Something smells fishy at the end of the line

COMMENT: ABC skew the news and provide some free publicity for a documentary claiming fish stocks are in catastrophic decline. The Australian's Cut and Paste section provide some important statistics missed by Auntie's news department:

Not here. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics (February 5), things are getting better: SINCE 2005, the number of stocks overfished and-or experiencing overfishing has decreased, to 18 of a total of 98 surveyed stocks (18 per cent) in 2008.

In their own report ABC quote Dr Steve Murawski, the chief scientist for the fisheries service of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, who says the film (The end of the line) gives the impression that there is a dire seafood crisis around the world, and says it is an exaggeration. 

It seems a more appropriate headline would read: Something smells fishy at the end of the line?

Training needs identified

COMMENT: In a speech to the panel discussion ‘Self regulation and the Media’ at the Journalism Education Association Conference held in Perth on the first of December last year Paul Chadwick, ABC's Director of Editorial Policies, outlined some opportunities for Universities to develop training courses for ABC journalists.

"My second and separate aim is to extend an invitation to those who teach journalism in tertiary institutions  to consider forming partnerships with the ABC as it renews its commitment to providing its staff with more and better online training opportunities about editorial standards."
The proposed subject matter included the following topics.
Subject matter
I invite you to submit proposals to make a module dealing with any one of the following issues:
1. Conflicts of interest in media (such as promoting biased opinion pieces, or stories by ABC personalities promoting their own books?)
2. Uses of deception in journalism (to avoid producing biased climate time lines perhaps?)
3. Reporting self-harm (or not reporting on it, as was the case of the missing story about damning comments made by a certain British climate scientist?)
4. Distinguishing fact and fiction in factual drama. (Factual Drama? Such as dodgy reports about Polar bear Cannibalism?)

Seems we are not the only ones to identify problems with ABC's reporting standards, perhaps Chris Masters could hold a masterclass?

Truth in science

COMMENT: Seems our discovery that a fake photo was used to accompany a letter by 255 scientists published in Science complaining about the lack of honesty in science has caused some waves through the internet. As one commentator has said the fake image says just one thing..."we don't care about the truth". 

Here are some links to a few articles discussing what Kevin Rudd might call a "kerfuffle".


Roger Pielke Jnr: Revkin, Gleick and Olson on the Gang Who Couldn't Shoot Straight

Roger Pielke Jnr: Peter Gleick Fires Back

Randy Olsen Photoshopped Polar Bear: Do Scientists Really Have to be “Media Victims”?

Andrew Revkin:  Sweating the Details in Climate Discourse
James Delingpole: 'ManBearPig is real!' declare top climate scientists. 'And to prove it here's a photo-shopped image we found on the internet of a polar bear on a melting ice floe.'
Bradley Fikes:  Global Warming Photoshop Blunder In Science Petition
The Blackboard:  Irony Indeed

Here's Randy Olsen's closing paragraph: It’s really pretty staggering. And YES, it does matter. THIS is much of what my book was about. It matters if your hair is a mess when you give a talk. It matters if you rip a giant fart in the middle of making the most important point in your talk. And yes, it matters if you publish a letter of outrage, complaining about being smeared as dishonest, and yet your article is accompanied by a photograph that is tainted by the word “Photoshop” which virtually EVERYONE in today’s society knows symbolizes one big thing — WE DON’T CARE ABOUT THE TRUTH.

Update: Sir Bob it is then!

We received a reply from ABC's Complaints Review Executive to a review of our complaint about the use of Sir as a moniker for Bob Geldof. According to Wikipedia: "Bob Geldof was awarded an honorary knighthood (as Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire) from Queen Elizabeth II, in 1986.^[64]Geldof is entitled to use the post-nominal letters "KBE", but as he is not a citizen of a Commonwealth realm, he is precluded from using the title "Sir". Regardless, the nickname 'Sir Bob' has stuck, and media reports will frequently (but erroneously) refer to him as 'Sir Bob Geldof' as if that were his correct title."


Seems ABC is happy to promulgate factual errors! No surprise really. The reply from the Complaints Review Executive appears below in full. They appear to have entirely missed the point!
Regards
Sir Marc



REVIEW OF COMPLAINT
Received 10 May 2010
Background
A request for review was received on 21 April 2010 from a New South Wales listener dissatisfied with a response from ABC Audience and Consumer Affairs (A&CA). It was acknowledged on 22 April with advice that the
Complaints Review Executive would aim to complete the review by 19 May.
Content
During a News bulletin on Radio National, broadcast on 8 March 2010 the complainant claimed Bob Geldof was referred to as ‘Sir’ Bob Geldof, in addition to other references cited.
Correspondence
The complainant wrote on 7 and 8 March that the ‘ABC continues to inappropriately title Bob Geldof’. He quoted an entry in the Public Report on Audience Comments and Complaints – October – December 2005 ‐
http://www.abc.net.au/corp/pubs/documents/Public_Report_Oct_Dec_2005.pdf
ABC Classic FM ‐ News
16 September 2005
The complaint
A listener objected to the use of the honorary title “Sir” in relation to Bob Geldof in a news report. He pointed out that Mr Geldof has an honorary knighthood, which does not entitle him to the use of the title “Sir”.
Finding
The ABC acknowledged the error.

The complainant wrote that ‘Bob Geldof is entitled to use the post‐nominal letters KBE, but as he is not a citizen of a Commonwealth realm, he is precluded from using the title Sir’. In all he listed seven examples which referred to Bob Geldof as ‘Sir’ Bob Geldof and asked that the ‘ABC conduct a global search and replace of its archive to correct these numerous errors’.
A&CA responded on 21 April acknowledging ‘that Bob Geldof is not officially ‘Sir Bob’, however, the use of ‘Sir Bob’ has become common across the media..…’. News journalists have been reminded that ‘Sir’ Bob Geldof is not officially correct. A&CA wrote that they believed the overall accuracy of the stories was not comprised.

Basis of Assessment
Section 13.3.2 of the Editorial Policies notes that the ABC is not required to respond to complaints received more than six months after the broadcast to which they refer. Of the seven examples offered by the complainant three date from 2007 and three from 2009, all more than six months ago now. The link provided by the complainant from publicity for the Compass television program was received by A&CA within the required six months, but as it was not referred to in the response I am unable to review that particular example. That leaves the most recent news report on Radio National for consideration. This is categorised as News and Current Affairs content, and as such is required to meet standards in section 5 of ABC Editorial Policies.
Assessment I have examined the transcript of the item. While the complainant wrote ‘we are quite sure we heard use of the name ‘Sir’ Bob Geldof..’ the transcript does not support this contention. The introduction of the item referred to ‘Singer Bob Geldof..’ and the reporter referred to ‘campaigner Bob Geldof’, but there is no evidence in the material currently available that the word ‘Sir’ was used. I note the general reply to the complainant by A&CA which has acknowledged common usage of ‘Sir’, but which added that this is ‘not officially correct’ and that News staff had been advised. Accordingly I consider this issue, particularly bearing in mind the proportional weight of
the concern, has been finally and adequately canvassed and considered.
Finding
Having assessed the content, considered the complainant’s concerns and reviewed the ABC’s response, I consider that ABC editorial requirements were not breached. Therefore the complaint is not upheld.

Best of ABC? Would you like some "climate propaganda" with your raw prawn?

COMMENT: So what's "Best of the ABC" this week? Perhaps an interview with Dr Roy Spencer about new developments in climate science that indicate climate sensitivity has been over estimated by the IPCC leaving their models and the "climate crisis" without a leg to stand on? Oh that's right ABC have thus far failed to report on it. Instead our national broadcaster uses tax payer funds to feed us some more "climate propaganda".
Best of ABC: In this case, sure to leave you feeling like you've eaten a raw prawn left baking out in the hot sun too long.

Missing News - Study falsifies IPCC: Climate has low sensitivity to CO2

MISSING HEADLINE: "Spencer wins Nobel Prize: Climate has low sensitivity to CO2", or perhaps "Lone scientist trumps IPCC: Wins Nobel Prize"
ABC DID NOT REPORT: Dr Roy Spencer provides a brief summary of his recent work that demonstrates the climate has a low sensitivity to CO2, contrary to claims made by the IPCC. To top it off Dr Spencer shows how variation in cloud cover due to changes in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation can account for 75% of global warming since the 1880s. The implication is that there is no man made climate crisis!
Roy Spencer's work is summarised in his recent book The Great Global Warming Blunder based on a number of peer reviewed papers, the most recent  of which is:
Spencer, R. W., and W. D. Braswell "On the Diagnosis of Radiative Feedback in the Presence of Unknown Radiative Forcing J. Geophys. Res., doi:10.1029/2009JD013371, in press. (accepted 12 April 2010)


THE COMPLAINT:  Climate modeler and IPCC author Prof. Andy Pitman has stated: "There is a Nobel Prize awaiting Carter [ed. that's Prof Bob Carter], or other skeptics, for that paper that buries global warming. There is world-wide acclaim, there is that Chair at Cambridge and the thanks of governments the world over. My question is why none of them have published this evidence - but of course the question is rhetorical ... because while every decent climate scientist looks for flaws in the data, the models and the theory we have not been able to find any ..." (click HERE for the full "conversation"). 

Seems that Dr Roy Spencer has found that evidence. Time to hand that Nobel Prize over, Andy!


We remain mystified as to how the ABC have missed reporting this significant development in climate science, one of such significance it could merit a Nobel Prize. The only reason appears to be bias against any evidence contrary to ABC's alarmist view on climate change. Please provide coverage of Dr Spencer's recent work.
OUTCOME: Pending
COMMENT:  I guess good news (ie. that there is no climate crisis) doesn't qualify as news at ABC.

Fake photo used in Science article

COMMENT: ABC recently reported on a letter signed by 250 scientists published in the journal Science.
The letter is accompanied by a photo of a lone Polar Bear on an ice berg credited to ISTOCKPHOTO.COM. The photo is a fake with the following note in the photo caption at Istockphoto: "This images is a photoshop design. Polarbear, ice floe, ocean and sky are real, they were just not together in the way they are now."

The same background is also available with one emperor penguin (HERE) or three (HERE).

What does the use of a faked photo say about the scientific credibility of the journal in question?


Wonder why the ABC didn't pick this one up, they do have previous experience with Polar Bears.


Update 10 May 2010. Roger Pielke Jnr discusses the value of getting the facts right - HERE.
"The general lesson here should be that no matter the virtues of the "cause" it does not justify cutting corners or fudging the facts. When errors are found, the proper response is not to shoot the messenger or ask people to ignore mistakes in the context of larger truths, but rather, to just get things right."


Update  10 May 2010 Science post a correction. 

Correction

The image associated with this article was selected by the editors. We did not realize that it was not an original photograph but a collage, and it was a mistake to have used it.