Feng Shui expert. What next, a professor of pixie dust?

ABC HEADLINE: "Millionaire's lucky coin just one factor: feng shui expert"Online news 23/2/2010

ABC REPORTED: ABC reporter and apparent Feng Shui aficionado Thea Cowie  reports that a Feng Shui expert, Elizabeth Wiggins, suggest three types of luck have t align in order for such events (ie winning the lotto) to occur, including earth luck, heaven luck and man luck.

THE COMPLAINT: ABC NEWS WATCH checked the date, no not April 1. Then we checked ABC editorial policies for news and current affairs content. A number of sections caught our eye: 

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. 

Does this report constitute investigative journalism?

5.1.4 News records what is happening. Facts and context dominate. News will
often include analysis.
What analysis is contained in this report?


5.2.2 (c) Be accurate.
Is ABC news seriously suggesting that gluing a coin to a doorstop will affect one's chances of winning the lottery?

We request that this article include a statement to the effect that "Feng shui today is widely considered a pseudoscience, and has been criticised by many organisations devoted to investigating paranormal claims. For example, James Randi describes feng shui as "an ancient form of claptrap", while SkepticsSA describe it as "complete nonsense, nothing more than ancient Chinese superstitions". Source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feng_shui#Criticism

OUTCOME: Pending

COMMENT: The ABC's own comments on this story suggest ANW was not the only one left unimpressed with ABC reporting:

shepster:

23 Feb 2010 1:09:17pm

Feng Shui "expert"? What next, a professor of pixie dust? Why is the ABC giving this tosh air time? Why don't we see a story on all the people doing the "right" things according to the "experts" who have never won lotto? Perhaps it's because it is too common to warrant a mention.

Mr Logic:

23 Feb 2010 1:16:23pm

If you believe this, you probably think the Global Financial Crisis was caused by an upturned horsehoe or because we forgot to sacrifice a goat.

Milko:

23 Feb 2010 1:35:20pm

Old...Old....Old....News

In the old days when we left some money on the front porch magically the next morning there would be a bottle or two of milk sitting there...worked a charm.

RB:

2pm

In these days of scientific advancement when we have proved that the "experimental method" is the best barometer of truth how can mainstream newspapers still print such rubbish. Between this and Mary MacKillip you would think we are still in the Middle Ages.

We have to stop the superstition and only report news that is based on solid evidence, or at the very least, show a bit of skepticism.

ABC: as credible as Weekly World News?

Updated 18/3/2010-see outcome


ABC HEADLINE: "Climate scientists 'under cyber attack'" ABC news online 22/2/2010


ABC REPORTED: ABC reporter Thea Cowie provides a report about an opinion piece by author Clive Hamilton published on another part of the ABC website - The Drum. Hamilton's article alleges the existence of an orchestrated campaign of 'cyber bullying' on the part of "denialist organisations" aimed at driving climate scientists from public debate.


THE COMPLAINT:This complaint is about the report on ABC news and not about the opinion piece by Clive Hamilton on The Drum. The news article breaks ABC Editorial Policy and Code of practice on several grounds:


1. The report is blatant self promotion and fails the test for newsworthiness. While there appears to be nothing in the ABC Editorial Policy that prohibits or discourages self promotion (or is there?) it is clearly at odds with the ABC Code of Practice namely section 2.11 Program Promotions. Program Promotions should be scheduled so as to be consistent with the nature of surrounding content. If the ABC's intent was simply self promotion it has the means to advertise The Drum opinion site directly and not through manufacturing reports that masquerade as news. Can ABC please explain how this report constitutes news and not self promotion?


2. Balance. ABC editorial policy section 5.2.2 (e) states:  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.


No attempt was made on the part of the reporter to investigate if scientists sceptical of the dangers of anthropogenic Global Warming were on the receiving end similar 'cyber bullying' threats.


3. Be questioning. ABC editorial policy section 5.2.2 (f) states: Be questioning. Serve the public interest by investigating issues affecting society and individuals.


Reporter Thea Cowie fails to question the author of the opinion piece about alleged cyber bullying on his part.  For instance Clive Hamilton has previously linked scientists sceptical of the dangers of anthropogenic global warming with Holocaust  deniers (HERE), and accused anyone opposed to controlling carbon emissions of being murderers (HERE). 


Thea also missed an opportunity to examine how climate scientists have themselves possibly been guilty of cyber bullying by looking at the contents of alleged leaked emails from the Climate research unit at the University of East Anglia. These include statements such as these from climate scientists: 


From Ben Santer to Phil Jones: "Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I'll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Very tempted." http://eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1045

From Phil Jones to Gavin Schmidt: "I assume you are both aware of this prat"  http://eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1038

but more worrying perhaps this one:

From Phil Jones to Ray Bradley: "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline." http://eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=154 


and this: 
From Phil Jones to Michael Mann: "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !" http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=419


and this:
From Kevin Trenberth to Michael Mann: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate." http://eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1048


The reporter was not serving the public interest in this case by conducting a more thorough investigation. Can Thea update her article, or perhaps provide a new article that examines these issues.


OUTCOME: Thank you for your email regarding the ABC News Online story Climate scientists ‘under cyber attack’.

Your concerns have been investigated by Audience and Consumer Affairs, a unit which is separate to and independent of program making areas within the ABC.  We have reviewed the broadcast, assessed it against the ABC’s editorial standards and sought and considered material provided by ABC News. 

This article is not a program promotion and has no relevance to section 2.11 of the ABC Code of Practice.  The claim, by Clive Hamilton in his opinion article, that an organised cyber-bullying campaign is targeting Australian climate scientists was considered newsworthy, and was reported by ABC News.  It is common practice for news organisations to report newsworthy comments made by prominent citizens in other publications.  Audience and Consumer Affairs is satisfied that the report was based on news values and is in keeping with section 5.2.2(d) of the ABC Editorial Policies.

The reporter achieved balance through the publication of the ABC News online article Cyber-bullies on both sides of climate debate, on 25 February.  Section 5.2.2(e) of the ABC Editorial Policies state that 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.  I have attached a link to that report, for your reference:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/25/2829916.htm

Audience and Consumer Affairs is satisfied that ABC News online’s coverage of this issue was suitably questioning and in keeping with section 5.2.2(f) of the Editorial Policies.

The ABC Editorial Policies are available online at the attached link; http://abc.net.au/corp/pubs/edpols.htm

Please be assured that your comments have been duly noted.

COMMENT: Unsubstantiated rumour and innuendo are a feature of supermarket tabloids such as the Weekly World News that run stories with headlines such as "Deadly Spiders invade Sydney" and "Blobfish going extinct" and "Yetis on East Coast".


Based on this article by Thea Cowie can we expect similar headlines and content to grace future ABC news reports? Don't believe us then ask yourself where you'd be more likely to find the following headline WWN or the ABC?: "Lucky coin leads man to pot of gold" (Hint click the link to find out).


Update Thea Cowie's latest piece for ABC or is that WWN? "Millionaire' lucky coin just one factor: feng shui expert" As Charlie Brown was fond of saying "Good grief!"


This article has been short listed for the ABC NEWS WATCH annual Shonky Awards.

ABC claims CLIMATEGATE emails were leaked

Updated 18/3/2010-reply received from ABC-see below-see also UPDATE


ABC HEADLINE: "Climate Science alive and well, say experts" posted on ABC online February 21, 2010


ABC REPORTED: ABC reported (no reporter credit provided) on comments by a number of scientists on the current state of climate science following the identification of errors in key IPCC reports and revelations contained in emails from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. The report mentioned:


"Climate change sceptics seized on a leak of thousands of emails and other documents from researchers at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Britain, which appeared to show scientists saying global warming was not as serious as previously thought."


THE COMPLAINT: ABC NEWS WATCH understands the investigation into the release of emails from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia is still in progress (see HERE for example) and it is not yet possible to confirm that the emails were "leaked". If ABC have inside information that suggests the emails were indeed "leaked" and not hacked perhaps they should pass it on to the relevant authorities.


OUTCOME: Reply received 18/3/2010

Thank you for your email regarding the ABC News online report Climate science alive and well, say experts.

Your concerns have been investigated by Audience and Consumer Affairs, a unit which is separate to and independent of program making areas within the ABC.  We have reviewed the broadcast, assessed it against the ABC’s editorial standards and sought and considered material provided by ABC News. 

Audience and Consumer Affairs is satisfied that the use of the word “leaked” to describe the dissemination of the emails is accurate and in keeping with section 5.2.2(c) of the ABC Editorial Policies.  Whether or not the police investigation concludes that the email system was hacked, it is a fact that the emails were leaked without the authors’ knowledge or consent.

Your comments have been noted.

COMMENT: Use of the adjective "alleged" in cases where the facts are unknown can help reduce misleading statements. 
ABC Editorial Policy 5.2.2: Staff must also observe the following principles:
(a) The ABC takes no editorial stand in its programming.
(b) Avoid conflicts of interest.
(c) Be accurate.
(i) Every reasonable effort, in the circumstances, must be made to
ensure that the factual content of news and current affairs is accurate
and in context.
(ii) The ABC will not hesitate to admit and correct a significant error when
it is established that one has been made. When a correction is
necessary, it will be made in an appropriate manner as soon as
reasonably practicable.

ABC FOI - You can't open the chamber of secrets.

For those considering an FOI request to the ABC for program related material, such as internal correspondence that might provide an insight into the way errors get into the ABC's editorial process, beware of a clause in the FOI act that lists the ABC as an exempt agency with respect to documents "in relation to its program material and datacasting content" (Part II of schedule 2). We have emailed the communications Minister Stephen Conroy for clarification as to why this should be the case. ABC programming is paid for by tax payer's funds and should be as open to scrutiny and audit as much as the rest of government. Why is the ABC provided with a "chamber of secrets" in which to place its dirty laundry?


ABC cite ABC v University of Technology Sydney in relationship to this and from the ruling it seems the only way to open the vault is for the FOI ACT to be amended to allow access to ABC documents. Read the judgement HERE, it appears it effectively excludes the ABC from FOI in relation anything related to program material.


See http://abcnewswatch.blogspot.com/2010/02/foi-request-for-climate-time-line.html for the impact this  "Stainesque" legislation had on our attempt to investigate errors in an ABC program. 


For those considering an FOI request we suggest first speaking with ABC FOI coordinator prior to formally applying to save some time and cash. The application fee costs $30.00.


Update: By the way here's what Sen John Faulkner had to say about changes to FOI  made by the government in early 2009:

Sen Faulkner will be taking steps outside of the legislative process, sending personal letters to agency heads, which will highlight the need to embrace the new “pro-disclosure” culture.

These changes will help to create “a shift from the culture of secrecy we saw under the last Government to one of openness and transparency,” he said. 

Source http://www.reportage.uts.edu.au/media/detail.cfm?ItemId=14713

We are left wondering if any letters found their way to the ABC.

Minister's Wrong Figures-a missed opportunity

Updated 24 April, 2010 see post "Update: CRE respond to Minister's Wrong Figures"
Updated 29 March 2010-see outcome below
ABC HEADLINE: "Head of UN Climate Change team call its quits" broadcast on The World Today February 19, 2010.


ABC REPORTED:Shane Mcleod introduced a report by ABC reporter Nance Saxton (Actually Nance Haxton) on the resignation of Yvo de Boer, head of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The report included brief interviews with Federal Minister for Climate Change Penny Wong, and  chair of the Coasts and Climate Change Council Professor Tim Flannery. The report transcript includes the following statement from Minister Penny Wong: 


"We've got around 85 per cent of the world's economies signed up to the Copenhagen Accord."


and the following statement from Professor Flannery: 


"I think he's done a pretty good job overall and the Copenhagen Accord shows that.
We've got something like 80 countries now signed up to that."


THE COMPLAINT: The UNFCC indicate that currently 40 Annex I countries and 30 non-Annex I countries have provided targets under the Copenhagen Accord (see UNFCC website HERE). 
In light of this both Minister Wong and Prof Tim Flannery's statements are in-correct. Although Prof Flannery's estimate is acceptable in context. The ABC reporter should have had these facts at hand and questioned Minister Wong on her stated  figures. Instead factual errors were allowed to be reported.


Number of countries in the UN: 192
Number of countries listed by UNFCC as providing emission targets under the Copenhagen Accord: 70: or 36%


Can the ABC append a statement indicating the number of countries that have provided targets under the Copenhagen Accord to this report to clarify Minister Wong's apparently misleading statement.

OUTCOME:  Received 29 March 2010. 
Thank you for your email regarding The World Today report Head of UN climate change team calls it quits.

Your concerns have been investigated by Audience and Consumer Affairs, a unit which is separate to and independent of program making areas within the ABC.  We have reviewed the broadcast, assessed it against the ABC’s editorial standards and sought and considered material provided by ABC News.

There are no ABC reporters named Nance Saxton.  The ABC reporter who filed this report is named Nance Haxton.

The views of Senator Wong and Tim Flannery are their own, they are not the views of the ABC.  For the purposes of section 5 of the Editorial Policies, the comments of contributors are not considered factual content.

Audience and Consumer Affairs believe the interviews were suitably questioning, on the issue that was the focus of the report; the continuity of negotiations over a global climate treaty following the departure of the top UN official on climate change.

Audience and Consumer Affairs believe the report is in keeping with section 5 of the ABC Editorial Policies, which are available online at; http://abc.net.au/corp/pubs/edpols.htm

Nevertheless, you can be assured that your comments have been brought to the attention of ABC News management.

COMMENT:  The ABC reporter should have made a reasonable effort to prepare for the interviews. Knowledge of the number of countries that provided emission targets would have allowed the reporter to pick up errors made by the interviewees.


Editorial policy 5.2.2 
(c) Be accurate.
(i) Every reasonable effort, in the circumstances, must be made to ensure that the factual content of news and current affairs is accurate and in context.
(ii) The ABC will not hesitate to admit and correct a significant error when it is established that one has been made. When a correction is necessary, it will be made in an appropriate manner as soon as reasonably practicable.



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

Missing News: Wong 'fully duped" according to climate researcher

Updated 5/4/2010-see outcome
ABC'S MISSING HEADLINE: "Wong 'fully duped' according to climate researcher"

ABC DID NOT REPORT: As of 8.00 am 20/2/2010 ABC we can find no reference on the ABC website to a recent controversial speech by Climate Change Minister Penny Wong given to the NATIONAL COASTAL CLIMATE CHANGE FORUM ADELAIDE, 18 FEBRUARY 2010. In the speech Senator Wong referred to several errors in the IPCC's 2007 assessment report, asserting for catastrophes:

"Another claim is that the IPCC exaggerated economic losses from catastrophes attributed to climate change.
The IPCC has described these claims as “misleading and baseless". The scientist has gone on the record to say his peer-reviewed scientific paper was correctly represented in the IPCC report.
There may well be dispute about the cost of catastrophes, but the science on the link between these catastrophes and climate change has not been credibly challenged."

This assertion has been challenged by Roger Pielke Jr. a professor of environmental studies at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado at Boulder. In his blog Professor Pielke refutes Senator Wong's assertions and concludes:  

"The bottom line is that there is no scientific evidence linking rising global temperatures to the increasing catastrophe losses around the world. Ironically enough, the scientific evidence includes the paper cited by Wong to suggest the opposite. Despite this fact, and the obvious IPCC misrepresentations on this subject, Australia's Penny Wong concludes:

There may well be dispute about the cost of catastrophes, but the science on the link between these catastrophes and climate change has not been credibly challenged.

Score that as one fully duped policy maker by the IPCC's spin and misdirection."


http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/02/policy-impact-of-ipcc-misdirection.html


THE COMPLAINT: Given a senior international academic has effectively stated that Senator Wong mislead the public on an area of critical policy importance why has this news not been reported on?  


Can the ABC please provide a report on this important news so Australian audiences can be made aware of this news. 

ABC editorial policy 5.2.2 (f) states: Be questioning. Serve the public interest by investigating issues affecting society and individuals. 

It appears the ABC is not meeting its policy obligations on this issue.

OUTCOME: "I refer to  your emails of 23 March and 20 and 16 February 2010.
As previously advised, 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 at the discretion of ABC News editorial managers, based on their considerable editorial experience.  ABC News editorial managers will continue to assess stories on climate science on their merits.
The ABC Editorial Policies are available online at the attached link; http://abc.net.au/corp/pubs/edpols.htm.
Please be assured that your comments and news suggestions have been noted and conveyed to our program areas."
COMMENT:News is only News for so long. Non reporting of certain news items can be considered as bias.


UPDATE: Given that this concerns a senior Cabinet Minister we remain baffled as to why the ABC has not covered this story. If Pielke is correct then either Minister Wong needs to issue a correction, or resign.

Geologist not a biologist: Case closed

ABC issued a correction to a story that referred to Dr Bob Carter as a marine biologist. In fact, he is a marine geologist.

See update HERE