, as he did on his 2010 visit. On ABC television on 30 June Lateline covered the beginning of his tour. Lord Monckton's debate with Richard Dennis at the National Press Club was broadcast by ABC TV on 19 July. Lord Monckton appeared on ABC local radio in at least Sydney, Brisbane and in the Riverina, and there was considerable coverage online.(Ed this is not relevant the complaint)
In relation to the various references by Al Gore, Lord Monckton and Background Briefing to the issue of drowned polar bears, the Managing Director did not regard it as proportionate in the circumstances to go into the detail. Noting that specialist literature is open to varying interpretations by specialists and non-specialists, and that - both in public presentations such as Lord Monckton's and in journalism such as Background Briefing - specialist literature must necessarily be tightly compressed, the Managing Director concluded that the program did not breach the accuracy standard in the ABC Code of Practice (http://abc.net.au/corp/pubs/documents/codeofpractice2011.pdf). (Ed See above, the specific commentary by Ms Carlisle is demonstrably false-it appears ABC just can't stand admitting they are wrong!)
On the issue of sea level rise, the Managing Director concluded that the difference between Lord Monckton's account of Al Gore's treatment of the matter and the program's account was one of degree. Both thought Al Gore had overstated his case. Their different calculations of the degree to which he had done so were based on different readings of work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change published in 2007. The Managing Director concluded that the program acted reasonably in citing the IPCC in the way it did. The program and responses to it were not the occasion for an enquiry into the detail of varying interpretations of predictions about sea level rises over the next 100 years and it would be disproportionate to embark on such an enquiry in this context. (Ed what utter rubbish. Ms Carlisle asserts that Lord Monckton's interpretation is "pure fiction", when the opposite is true. )
 The Managing Director concluded that there was, in the context of this matter, little to be gained from attempting to distinguish shades of meaning between the terms climatology 'department' and climatology 'program' in relation to the uses of those terms by the program, Dr Timothy Ball and the University of Winnipeg. The program acted reasonably in checking directly with the University of Winnipeg. (Ed. The facts are that climatology was taught by Prof Bell at the University of Winnipeg, a fact that is not made clear in the ABC report, which then unduly discredits Prof. Ball's reputation. In this context there is little doubt he would have been regarded at least informally as the Professor of Climatology.)
Your related email of 23 July asks for an explanation as to why one of the comments you posted to the Background Briefing message board was not published. This matter has been considered by Audience and Consumer Affairs and in doing so we sought feedback from Radio.
I note that the comment in question was as follows:
'Jo Nova, deconstructs Wendy Carlisle amateur journalism...see http://joannenova.com.au/2011/07/this-is-not-journalism-wendy-carlisle/
"It's not reporting. It's disguised PR. When Carlisle had evidence the skeptics have no financial interest and that this is a genuine grassroots movement she withheld it. When she had the chance to add in spurious slurs against distantly connected people she took every opportunity. She could have written about the science, but chose not too. The devastating missing hot spot argument was put to her five times, and the list of peer reviewed papers was sent to her (at her request), but at the end of it all she said "you don't use much peer reviewed science".'
Radio advise that '...the moderator made a judgement on the run about repetition on a comments board that was swelling fast with submissions, as she's perfectly entitled to do'. In the words of the moderator: 'Four days after the program went to air, we had had many criticising Wendy along these lines (and many praising her) and they were starting to get repetitive'.
The ABC's Conditions of Use (http://www.abc.net.au/conditions.htm) state that a contribution may be rejected on this basis. They state:
'4.3 All material published on the ABC's interactive services is at the ABC's sole discretion.
4.4 Your contribution may be edited, removed or not published if the ABC considers it to be: [...]
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;'
By way of background, the moderation of message boards must comply with the principles and standards for editorial practice set out in the ABC's Editorial Policies. Of particular relevance, Section 9 of the Policies covers public access and participation and it is outlined in the principles for this section that:
"The ABC may establish conditions for participation with which participants are expected to comply, such as the ABC's Conditions of Use relating to users' interactivity on abc.net.au. The ABC will exercise appropriate oversight over participants' contributions, for example through appropriate moderation of its interactive services."
On review of the message board, we note that there were a significant number of posts to the board prior to 20 July which were critical of the program and of the reporter, Wendy Carlisle's approach. A number of posts by that time had also been in support of Jo Nova and had included links to Jo Nova's website, albeit not to the particular page that you submitted. (Ed. So it was not a repetition, it was an important link to criticism of the program from someone featured on it. I would have thought ABC's audience would have benefited from such inside knowledge, and alternate viewpoints...apparently not).
In any event I am of the view that it was acceptable for the moderator to reject your post in this instance under the Conditions of Use for the reason she offered. (Ed. No fresh air allowed in ABC's Groupthink echo chamber)
 Furthermore on review of the message board, and for the reasons outlined above, I am satisfied that the moderation complied with other relevant editorial requirements as follows.
 "4.5 Do not unduly favour one perspective over another."
 And
 "9.2 Opportunities to participate must be administered fairly and respectfully."
 Should you be dissatisfied with the ABC's response to those elements of your complaint which related to the broadcast of Background Briefing and its compliance with the ABC Code of Practice, you may be able to refer your complaint to the Australian Communications and Media Authority - www.acma.gov.au. (Ed and we have done so)
Yours sincerely,
KM
Head, Audience and Consumer Affairs

Another biased report

ABC Science are running this Reuters report about a recent PNAS paper titled "Reconciling anthropogenic climate change with observed temperature 1998–2008" that finds there has been no global warming since 1998. Seems Geologists Ian Plimer and Bob Carter have been vindicated in their assessment of recent global temperature trends. Here's link to an article by Bob Carter from 2006.

"There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998" 12:01AM BST 09 Apr 2006.

"Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero)." 

And Ian Plimer's conversation with ABC's Tony Jones in 2008:
TONY JONES: OK, let's look at some of the information. We don't have time to go through the whole book. Let's focus on one critical aspect of your thesis. In your book you state many, many times, that the planet has been cooling, not warming, in recent years, since 1998. I counted a dozen references in one chapter, they're arguably dozens throughout the book. This is fundamental to your whole argument, isn't it?

IAN PLIMER: No, it isn't. What is fundament to the argument - if we just take the last 2000 years. The planet was hot in Roman and Greek times. Then it cooled in the dark ages, then it warmed in the medieval warmth. Then it cooled in the little ice ages, and we are now, we've just come out of the little ice age. Is it any wonder that the planet has warmed up?

Climate Scientist Judy Curry provides the following critique on the paper on her blog Climate Etc...pity ABC did not seek to balance their report.

Science News is writing an article on this paper (haven’t spotted it yet-ED it's HERE).  Here is the complete comments I provided to the reporter via email:

This paper points out that global coal consumption (primarily from China) has increased significantly, although the dataset referred to shows an increase only since 2004-2007 (the period 1985-2003 was pretty stable).  The authors argue that the sulfates associated with this coal consumption have been sufficient to counter the greenhouse gas warming during the period 1998-2008, which is similar to the mechanism that has been invoked  to explain the cooling during the period 1940-1970.

I don’t find this explanation to be convincing because the increase in sulfates occurs only since 2004 (the solar signal is too small to make much difference).  Further, translating regional sulfate emission into global forcing isnt really appropriate, since atmospheric sulfate has too short of an atmospheric lifetime (owing to cloud and rain processes) to influence the global radiation balance.

 The alternative explanation is  natural internal variability associated with the ocean oscillations.  Since 1999, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation has been shifting from the warm phase (warm phase since 1976) to the cool phase, and has been mostly in the cool phase since 2007.   A cool PDO is associated with more frequent La Nina events, which are associated with globally cooler temperatures. The climate model studies cited by the authors do not do a convincing job of ruling out natural internal variability as an explanation, either for the cool period since 1998, and the earlier cool period during 1940-1970.

 In summary, the authors have put forward one possible explanation for the lack of warming, but an explanation associated with natural internal variability associated with the ocean oscillations is at least as plausible as the explanation put forward by the authors.

Solar minimum and its affect on climate, the other side

Latitude-time plots of jet streams under the Sun's surface show the surprising shutdown of the solar cycle mechanism. New jet streams typically form at about 50 degrees latitude (as in 1999 on this plot) and are associated with the following solar cycle 11 years later. New jet streams associated with a future 2018-2020 solar maximum were expected to form by 2008 but are not present even now, indicating a delayed or missing Cycle 25. Image and text from: http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~deforest/SPD-sunspot-release/

ABC belatedly reported (borrowing from AFP) on a study that suggests the sun is entering a quiet period similar to the Maunder Minimum, which was a 70-year period when hardly any sunspots were observed between 1645 and 1715, a period known as the 'Little Ice Age'. ABC's report provided reference to a recent study by Georg Feulner and Stefan Rahmstorf based on the results of climate modelling that indicated the potential affect on global temperatures may not be significant with just   "a 0.3°C dip by 2100 compared to normal solar fluctuations."

In the interests of balance (lacking in the ABC's report) we decided to ask a real solar scientist. It seems the impact of reduced solar activity may be more significant than the ABC's one sided report suggesting more research is required.

Email sent 15/6/2011

Dear Dr Svensmark,

ABC  News cite a paper by Georg Feulner and Stefan Rahmstorf to suggest that a solar mimnimum would reduce global temperatures by 0.3 degrees by 2100. see GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 37, L05707, 5 PP., 2010 doi:10.1029/2010GL042710 On the effect of a new grand minimum of solar activity on the future climate on Earth

"Here we use a coupled climate model to explore the effect of a 21st-century grand minimum on future global temperatures, finding a moderate temperature offset of no more than −0.3°C in the year 2100 relative to a scenario with solar activity similar to recent decades. This temperature decrease is much smaller than the warming expected from anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions by the end of the century. "

I am interested in your opinion on the evidence for a future solar minimum based on recent results in the news and its affect on global temperature for a news story.

Regards

Marc Hendrickx

ABC NEWS WATCH

Received  15/6/2011

Dear Marc Hendrickx,

I have had a fast look at the paper, and as far as I can see the authors are only looking at solar irradiance changes, and effects like the one that I have been involved in, like an amplification of the solar signal caused by clouds and cosmic ray modulation, is not taken into account. We known with good confidence that the terrestrial response to the solar signal is 3-7 times larger than from solar irradiance alone (see for example the work of Nir Shaviv, attached-Using the oceans as a calorimeter to quantify the solar radiative forcing-doi:10.1029/2007JA012989). Now if such effects are taken into account the result would be very different (larger solar influence). So I do not think that the present work is the particular helpful in understanding the solar impact in near future. It is only an estimate of the impact of solar irradiance as determined from numerical modeling. In the coming years the sun will show by itself how important it is.

Best wishes,

Henrik  (Svensmark)

We have requested ABC amend their story.

Tony Eastley - an Embedded Journalist?

We raised the possibility that ABC had an journalist "embedded" in the Climate Institute to try and explain some irregularities in the timing of a story that appears to have gone to air before the Climate Institute issued the press release (See HERE). However of greater concern is the news that the ABC now appear to have a journalist embedded in the Gillard government’s Climate Change Commission. How can ABC's audience expect impartial reporting if this is the case?
According to a  report in The Australian:

""The role performed by Mr Eastley at the forum was to facilitate the discussion, and enable community participation, feedback and engagement on a significant public policy issue. This is an appropriate activity for an ABC journalist/presenter to engage in, and regularly occurs with a range of presenters in a range of fora."

The ABC did not respond to questions about whether Eastley was being paid to conduct the forums, or whether he'd have to declare a financial interest when introducing climate change stories on the ABC."

ABC's new Editorial Guidelines no longer mention the phrase "conflict of interest". However section 1.3 of the new guidelines state:

1.3 Ensure that editorial decisions are not improperly influenced by political, sectional, commercial or personal interests.
It appears Mr Eastley's appointment puts him in breach of this clause.


We have asked ABC to provide answers to the following questions:

1. Has Mr Eastley been formally seconded to the CCC?
2. Who is paying Mr Eastley's salary while he is acting on behalf of the CCC?
3. Who will be acting in Mr Eastley's role while he is otherwise engaged?
4. Will Mr Eastley be barred from reporting on climate change issues given he now has a blatant conflict of interest?
5. If not will Mr Eastley preface his reporting with a statement to indicate he is in the employ of the CCC.
6. ABC's previous Editorial Policies clearly dealt with conflict of interest for staff. I am unable to find mention of the phrase "Conflict of Interest" in ABC new guidelines. How does ABC currently deal with issues of conflict of interest?

Given the conflict of interest faced while reporters have been embedded into organisations, how can the public trust anything Mr Eastley says?

PS. It's not the first time senior ABC journalists have put their hand up tot be involved in one side of the climate debate. See HERE for another.

When propaganda equals news.

Is it just me or does this report lack balance and lack inquiry? Carbon tax 'a scapegoat' for power bill rises
Odd that ABC ran the story even before the Climate Institute issued a press release (nothing at the Climate Institute website as of 9.00am today). Some questions:
Does ABC have an "embedded reporter" at the Climate Institute?
Can ABC spot the difference between propaganda and news?

Update: 14:30. Just noticed the Climate Institute have caught up with the ABC  their marketing arm. Must be nice to have Auntie in your back pocket.

H/T to The Loaded Dog

No Balance in Q and A coverage

The Australian's Cut and Paste highlight a one sided report by ABC News titled "Anti-Discrimination chief attacks intervention". Seems that ABC's Groupthink culture is not limited to one sided coverage of the climate change debate but also encompasses social issues as well.
ABC report "The Anti-Discrimination Commissioner says the federal intervention in the Northern Territory is "counter-intuitive" and disempowers Aboriginal people." 

From the Q and A transcript: 

Tony Jones to Central Australian Aboriginal activist Bess Price: Are you still for the intervention, by the way?
Price: I am for the intervention because I've seen progress. I've seen women who now have voices. They can speak for themselves and they are standing up for their rights. Children are being fed and young people more or less know how to manage their lives. That's what's happened since the intervention.

ABC did not think this worth a mention?

Help restore the balance: support Menzies List

ABC have published their annual report into Equity and Diversity. While there has been an increase in the number of women, indigenous Australians, the disabled and  Australians from non-English speaking backgrounds, it seems that the number of ABC employees voting for conservative and center-right political parties remains at an all time low and if anything the numbers are falling dramatically*.  This does not reflect the spread of political attitudes in the community that are pretty much evenly divided between right and left.

To instill some balance, common sense and rational opinion to "our" ABC, we propose the establishment of "Menzies List". From now on, as vacancies arise in the ABC, positions will be filled from Menzies List until balance is restored (given there are currently so few conservative employees this may take some time).

Extreme prejudice requires extreme action. You know it's right. Write to your MP today, insist the ABC employ Menzies List to fill future vacancies. Do your part to help break ABC's GROUPTHINK culture.

*Perhaps this helps explain ABC's falling productivity? 

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