Stories left behind the iron curtain.

ABC HEADLINE: "Bolts from the blue: reactions to Hamilton" posted ABC news online The Drum 1 March 2010 - First posted Fri Feb 26, 2010 5:18pm AEDT


ABC REPORTED: ABC's The Drum editor Jonathon Green reported on reactions to opinion pieces by Clive Hamilton. The report included the following statement:

"Next week: The Drum-Unleashed will feature a series of pieces commissioned from noted writers on the sceptic side of the climate science debate. Included will be Alan Moran, Tom Switzer, Mark Hendriks, Bob Carter and Jo Nova." 

As Quadrant online point out in their article "Sceptics in from the cold?" :

" that should be Marc Hendrickx whose website is ABC News Watch here…"

Pieces by Prof Bob Carter and Marc Hendrickx were NOT published as indicated.

Despite the firm statement from editor Green that "The Drum-unleashed WILL feature" them. Not may, not might, maybe or perhaps, but a resounding WILL.

The articles can be examined at Quadrant online HERE.

THE COMPLAINT: 
Whatever happened to the promised articles that were to be posted on The Drum by "noted" sceptics: Professor Bob Carter and Marc Hendrickx?
Presumably in advertising the articles The Drum Editor had read them and agreed they met the instructions given at the time of commissioning the pieces, and hence there was apparently no reason for the articles not to be posted as promised. Why were the pieces advertised for publication but then subsequently withdrawn?  
Will the ABC make amends to the writers for their time in writing these articles by publishing the pieces that were commissioned by the ABC on The Drum or elsewhere?
Was The Drum Editor unduly influenced in his decision to pull the articles from publication?
Are Quadrant correct in their assessment that the ABC has banned climate sceptics from taking part in public debate?


OUTCOME: Pending


COMMENT: What can we say? We are simply flabbergasted! 


A recap of what happened...
ABC: Can you please, please write something for us?
Sceptic: I'll think about it.  Hang on, okay what about this.
ABC: Thanks it will be published next week.
Next week comes...
Sceptic: What ever happened to that piece you begged me for? You said it would be published this week?
ABC:  We changed our minds? We don't really want it anymore...um...sorry

Richard Lindzen Presents...

COMMENT: We doubt that this excellent presentation on climate change by MIT climate scientist Dr Richard Lindzen will find its way onto our ABC. We'll give them the benefit of the doubt and wait a while before posting a complaint.

While we wait you can see it here...
http://vmsstreamer1.fnal.gov/VMS_Site_03/Lectures/Colloquium/100210Lindzen/f.htm#

On that question of bias-a reply from ABC: Update 2

ABC response to follow up questions outlined in this POST

In the original complaint we identified ABC Editorial Policy Section 5.6.1 as being important where information is drawn from secondary sources such as this. Section 5.6.1 states that "Where secondary sources such as media releases or other media reports are used to either generate ideas or gather information, the information drawn from those sources must be cross-checked and verified before use."

In light of revelations that ABC does not "possesses [sic] the skills to determine the scientific veracity of the claims made in the study."

Can you confirm that ABC News made no attempt to verify the content of the Reuters piece and instead relied on the reputation of the secondary source?

As advised, the ABC does not have the scientific expertise to peer review the findings of the study. The ABC’s responsibility under 5.6.1 of its Editorial Policies is to verify that the study was conducted by a reputable organisation and satisfy itself that the study had been peer reviewed. Audience and Consumer Affairs is satisfied that ABC News did cross-check and verify the Reuters report before publication and believes the report is in keeping with 5.6.1 of the ABC Editorial Policies, which are available at the attached link; http://abc.net.au/corp/pubs/edpols.htm

If so, does this contravene section 5.6.1?

No response

Is it the case that if ABC is unable to verify claims, then under section 5.6.1 publication of the news item should be deferred until such time the claims can be verified?

No response

Accountable to no one!

COMMENT
In an opinion piece on the ABC's The Drum ABC Director Mark Scott claimed:
"As a taxpayer-funded broadcaster, the ABC must be prepared to account for its actions and to expect more scrutiny as we use the opportunities presented by new technologies to move into new areas. We are accountable to the Board. We give evidence on our activities to Parliament."

Pity about that FOI exemption that makes it impossible for the public to open ABC's chamber of secrets. 

UPDATE: On that question of bias-a reply from ABC

"The ABC does not possesses the skills to determine the scientific veracity of the claims made in the study." 

ABC News Watch raised a number of questions regarding how news is reported on the ABC in this post in early February: Un-skeptical reporting on climate change from Auntie. 

The post was based on an ABC re-hash of a Reuters' report of a study by the Pew Environment Group that claimed that: "Arctic ice melting could cost global agriculture, real estate and insurance anywhere from $US2.4 trillion to $US24 trillion by 2050 in damage from rising sea levels, floods and heat waves, according to a new report."

To re-fresh, we put the following questions to ABC Audience and Consumer Affairs who have now provided answers. Q and A (Italics) appear below. The complete response is listed as an update in the original post HERE  (We have emboldened a few interesting comments)

Q1.Why does this report, by an obviously biased organisation, constitute news?

A1. Section 5.2.2(d) of the ABC Editorial Policies states that editorial judgements are based on news values.  What is or is not considered newsworthy is a decision made by ABC News editorial managers, based on their considerable editorial experience.  Audience and Consumer Affairs is satisfied that the findings of the research are newsworthy and notes the findings received broad coverage across a range of news media. 

Q2. Did the ABC attempt to investigate the veracity of the report?

A2.This news story was written by the Reuters news agency, which attributed the claims in the report and featured the comments of one of the co-authors.  The ABC does not possesses the skills to determine the scientific veracity of the claims made in the study.  Audience and Consumer Affairs is satisfied that the PEW organisation is credible, that the research was reviewed by a range of economists and scientists and that the decision to report on the research was based on news values. 

Q3. It seems the report is based mainly on the PEW Environment Groups Press Release. Does the ABC now just publish press releases from organisations without additional investigation? Is this a sign that the ABC's editorial staff are under new pressure following the announcement that ABC will host a 24 hour news service?

A3. Audience and Consumer Affairs acknowledges the noteworthy findings of the research appear in both the press release and the news story.  Audience and Consumer Affairs cannot agree that the story is a direct lift from that press release.  Audience and Consumer Affairs believe the story accurately conveys of the findings of the research and is in keeping with section 5.2.2(c) of the ABC Editorial Policies. I am advised by ABC News management that ABC News editorial staff are not under any increased pressure following the announcement that the ABC will host a 24 hour news service.

Q4. Why wasn't the release of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change report covered in the same manner? (http://www.climatechangereconsidered.org/). I can find no mention of the NIPCC in ABC NEWS.

A4. I am advised by ABC News management that it did not cover the release of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change’s report, based on news values.  As advised above, what is or is not considered newsworthy is a decision made by ABC News editorial managers, based on their considerable editorial experience. ABC News advise that it is unaware of any reference to a recent report published by NIPCC.

Q5.Is the apparent differential treatment provided by the ABC to organisations promoting climate catastrophe a sign of biased news coverage on the part of the ABC?

A5. ABC News online provides comprehensive coverage of climate related issues, from a broad range of perspectives over time.  Audience and Consumer Affairs does not believe that reports relating to “climate catastrophe” are unduly favoured and notes the following recent reports critical of certain pro-climate change perspectives:

Push to change embattled climate panel: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/08/2813722.htm?site=news

Climate body ‘embarrassed’ over forest claim: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/01/2807122.htm

UN admits Himalaya glacier data dodgy: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/01/21/2797485.htm

Scientist denies UN glacier melt date: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/01/20/2797363.htm

UN climate claims ‘based on student essay’: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/01/31/2805918.htm

Q6. If so, how does the ABC propose to re-dress this in-balance?

(No reply- I guess ABC consider that 5 stories in 2 years balances the scales!)

A few follow up questions were sent to ABC Audience and Consumer Affairs:

Just a few quick follow up questions. In the original complaint we identified ABC Editorial Policy Section 5.6.1 as being important where information is drawn from secondary sources such as this. Section 5.6.1 states that "Where secondary sources such as media releases or other media reports are used to either generate ideas or gather information, the information drawn from those sources must be cross-checked and verified before use." 

In light of revelations below that ABC does not "possesses [sic] the skills to determine the scientific veracity of the claims made in the study."

Can you confirm that ABC News made no attempt to verify the content of the Reuters piece and instead relied on the reputation of the secondary source? If so, does this contravene section 5.6.1?
Is it the case that if ABC is unable to verify claims, then under section 5.6.1 publication of the news item should be deferred until such time the claims can be verified?

Spell my name, spell my name-some self indulgence

ABC HEADLINE: "Bolts from the blue: reactions to Hamilton" posted ABC news online The Drum 1 March 2010 - First posted Fri Feb 26, 2010 5:18pm AEDT

ABC REPORTED: ABC's The Drum editor Jonathan Green reported on reactions to opinion pieces by Clive Hamilton. The report included the following statement:

"Next week: The Drum-Unleashed will feature a series of pieces commissioned from noted writers on the sceptic side of the climate science debate. Included will be Alan Moran, Tom Switzer, Mark Hendriks, Bob Carter and Jo Nova." As Quantum online point out in their article "Sceptics in from the cold?" :

" that should be Marc Hendrickx whose website is ABC News Watch here…"

THE COMPLAINT:
You inflated our head calling us 'noted'
But atrocious spelling left our ego demoted.
Was this a sign of respect denied?
Or just journalists' skills on the slide?
Please, correct the name you misquoted.

It's not like Marc Hendrickx is unknown to The Drum. I wonder what that Klive Hambleton would think?

ABC Ed Pol 5.2.2 (c) be Accurate.

OUTCOME: Pending

COMMENT: Can't bat, can't bowl, can't spell...time for some remedial journalism. 

More missing news: UAE accused of misleading UK Parliament

MISSING ABC HEADLINE: University ‘tried to mislead MPs on climate change e-mails’ published in the Times online 27 February 2010

ABC DID NOT REPORT: As of 28 February 9:30 am we are unable to find any coverage on the ABC news website of the contents of this article in the Times Online by environmental editor Ben Webster. The report states:

"The university at the centre of the climate change row over stolen e-mails has been accused of making a misleading statement to Parliament

.

The University of East Anglia wrote this week to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee giving the impression that it had been exonerated by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). However, the university failed to disclose that the ICO had expressed serious concerns that one of its professors had proposed deleting information to avoid complying with the Freedom of Information Act.

The ICO cannot prosecute the university because the complaint about its rejection of the information request was made too late. The ICO is seeking to change the law to allow prosecutions if a complaint is made more than six months after a breach of the act."

These serious allegations are of great interest to Australian's as they consider competing approaches to tackling climate change.

THE COMPLAINT: Climate change is a matter of great importance to the Australian Public who deserve balanced coverage as they consider competing government policies on tackling the issue. Omission of any reporting about the contents of the piece by Ben Webster now appears to form a pattern of news omitted from ABC's news coverage. This is exemplified in February by non reporting of statements by Dr Phil Jones (http://abcnewswatch.blogspot.com/2010/02/jones-bbc-interview-missing-in-action.html) and non reporting of claims that the world may not be warming as claimed by the IPCC (http://abcnewswatch.blogspot.com/2010/02/more-missing-news-world-may-not-be.html). We submit that omission of one or two of these articles may be accidental but omission of all three can be considered as evidence of biased and unbalanced reporting on the issue of climate change. We ask that the ABC correct the record by covering these important news events.

Coverage of these news stories is provided by ABC Editorial Policy and also covered in relevant sections of the ABC Act 1983. 

ABC Editorial Policy

5.1.3 The ABC does this by working within the best practice of investigative journalism.

Remaining independent of sectional interests, the ABC pursues issues of public

interest through innovative and reliable journalism.

5.2.2 (d) Be impartial. Editorial judgements are based on news values, not for example on political, commercial or sectional interests or personal views. Do not unduly favour one perspective over others.

(e) Be balanced. Balance will be sought but may not always be achieved within a single program or publication; it will be achieved as soon as reasonably practicable and in an appropriate manner. It is not essential to give all sides equal time. As far as possible, present principal relevant views on matters of importance.

(f) Be questioning. Serve the public interest by investigating issues affecting society and individuals.

Relevant sections of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983

Section 27 

(2) Subject to subsection (5), the Corporation must broadcast daily from each broadcasting service regular sessions of news and information relating to current events within and outside Australia.

(4) Without affecting the obligations of the Managing Director under subsection (3), the Corporation may also procure news and information relating to current events from such news agencies and other sources, whether within or outside Australia, as the Board thinks fit.

OUTCOME: Pending

COMMENT:While its been busy allowing author Clive Hamilton space over 5 days to spruik climate alarmism in opinion sections of the ABC, the ABC news office once again misses an important story, relevant to its audience, on events surrounding disclosures contained in emails allegedly leaked from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.  This provides another example of ABC's biased coverage of climate change issues.