A bucket on Media Watch

We have been more than a little side tracked of late. This piece by Roger Franklin at Quadrant a must read for anyone still believing that ABC does not have a problem with bias.

A Media Watch Staffer’s Abbreviated CVBack in January, the show that professes to keep the press honest went to town on The Australian for reporting on an acoustic engineer's findings in regard to the possible health effects of wind turbines. Turns out the item's researcher has worked as a deep green propagandist


I do recall a study of voting intentions of reporters including ABC staff and the result was....

It's easy being Green at the ABC, survey finds 
MORE than 40 per cent of ABC journalists who answered a survey question about their political attitudes are Greens supporters, four times the support the minor party enjoys in the wider population.
The journalism survey, the largest in 20 years, has found the profession is overwhelmingly left-leaning, with respondents from the ABC declaring double levels of support for the Greens compared with those from Fairfax Media and News Limited.
The survey of 605 journalists from around Australia found that just more than half described themselves as having left political views, while only 13 per cent said they were right of centre.
This tendency was most pronounced among the 34 ABC journalists who agreed to declare their voting intention, with 41 per cent of them saying they would vote for the Greens, 32 per cent declaring support for Labor and 14 per cent backing the Coalition.
 

Media Watch-Dunning Kruger in action

The Australian report on Media Watch Ineptitude. A case study of Dunning Kruger effect...

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias wherein unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability to be much higher than is accurate. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their ineptitude. Conversely, highly skilled individuals tend to underestimate their relative competence, erroneously assuming that tasks which are easy for them are also easy for others.

Legal move threatened over Media Watch report ACOUSTIC expert Steven Cooper is considering launching legal action against the ABC’s Media Watch program for its portrayal of him and his research on the effect of the Pacific Hydro wind turbines on local residents.
On the February 16 edition of Media Watch host Paul Barry dished out a stinging criticism of Mr Cooper’s seven-month study conducted at Cape Bridgewater in southwest Victoria — and the ­reporting of it by The Australian’s environment editor Graham Lloyd and Network Seven’s Today Tonight.
However, in damning the report, the Media Watch team hand- picked a group of pro-turbine ­“experts” — with no real expertise in the field — ignored submissions from genuine acoustic experts, misrepresented Mr Cooper, ­selectively and incorrectly quoted the National Health and Medical Research Council, ignored balancing quotes in the newspaper ­reports and made a number of factual mistakes.
Following his utter disbelief at Media Watch’s misrepresentation, as well as pending legal action, Mr Cooper has also sent a letter to the ABC demanding a retraction.

And

In response to the Media Watch report about The Australian’s coverage of wind farms
THE Media Watch report of February 16 (“Turbine torture: do wind farms make you sick?”) is littered with mistakes, omissions and misrepresentations from the opening scenes.
The program represents blatant advocacy for commercial interests over the widespread concerns of a genuine minority group who deserve thorough investigation of their complaints.
The Australian provided balanced, factual reporting of a national issue of public interest where Media Watch indulged in what amounts to little more than ad hominem, ideological propaganda.
The Media Watch program misrepresented the National Health and Medical Research Council position that the quality of existing research into the possible health impacts of wind turbines is poor and that it will fund more high quality research.

Media Watch: Groupthink incorporated

Must be doing something right as we gained a brief mention on tonight's episode of Media Watch which dealt in its usual skewed manner with climate change reporting. No criticism of the work being done for "the cause" by our ABC, of course. Our brief claim to fame was in the form of a brief cut away to a recent opinion piece published in The Australian. Media Watch did not get in touch with us directly, that might raise too many uncomfortable questions.

from the Media Watch Website....

"...it gave rise to another ABC-bashing piece
in the Australian’s op-ed page...

ABC LACKS BALANCE IN ITS CLIMATE COVERAGE
— The Australian, 5th June, 2013"

The piece in The Australian (see below) pointed out gross deficiencies, hypocrisy and blatant bias in ABC's climate change coverage. Pointing out the gross deficiencies, hypocrisy and blatant bias hardly constitutes "ABC bashing" but when you can't take critical comments I guess the easy option is to resort to sensationalism. We have seen this from Auntie in the past. The article compared treatment of ABC's coverage of two published scientific papers, one was withdrawn from publication due methodological problems identified by a climate sceptic, the other passed peer review. Somehow ABC did not regard reporting on the withdrawn paper as newsworthy. For the paper published the only coverage was of its critics (until we stepped in and the author was allowed a brief riposte to unqualified comments).

Critical reporting on ABC's coverage of climate change has been passed over by Media Watch. As we have seen here it is an area that would bear much fruit if scrutinised properly. Among the issues include: numerous factual errors, numerous stories against alarm go unreported - missing in action, decisions about what gets covered are made by environmental activists, activist organisations have easy access to ABC's editors to promulgate propaganda and ABC refrains from asking alarmists the tough questions it asked rightly of sceptics. (The recent comments by an ex defense chief about the probability of human's being around in 90 years on ABC Breakfast, along with any ABC interview of Tim Flannery cases in point but the links fully elucidate the level of ABC's bias).

Pity Mr Holmes didn't bother to tackle the substance of the article. But for Mr Holmes, and other members of ABC's Alarmist climate change clique, critical thinking on subject isn't required when you have already made your mind up. Any new facts, such as the recent halt in global warming that now enters its 15th year, the gross disparities between climate models and observations, and reporting on papers withdrawn from publication due to methodological problems identified by climate sceptics are mere unwelcome distractions on the path to a carbon (dioxide) free utopia.

If you missed the piece in The Australian it's repeated below, links included, with my original headline.

The path for ABC coverage for climate heretics is paved with broken glass.

Marc Hendrickx

There’s no doubt that ABC has a problem when it comes to fair and balanced reporting on the issue of climate change. Around this time last year the ABC gave two prominent Australian climate researchers almost carte blanche access to its radio, TV and online networks to spruik a paper they had written that claimed recent temperatures in Australia were the warmist in a 1000 years. Researchers David Karoly and Joelle Gergis scored almost blanket coverage on ABC’s AM, Radio National’s Breakfast Program, Radio Australia,  ABC TV news, The Science Show. If was even tweeted by ABC Local Radio and was featured on ABC’s online website. None of these articles featured criticism from independent experts.

Gergis and Karoly’s paper was short lived. Online climate sceptics lead by Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit found methodological problems with the work, and the paper was subsequently withdrawn from publication to the embarrassment of the authors. The paper’s withdrawal was covered by News Limited and Fairfax press but was not covered by the ABC. The only mention by ABC was a brief editorial comment posted at the end of online articles. To our knowledge no formal correction was broadcast on ABC radio or TV.

For those who agree with the ABC’s vision of a nightmarish global warming future it seems the path to publicity and fame is paved with honey. However when you publish a paper that doesn’t fit the ABC’s entrenched position on Climate Change a different path awaits.  

The Australian recently reported on a new peer reviewed paper (CFCs 'are the real culprit in global warming', 3/6) that goes against the current consensus that global warming is caused mainly by CO2 emissions. The paper published in the International Journal of Modern Physics B by Canadian Physics Professor Qing-Bin Lu suggests interactions between CFCs and cosmic rays are the source of the polar ozone hole and global warming.  This appears a significant result worthy of media attention. Oddly ABC’s coverage of the paper by reporter Martin Cuddihy featured not the author of the paper, but IPCC author Dr David Karoly. In their article ABC seems to have thrown out section 4 of its Editorial Policies that deals with impartiality and diversity of perspectives. The ABC:

• did not interview the author of the paper or provide an opportunity for him to reply to criticism levelled against his work.
•  downplayed the credentials of Professor Lu and failed to include an interesting Australian link. It seems Professor Lu gained his PhD at the University of Newcastle
• Over emphasised the qualifications of critic Dr David Karoly, whose base degree is in mathematics, not climate science.
•  made fun of the paper by claiming "The paper has a rather wordy title". The paper is titled COSMIC-RAY-DRIVEN REACTION AND GREENHOUSE EFFECT OF HALOGENATED MOLECULES: CULPRITS FOR ATMOSPHERIC OZONE DEPLETION AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE.  19 words. Recent papers by ABC's critic, Dr David Karoly include this one: On the long-term context of the 1997-2009 'Big Dry' in South-Eastern Australia: insights from a 206-year multi-proxy rainfall reconstruction. 24 words! It is surely no surprise that some science articles have long titles but it seems ABC’s critic Dr Karoly wins the wordiness contest. How this relevant to the topic is beyond me.
•  did not question claims made by Dr Karoly that unfairly misrepresented of the content of an international science journal. Karoly states:  “It has been published in a journal which appears to not normally publish articles on climate change science”. A search of "climate change" in "International Journal of Modern Physics B" provides 8 25 results, "global warming" provides 7 27 results. Contrary to Dr Karoly’s claims it seems articles on climate change are quite normal in this journal.

ABC based its report on one heavily biased opinion. It didn’t even bother to speak with the author! Throw section 4 out the window.

It’s been more than 3 years since former ABC Chairmen Maurice Newman pointed out ABC had a groupthink problem with its climate change coverage. It seems that ABC Managing Director has done absolutely nothing in those three years to address it. Sadly, based on Mr Scott’s recent performance in senate estimates defending the appointment of the partisan Russell Skelton as the ABC’s new fact checker I don’t have any hope his limp wristed management style will result in any change in ABC’s biased coverage. 

ANU Death Threats a final request

The Australian's editorial in today's paper makes a simple request: Correct your errors, Mr Holmes

"IT'S no surprise that the ABC's Media Watch has no bite when it comes to scrutinising the national broadcaster's own news coverage. On Monday night it lost its bark as well. Host Jonathan Holmes fell silent over an issue that he bungled badly the week before -- the ABC's erroneous report in June last year that: "Several of Australia's top climate change scientists at the Australian National University have been subjected to a campaign of death threats, forcing the university to tighten security."

The sensationalised story, which followed up a report in The Canberra Times, gained such wide airplay on radio, on television and online that it was picked up internationally by The Guardian and the scientific journal Nature, fuelling a perception that climate sceptics are dangerous fanatics.

The problem was that a crucial element of the story was wrong, which the ABC now concedes -- sort of -- in a "clarification" buried deep on its website. It is yet to correct the record on radio or television....We expect him to correct his mistakes next Monday."

Apparently "Media Watch tries to monitor some of the major media outlets but there's no way our small team can keep track of all the media's crazy and unethical behaviour or even all the stories that are just plain wrong.We rely on tip-offs from our audience for many of our stories. If you know something about the media that we should know, please fill out the form below."

Here's a link to that form, why not help them out. Tip offs

Climate Death Threats Media Watchers play deaf dumb blind

Updated from last night.
Update: The Australian comments HERE
On tonight's Mediawatch program Jonathan Holmes seemed to suggest the Canberra Times did not report that ANU scientists were subject to death threats. From the transcript Holmes smugly states "But hang on, The Canberra Times article did not report that death threats had been made to academics at the ANU." As a result it suggested that The Australian's recent article on the issue was wrong. That CT article did not specifically mention death threats but these articles from the Canberra Times (Below) from last year did. And based on these, and the absence of any police investigation, the ANU claims are indeed debunked.

Article HERE

or how about this ONE...

Seems the Canberra Times article that Media Watch featured is no longer online...

UPDATE Media Watch have a PDF HERE

Page Not Found.

We could not find the page you requested.

The reporting on this issue by all parties is somewhat confused, some of the confusion caused by those involved. As to the other "death threats", we await the outcome of police investigations (Ed Are there any?).

Murray Gate 3 The Response, the debate

The following correspondence with Media Watch producer Lin Buckfield, Richard Kingsford, Jennifer Marohasy and Peter Ridd is published in the public interest. We look forward to seeing the proposed debate between Jennifer Marohasy and Richard Kingsford telecast, (but we won't be holding our breath). We still await responses to follow up questions from Richard Kingsford and Lin Buckfield over ABC's misrepresentation of comments made by Peter Ridd. Their silence is deafening.

 ...there are two much wider problems here which I tried to get across in my phone conversation with Media Watch.  The first is the manipulation of the media by the large government organisations, and the second is the lack of a mechanism in science where we can guarantee that the science behind the big environmental issues of our time have been properly scrutinized (not merely peer reviewed).

Peter Ridd

It seems Media Watch are interested in telling the story they want to tell, and anyone who does not play by its rules are treated accordingly.
ABC NEWS WATCH

Each email large bold at start

from: Marc Hendrickx
to: Lin Buckfield
cc: Richard.Kingsford, Jennifer Marohasy, Peter Ridd
date: Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 6:30 AM
subject: some questions regarding your report Monday 19 March

 Dear Lin,

Just seeking to clarify a few things regarding your report on Monday March 19. Your reply for possible posting on the ABC NEWS WATCH Blog. I have cc'd Prof. Richard Kingsford, Dr Jennifer Marohasy, and Dr Peter Ridd and would be interested in their comments as well. 

It seems that in the course of your 10 minutes or so on the subject of reporting science you failed to live up to the standards you were promulgating.

In regard to Jennifer Marohasy's AEF report  Plugging The Murray River’s Mouth: the Interrupted Evolution of a Barrier Estuary Media Watch pointed out the document was reviewed by Professor Peter Ridd, James Cook University. You indicated "Professor Ridd is a director of the AEF and has known Dr Marohasy for years. " You then added the sarcastic remark  "So much for peer-review."

Media Watch then went on to provide examples of a number of experts who agreed and disagreed with Dr Marohasy's report. However for some reason Media Watch did not shine the same intense light of scrutiny on these experts. Unlike Dr Marohasy their relationships with their funding agencies, the nature of the peer review of their reports and their political allegiances were left totally unexplored.  It seems you reported only one side of the story.

For instance Media Watch quote Professor Richard Kingsford, Director of the Australian Wetlands and Rivers Centre, who disagrees with Dr Marohasy's policy for the lower Murray lakes. In his assessment, provided by Media Watch, Dr Kingsford cites a 2011 paper that was published in the journal Marine and Freshwater Research*. The journal is edited by Dr Andrew Boulton who has previously collaborated with Dr Kingsford, Dr Boulton is referred to in the acknowledgements of the paper. It seems Dr Boulton and  Dr Kingsford  have had a close working relationship going back many years. Based on this, is a similar sarcastic remark such as "So much for peer-review." warranted for the paper by Dr Kingsford?

Did Media Watch seek more information about Dr Kingsford's sources of funding that according to The Conversationinclude "Australian Research Council, State and Federal Governments, industry groups and the Murray-Darling Basin Authority". Which "Industry groups" are relevant here?  Should Media Watch have asked for more information about Dr Kingsford's sources of funding?

What does Dr Kingsford's odd endorsement of ALP politician Nathan Rees as reported in the Sydney Morning Herald in September 2006 say about his political affiliations? "Professor Richard Kingsford is a water expert from the University of NSW who has fought to save the Murray Darling Basin and has been impressed with Rees's intelligence and his refusal to suffer fools. "I've had a bit to do with various water ministers over the years and he's by far and away the best I have come across," says Kingsford, who reckons other minister are often captive to their advisers."He has an ability to listen for a long time and to come in with politically incisive and technically incisive questions. That's a breath of fresh air." Should Media Watch have asked for more information about Dr Kingsford's political leanings?

I am not asserting or implying in any manner that Dr Kingsford's professional judgement and integrity as a scientist have been influenced or corrupted by personal financial gain. Nor am I disputing his right to promote his views and challenge and debate the views of others. I am merely pointing out the different manner Media Watch treated Dr Marohasy compared to the manner it reported the comments of experts Media Watch appear to agree with. The role science plays in policy is increasingly important, the media should remember at all times to maintain their independence and impartiality.

The point of the story is that  "journalists too easily swallow, and pass on without challenge, highly controversial claims put forward in the name of science, by organisations whose agendas aren't obvious from their names."  It seems that Media Watch struggles just as much as the rest.

Regards

Marc Hendrickx

ABC NEWS WATCH

(*Kingsford, R.T., K. F. Walker, R.E. Lester, W.J. Young, P.G. Fairweather, J. Sammut, M.C. Geddes (2011). A Ramsar wetland in crisis – the Coorong, Lower Lakes and Murray Mouth, Australia. Marine and Freshwater Research 62: 255-265.) 

from: Richard Kingsford 
to: Marc Hendrickx
cc: Jennifer Marohasy, Ridd, Peter, Lin Buckfield
date: Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 1:38 PM
subject: RE: some questions regarding your report Monday 19 March

Dear Marc

In response to the three substantive issues raised in your email, I make this response.

1.      I have collaborated with Dr Boulton in the past but as editor of a scientific journal it was his responsibility to deal with the submission of our paper in an objective and professional manner. As with any other scientific paper, the manuscript you refer to was reviewed anonymously by two scientists. Both recommended publication, subject to clarification of a number of issues. This is the normal process of peer review. I do not know who those scientists were as clearly this was the role of the editor. The paper followed the strict protocols laid down by the peer review process.

2.      Funding. Most of the funding for my group’s research comes from normal research sources, which you listed in your email and were listed on the Conversation. The reason that only ‘industry groups’ as a category was listed was because we obtain relatively small amounts of funding from a range of different organisations including Catchment Management Authorities, fauna conservation groups (e.g. Birds Australia), farming groups and councils. There was not sufficient space to list all of the groups. They probably account for less than five percent of my research funding. Funds from these groups are invariably used to support honours or postgraduate projects, or other relatively small projects. In particular, all our publications acknowledge such funding sources.

3.      Political connections. It is the nature of our research that we focus on key issues for sustainability; many are relevant to the natural resource or conservation management of governments. Over the course of my work, I have been asked to brief a number of Ministers from both major parties, including Nathan Rees, who was Minister for Water. He invited me to discuss a particular water management issue with him. My comment about his capabilities were purely in relation to many other Ministers that I have briefed and his ability to quickly understand the key issues. I am not a member of any political party and only interact with politicians on the basis of my research work.

Yours sincerely

Richard Kingsford

Professor of Environmental Science

Director of the Australian Wetlands and Rivers Centre

School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences University of New South Wales Sydney NSW 2052

from: Lin Buckfield 
to: Marc Hendrickx
cc:  Richard Kingsford, Jennifer Marohasy, Peter Ridd
date: Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 6:49 PM
subject: RE: some questions regarding your report Monday 19 March

Dear Marc

Thank you for your email regarding the Media Watch program which aired on Monday, 19^th March 2012.

Media Watch stands by its report which looked at how the media covered the release of a report commissioned by the AEF and authored by Dr. Jennifer Marohasy. Media Watch stands by the meticulous research undertaken by the program in compiling the item that was broadcast.

To be clear, Media Watch did not  dispute the right of the AEF and Dr Marohasy to promote the views expressed in the report “Plugging the Murray River’s Mouth: the Interrupted Evolution of a Barrier Estuary.”

What Jonathan Holmes in summing up was this:

We are saying that journalists too easily swallow, and pass on without challenge, highly controversial claims put forward in the name of science, by organisations whose agendas aren't obvious from their names.

With regard to your comments about the peer review of Dr Marohasy’s paper by Dr Ridd, you omit to mention the admission made to our researcher by Dr Ridd.  He said, as we reported: ...”if what you are saying is, there is a possibility that we are friends and I haven't seen all the flaws in it, then I'm quite happy to accept that.” 

It was that remark that prompted Jonathan Holmes to say “so much for peer review”.

With regard to your comments about Prof Richard Kingsford, so far as we are aware, his scientific views have been published in reputable, peer-reviewed scientific journals.   The fact that an author is the former colleague of an editor does not invalidate the peer-review process, which is, or should be, undertaken by two or three reviewers  who are not made aware of the identity of the author of the paper reviewed.  If the peer review of Prof Kingston’s paper had been conducted by Dr Boulton, on his own, that might be a parallel to the Marohasy paper, but you do not seem to be alleging that.

Prof Kingsford was clearly identified by Media Watch as someone who disagrees with Dr Marohasy’s report and takes issue with the AEF’s interpretation of what constitutes “peer review”.

Media Watch is not aware of any outstanding issues regarding the “peer review” status of any papers published by Dr Kingsford in any reputable scientific journal.  

I note that you have cc’d your email to Prof Kingsford, Dr Marohasy and Dr Peter Ridd, I look forward to reading any comments they might have on the matters you raise in your email.

Regards

Lin Buckfield

Executive Producer

Media Watch

from: Marc Hendrickx 
to: Lin Buckfield, Richard Kingsford, Peter Ridd, Jennifer Marohasy
date: Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 8:06 PM
subject: Re: some questions regarding your report Monday 19 March
Dear Richard,

Thanks for your response, it is appreciated. And your explanations are entirely satisfactory and appropriate, as were Dr Marohasy's to Media Watch. The point of my email was to highlight the different treatment afforded by Media Watch to Dr Marohasy, and Peter Ridd compared to yourself.  It seems Media Watch are interested in telling the story they want to tell, and anyone who does not play by its rules are treated accordingly. For instance, here's how your response about peer review could have been broadcast (in italics) If Media Watch were so inclined:

1. On peer review..Prof. Kingsford has worked closely with Dr Boulton. Did editor Boulton choose reviewers likely to provide a soft review? Fortunately for Prof. Kingsford and Boulton, the reviewer's identities remain anonymous so we will never know  (insert sarcastic comment). 

It is disappointing that Lin Buckfield has taken Peter Ridd's comments entirely out of context. It seems he was providing an honest response indicating that given his previous relationship with Dr Marohasy it may be possible that he may have overlooked problems in Dr Marohasy's report. He did not say that he had. He said that Media Watch had implied it. While the policy outcomes of Dr Marohasy's report are obviously open to challenge, the facts as presented in the report that document an estuarine history for the lower lakes do not appear to have been significantly challenged. What do you say Richard? Did Lin Buckfield and Media Watch fairly represent Peter Ridd's comments? Would you be happy if your comments were presented in the same manner?

Lin, perhaps you can provide the full transcript of Peter Ridd's interview with your staffers. It seems it's missing from the Media Watch website.

ABC is not supposed to take an editorial position. However it is very clear that Media Watch have. 

Best Wishes

Marc Hendrickx

PS Richard I enjoyed your contribution to the ABC's Lake Eyre Documentary the other night. Remarkable country.

from: Jennifer Marohasy 
to: Marc Hendrickx, Lin Buckfield, Richard Kingsford, Peter Ridd
date: Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 10:51 PM
subject: Re: some questions regarding your report Monday 19 March

Hi Marc

Thanks for your email. 

I get the impression that Lin Buckfield and the Media Watch Team are not that clever.  I also get the impression that they really don't understand the concept of peer review.  I also get the impression that they don't understand the difference between blind review for publication in a scientific journal and the more open peer review that is common for commissioned technical reports like my report 'Plugging the Murray Mouth: The Interrupted Evolution of a Barrier Estuary".  

Of course some reports are not peer-reviewed at all.   Consider the report by Jennie Fluin, Deborah Haynes and John Tibby entitled  'An environmental history of the Lower Lakes and Coorong'.  

Was this report, commissioned by the SA Department of Environment and Heritage, peer-reviewed at all?  If so by whom?

This is the key report that the South Australian government quotes when anyone make enquires about their claim that Lake Alexandrina has a freshwater history.   

This is also the report that Xanthe Kleinig from Media Watch relied upon as she gathered information for the Media Watch broadcast last Monday.

Can Media Watch confirm that this report by Fluin et al., so central to their argument, has been peer-reviewed at all?

Of course the real value of a report, be it my report 'Plugging the Mouth...', or their non-peer reviewed report, 'An environmental history...', is whether or not the information presented stands the test of time.  

But it would also be good, nevertheless, if as you suggest, the Media Watch team could provide the full transcript of the interview with Peter Ridd. I know, and you know, that they misrepresented what he said about peer-review.  It would be good to see the evidence.

Xanthe Kleinig from Media Watch also spoke on the phone to John Abbot about peer-review as part of her research.  In that conversation Ms Kleinig misrepresented the issue of peer review.  That is why Dr Abbot wisely terminated that conversation.

We know that Ms Buckfield and the Media Watch team, including Ms Kleinig, aren't scientists and don't understand the concept of peer-review or evidence.

We also know that they don't understand the natural history of the Lower Lakes and neither does Dr Kingsford.  Yet there is so much available evidence - good evidence that ordinary people who care about this issue could consider. 

I would of course be prepared to debate Dr Kingsford on ABC National Television on this issue of whether or not Lake Alexandrina was part of the Murray River's estuary before construction of the barrages - or not.    

I would simply ask that the broadcast be live and that I be given equal time to answer the questions.   Such a debate should be something the ABC is interested in facilitating, particularly given the importance of this issue.  

We are talking about the possible waste of $10 billion dollars of taxpayer’s monies.  It a big budget! And I write 'waste' because so much of the money spent and water 'saved' is meant to be for the environment.  This is what has been repeatedly broadcast as fact on ABC radio and TV.  But there is mounting evidence that the water is just for the dam at the bottom of the river system; I'm referring to that artificially created freshwater reservoir called Lake Alexandrina.  Of course I'm prepared to argue my case.  

There are many Australians who do care about this issue, and the truth, and the media's treatment of the same.   

Consider for example the information provided at Jo Nova's blog and some of the insight comments that follow on exactly this issue...  

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/03/media-watch-witch-hunt/

This information, at Jo Nova’s blog, is on the short and punchy side.  This is clearly what Media Watch would like to be.  But just keeps missing the mark, and not understanding the available evidence.

Cheers 

Jennifer 

from: Marc Hendrickx 
to: Jennifer Marohasy, Lin Buckfield, Richard Kingsford, Peter Ridd
date: Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 6:26 AM
subject: Re: some questions regarding your report Monday 19 March

Thanks Jennifer,

It's clear that policy in this area is being developed without the full facts being known. The politicisation of aspects of environmental science and the participation of ignorant activists in the media is clearly not helping the formulation of appropriate policy responses. 

The more light shed on it the better, and with that in mind, if there are no objections (received by 5.00 pm Monday) I will now post this thread of letters to ABC NEWS WATCH. Bearing in mind my initial comments that responses would be made public. 

If anyone else has anything to add please do so. 

Regards

Marc

from: Peter Ridd  
to: Lin Buckfield, Marc Hendrickx, Richard Kingsford, Jennifer Marohasy
date: Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 9:38 AM
subject: RE: some questions regarding your report Monday 19 March

Dear Lin,

I am quite cross about the way my comments have been used by media watch. The point I was trying to make was that peer review is not supposed to be a process where all the flaws in a paper are found before publication. It is only by getting the paper out in the open that people can debate the ideas and challenge what may be right and what is wrong. I reviewed Jennifer’s paper as part of a process within the AEF. I think that it is an excellent paper, but there may be some flaws in it. So far I have not seen any other scientists make a significant dent in it however.

Regarding being a friend of Jennifer. Yes I consider myself to be one even though I think I have only met her 4 or 5 times mostly at the odd AEF conference. That might surprise you.

I happen to agree with her on scientific matters and our paths have crossed scientifically on many occasions, not least in the AEF, but also from many years in the past on matters associated with the bad science associated with the supposed threats to the Great barrier Reef.

You may also not be aware that many scientific papers (in major international Journals rather than small reports by and environmental organisation) are reviewed by people who know very well the authors.

Finally your central point about the AEF not being what the name implies is fundamentally in error and perhaps you could have had peer reviewed your own work better. As I mentioned in my phone interview, I have been in the conservation movement for decades ever since fighting with my mum to have the, the Downey Creek rainforest protected, and the  Daintree rainforests world heritage listed. I have played my part in getting a property developer massively fined for clearing mangroves and fought the damming of the Herbert and Tully Rivers. I spend many of my weekends killing invasive plants around my property west of Townsville (massive environmentally degradation around a platypus inhabited river)  and one of my central research themes is automated and robotic  ways of destroying invasive plants. But I am disillusioned with the present green movement. They have lost the plot. I believe we need nuclear power as a green form of energy and genetic modification of food to massively decrease herbicide and insecticide usage is obviously a sensible thing to do. It may not sound green to you but maybe you have not had long enough to think about it.

So I am in the AEF for the environment, and we are Australian and a Foundation. It sounds like a reasonable name to me. What should these journalist who reported upon our report have said. Perhaps “This report has been done by a bunch of liars and cheats masquerading as greenies”? Would that do?

Cheers

Professor Peter Ridd

Department of Physics

James Cook University.

from: Peter Ridd  
to: Lin Buckfield, Marc Hendrickx, Richard Kingsford, Jennifer Marohasy
date: Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 11:11 AM
subject: RE: some questions regarding your report Monday 19 March

Hi Lin,

I may have sounded a bit grumpy in my last email -  I do feel that you have made a bad error of judgement. But let’s move on.

But there are two much wider problems here which I tried to get across in my phone conversation with media watch.  The first is the manipulation of the media by the large government organisations, and the second is the lack of a mechanism in science where we can guarantee that the science behind the big environmental issues of our time have been properly scrutinized (not merely peer reviewed).

 Manipulation of the media: Organisations such as CSIRO, Australian Institute of Marine Science, and all universities all employ people to feed stories into the media. There are far more science media officers than scientifically literate reporters. It is easy to pull the wool over the eyes of illiterate reporters. I think you fall into this category, but that is not your fault.  In addition scientists (especially successful ones who often use the media) can manipulate a story. For example, regarding the Great Barrier Reef, one can often find material which will say something like , “the inshore Great Barrier Reef (GBR) is under significant threat from sediment and pollution coming from agriculture”. The key here is the use of the word ‘inshore’. It sounds big, maybe half (inshore versus offshore). In actually fact, because most reefs on the GBR are OFFSHORE, the area of affected reefs is very small, less than 1%. These organisation can also be very selective in what they report. The Great barrier Reef marine Park Authority could put out a media release saying “No coral major coral bleaching on the GBR in almost a decade despite global warming” because that is the fact of the matter. But that would be embarrassing to the organisation which has jumped onto this bandwagon. On the other hand they will point out some minor bleaching event which doubtless occur every year somewhere on the GBR (with a couple of photos) which is happily swallowed by the media. Keep trickling in the bad news and avoid anything that might contradict the official view of the organisation.

Most scientific results are insufficiently scrutinised: I have written about this herehttp://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=11455  but the general gist is that the scientific system is akin to a legal system where an accused person does not have guaranteed access to a defence lawyer. It is fundamentally flawed. For example there are many papers on the GBR which are gravely in error but because it takes a lot of time to fully analyse the data, the errors are not always picked up. Nobody is paid to do this job. We need a system where we can guarantee that the major keystone scientific papers on the big environmental issues of our time are tested by an organisation whose sole purpose is to try to find what is wrong (if anything) with the conventional scientific wisdom. Only then can we have confidence that we are basing important political decisions on sound science. Science needs to emulate the legal system.

In 20 years we will look back on this period of environmental scares and realise that we have focused on the wrong issues due to media manipulation and over politicisation of our government authorities and organisations. To some extent, MW has become caught up in all this.

Cheers

Peter

Murray Gate 2: More questions for Media Watch

A letter sent to Lin Buckfield, Executive Producer Media Watch, sent Tuesday 20 March 6.30am. 
Nothing back so far, perhaps they are having the day off, exhausted after last's nights 15 minutes.


Dear Lin,

Just seeking to clarify a few things regarding your report on Monday March 19. Your reply for possible posting on the ABC NEWS WATCH Blog. I have cc'd Prof. Richard Kingsford, Dr Jennifer Marohasy, and Dr Peter Ridd and would be interested in their comments as well. 

It seems that in the course of your 10 minutes or so on the subject of reporting science you failed to live up to the standards you were promulgating.

In regard to Dr Jennifer Marohasy's AEF report  Plugging The Murray River’s Mouth: the Interrupted Evolution of a Barrier Estuary Media Watch pointed out the document was reviewed by Professor Peter Ridd, James Cook University. You indicated "Professor Ridd is a director of the AEF and has known Dr Marohasy for years. " You then added the sarcastic remark  "So much for peer-review."

Media Watch then went on to provide examples of a number of experts who agreed and disagreed with Dr Marohasy's report. However for some reason Media Watch did not shine the same intense light of scrutiny on these experts. Unlike Dr Marohasy their relationships with their funding agencies, the nature of the peer review of their reports and their political allegiances were left totally unexplored. It seems you reported only one side of the story.

(ED SOME EXAMPLES PROVIDED BUT ITS SNIPPED pending Media Watch response)

 I am merely pointing out the different manner Media Watch treated Dr Marohasy compared to the manner it reported the comments of experts Media Watch appear to agree with. 

The role science plays in policy is increasingly important, the media should remember at all times to maintain their independence and impartiality (ie Report the facts, not the spin).

The point of the story is that  "journalists too easily swallow, and pass on without challenge, highly controversial claims put forward in the name of science, by organisations whose agendas aren't obvious from their names."  It seems that Media Watch struggles just as much as the rest.

Regards

ABC NEWS WATCH

(*Kingsford, R.T., K. F. Walker, R.E. Lester, W.J. Young, P.G. Fairweather, J. Sammut, M.C. Geddes (2011). A Ramsar wetland in crisis – the Coorong, Lower Lakes and Murray Mouth, Australia. Marine and Freshwater Research 62: 255-265.) 

Media Watch - More hypocrisy from the ABC

Kingsley Amis stated “Laziness has become the chief characteristic of journalism, displacing incompetence”. It’s vice-versa at the ABC. 

Media Watch last night put forward the statement: "But many real journalists struggle when reporting science. "
ABC NEWS WATCH agrees. A quick look over our missing news and lack of inquiry pages reveals many examples of important discoveries that have gone missing at the ABC, and others that have been poorly covered, with reporters simply quoting press releases, forgetting the important role of journalists to remain impartial and sceptical. In addition to this, Australian's are missing out on valuable contributions of numerous scientists who are not on the ABC's list of politically correct experts that its activist reporters can rely on to confirm their own world view.

Media Watch should look no further than down the corridor to the ABC' s news room for numerous examples of  "real journalists struggling to report science." Perhaps it's because they too mix activism for journalism. We did part of the job for them back in 2010 looking at ABC's Climate Coverage .

Here's an extract from Part one.

Auntie’s reporters have closed their eyes to the on-going scientific debate raging around them. It does this in a number of ways. 

Firstly the natural inclination of the media, particularly government sponsored news agencies, to favour alarm over calm, results in stories with screeching headlines such asOceans on brink of mass extinction: study, or Climate check-up 'screams world is warming' getting prominence over less sensationalist stories such as Is climate change new (and bad)? ABC looks at the science through its Groupthink looking glass, cherry picking those science stories that can be beaten up to provide the scariest headlines that agree with its reporters alarming world view. The considered restraint of sceptical scientists simply does not attract as much attention, and all too often news of their less sensational findings end up on the copy room floor.

Secondly, certain ABC reporters seem to be suffering from Stockholm Syndrome when it comes to interviewing scientists promoting climate alarm. They appear so besotted they are failing to properly scrutinize experts and authoritative documents like IPCC assessments and government reports. They put their faith in authority without bothering to properly verify the facts, the way journalists did in the good old days. In doing so they act as echo chambers spreading misconceptions and exaggerations in the process.

Thirdly, bias in ABC climate reporting is not so much due to a grand conspiracy of misguided amateurish environmental activists acting as reporters, though it seems many now walk the corridors of ABC’s head office, but stems from ineptitude. As Napoleon Bonaparte suggested “Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence.”

In regard to last night's report we'll have a new list of questions for Media Watch over the next few days.

Murray-Gate: Some questions for Media watch

Update: Media Watch response appears below...

Update 2: Professor Bunyip sinks the slipper: A Rum Lot At Media Watch

.

Media Watch appears to employ 11 staff members. The combined efforts of these 11 staff produce just 15 minutes of television a week. In 2011 Media Watch produced just 9.75 hours of television, less than 1 hour per staff member.  Do you consider this represents value for money to the Australian Tax payer?  

A map of Lake Alexandrina drawn by John Arrowsmith in 1838 based on reports of water quality from Charles Sturt. The map shows the lake contained salt water, brackish water and freshwater and this is consistent with it being part of an estuary. Source.

ABC's Media Watch program got itself into hot water this week after sending a series of questions to Murray River researcher Dr Jennifer Marohasy. According to Dr Marohasy, the questions were sent last Friday afternoon (9/3), with a plan for a national broadcast by Media Watch on the following Monday night (12/3).
Dr Marohasy outlines what happened:
MEDIA Watch contacted me on Friday with a barrage of questions concerning my work on the need to restore the Murray River’s estuary. Their line of questioning suggested that I was misleading the Australian public on the important issue of water reform in the Murray Darling. Indeed, the implication was that I am but a stooge for vested interests.

It appears Media Watch is contemplating asserting or implying that my professional judgement and integrity as a scientist has been influenced or corrupted by personal financial gain.  Accordingly, I have sought legal advice on the matter, and include this in my full response that can be downloaded HERE.

We are unsure of the motivation behind Media Watch's inquiries. Based on our understanding, none of its current staff have the scientific qualifications or necessary scientific experience to comment or judge the science behind the policy debate about the Murray River. Uncertain as to why Media Watch would focus on Dr Marohasy's work, we put the following questions to Media Watch Presenter Jonathan Holmes, and its executive producer Lin Buckfield.

Questions for Media Watch
1. Can you outline the motivation behind Media Watch inquires into scientific work conducted by Dr Jennifer Marohasy?
2. What prompted the initial inquiries?
3. Why would a program that is ostensibly about the media, choose to focus on the scientific research of Dr Marohasy?
4. Would ABC's Catalyst program be a more appropriate venue to discuss Dr Marohasy's research in relation to the Murray River?
5. Can you outline the scientific expertise and qualifications of Media Watch staff?
6. Given Media Watch staff do not have any relevant scientific qualifications, which scientific expert did Media Watch rely on to provide scientific input into the questions sent to Dr Marohasy? What are their scientific qualifications and experience in relation to the science of the Murray River?
7. Dr Marohasy provided an in depth reply to Media Watch questions see HERE. Which suitably qualified scientific expert did Media Watch rely on to evaluate Dr Marohasy's answers?
8. Which suitably qualified scientific expert did Media Watch plan to use to evaluate Dr Marohasy's contribution to science and the debate surrounding the Murray River Barrages?
9. Did Media Watch seek to ask their expert about any vested interests they might have in relation to the subject at hand?
10. If so, what were the result of those inquiries? If not why didn't Media Watch consider this to be relevant?
11. Does Media Watch deny that the vast majority of recognised experts on the natural history and hydrology of the Lower Lakes agree with Dr Marohasy's conclusions that the lakes were estuarine immediately prior to the erection of the Murray Mouth barrages, or at any time in the past 2000 years?
12. If not, can you point us to any recognised scientific expert who supports Media Watch's view?
13. Why did Media Watch provide Dr Marohasy with such short notice to respond to questions?
14. Does Media Watch consider the amount of time fair and reasonable given the number and nature of questioning?
15. Last Question. Media Watch appears to employ 11 staff members. The combined efforts of these 11 staff produce just 15 minutes of television a week. In 2011 Media Watch produced just 9.75 hours of television, less than 1 hour per staff member.  Do you consider this represents value for money to the Australian tax payer?

from:		Lin Buckfield
to:		Marc Hendrickx
date:		Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 3:10 PM
subject:		RE: Questions regarding proposes story about Jennifer Marohasy

Dear Mr Hendrickx

Thank you for your email, it is one of many Media Watch has received in relation to questions the program sent to Dr Marohasy last week. As you will be aware, Media Watch has not, as yet,  run an item looking at the media coverage of the report “Plugging the Murray River’s Mouth” authored by Dr. Marohasy and commissioned by the Australian Environment Foundation.

Media Watch looks at how the media (all platforms) report and treat various issues. In order to do that we research many stories, telephone calls are made, emails are sent. Our hardworking team of 3 researchers cover a lot of ground in the course of their working days.

Ours is a controversial program, our investigations rarely please everyone but we are bound not only by our ethics as journalists but also by the ABC Editorial Policies to fair, honest and unbiased in our approach to our work. We are under no obligation to discuss correspondence or conversations with third parties done in the course of legitimate research.

Given that Media Watch has not yet put an item to air looking at the media coverage of the report “Plugging the Murray River’s Mouth”, may I suggest you get back to me with any questions you may have if and when the item airs?

Sincerely

Lin Buckfield

Executive Producer

Media Watch

Our response: sent 5.04pm, 15/3/2012

Thanks Lin, 

Should the program go to air I will assess it on its merits and ask questions if I think it is warranted.  In the meantime I draw your attention to the results of a Google search of the phrase "sent Friday" for your site http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/. It returns 400 results.  ("sent friday site:http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/")

Can you comment on what appears to be a very common Media Watch tactic of ambushing the subjects of its investigations with questions late on a Friday afternoon for reports that are due to be broadcast the following Monday. With this in mind I draw your attention to questions 13 and 14 in the list we provided. 

13. Why did Media Watch provide Dr Marohasy with such short notice to respond to questions? 
14. Does Media Watch consider the amount of time fair and reasonable given the number and nature of questioning? 

Regards

Marc Hendrickx

Again this is for public posting at ABC NEWS WATCH