From the vault - no penguins in the Arctic

Look familiar? See notes below

Catalyst – 15 November 2007
The complaint
As part of a story about the impact of greenhouse gases, footage of pack ice was used to argue that the ice is melting in the Arctic. The footage included images of penguins diving into the ocean (Not the photo shown above-Ed). Three viewers complained about the use of this footage and pointed out that there are no penguins in the Arctic.
Findings
The ABC acknowledged that the footage, involving two penguins diving into the ocean, was in fact archival footage from Antarctica. It was mistakenly shown while Professor Karoly discussed the Arctic. The story was corrected for future repeats of the program.

From ABC "PUBLIC REPORT ON AUDIENCE COMMENTS AND COMPLAINTS OCTOBER – DECEMBER 2007"

"From the Vault" - digging up past corrections and clarifications from the ABC archives.


While the ABC did not use the above fake image available from istockphoto, we have found it was used to accompany a Science Daily Article titled  

Climate Change Irreversible? United Nations Chief Urges Breakthrough After Dire IPCC Report Release  

posted on 18 November 2007 with the following caption: "Emperor penguin on a floating ice floe in the Atlantic ocean. The IPCC report details how reduced rainfall in much of Africa is likely to aggravate existing water shortages and slash crop yields, rising sea levels are set to inundate small island States and melting glaciers could trigger major floods in South Asia and South America. (Credit: iStockphoto/Jan Will)"

To see where the Polar bear version of the same dodgy istockphoto image (below) was used click HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE

Also available from istockphoto:

World Today: two versus one

ABC HEADLINE: ABC's World Today program broadcast "Political veterans chew the campaign fat" on Friday 23 July.
ABC REPORTED: The report featured commentary on the election campaign by Former ALP politician Cheryl Kernot, retiring South Australian Liberal Senator Nick Minchin, and retiring ALP member for Fraser and Parliamentary Secretary for Development Assistance Bob McMullan.

Looking at the transcript, we count a total 2227 words spoken by the two Labor party commentators versus 1213 words from the one Liberal party commentator. Program host ELEANOR HALL is credited with 1467 words. 

THE COMPLAINT: Not only was the program biased in favour of the number of ALP commentators, the amount of time given to ALP politicians outweighed the Coalition by almost 2:1. Can ABC please explain how this program meets editorial policy in regard to balance and lack of political bias?
OUTCOME:
Received 10/9/2010
I refer to your email of 24 July 2010 alleging a lack of balance in a discussion broadcast on The World Today the previous day.
The ABC's editorial standards for balance and impartiality focus on the content of programs.  Compliance with these standards is not determined by counting the number of contributors who participate, or the number of words uttered by each party.
The relevant editorial standards are found in clauses 3.4 and 3.5 of the ABC's Code of Practice (and their equivalent clauses in the ABC's Editorial Policies):
3.4     Content will be impartial.  Editorial judgements will be based on news values.  One perspective will not be unduly favoured over others.
3.5     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, principal relevant views on matters of importance will be presented.
In response to your email, ABC News has commented: "It is not possible to use a word count to establish whether balance has been achieved in a particular interview or discussion. What one person can say in ten words, it may take another 100 words to say. The news value of those ten words could be ten times more influential on an audience than 100 words.  In pre-recorded or packaged interviews, comments are used on the basis of their news value , not their length, and to a certain extent this applies in live interview situations as well but in a live panel discussion  there are too many variables to expect that absolute equality of words spoken, or time allotted will be achieved."
Having reviewed the broadcast, I see no basis for concluding that it lacked news value, unduly favoured a particular perspective, or failed to present a range of principal relevant views on matters of importance.
For your reference, the Code of Practice is available here - http://abc.net.au/corp/pubs/edpols.htm.
Yours sincerely,
Head, Audience and Consumer Affairs
COMMENT:"The ABC has always publicly defined itself as balanced. It does so, because that's what its editorial guidelines demand of reporters and broadcasters. The reality is different. ABC newsrooms get very nervous when the Liberal Party looks a winning chance and they get angry when Liberal governments retain power." Former ABC employee Kevin Naughton quoted in The Australian 24/7/2010

ABC Bias in Election coverage

COMMENT: The Australian newspaper has an interesting article looking at bias in ABC's election coverage...
ABC picks sides while the 'editor-in-chief' watches on
"One of the most vocal critics of the ABC is a former staff member, Kevin Naughton, who worked at the ABC for 16 years, covering 10 state and federal elections. Naughton, who was media adviser to former SA Liberal leader Martin Hamilton-Smith, told The Weekend Australian yesterday: "The ABC has always publicly defined itself as balanced. It does so, because that's what its editorial guidelines demand of reporters and broadcasters.

"The reality is different. ABC newsrooms get very nervous when the Liberal Party looks a winning chance and they get angry when Liberal governments retain power.

"One classic example was the clarion call of 1996 when a flustered senior current affairs producer exhorted the troops to get stuck into the Libs because, 'we could lose this thing . . . Keating could lose'.

"Programs such as The 7.30 Report are built on a Labor culture of ALP for the workers (including struggling journos), and Kerry O'Brien didn't disappoint when he gave honeymooning PM Julia Gillard a nice run on Monday night."

The Australian's editorial is scathing of ABC New's performance...

Less opinion and more news needed at the ABC

"IN his determination to dominate the news media, ABC managing director Mark Scott has missed the only point that matters. It's the quality and not quantity of content that matters."
"Mr Scott allows his senior news-gatherers to use the organisation as a bully pulpit for their own opinions."
"While this newspaper has called all parties to account in the first week of the campaign, it is as if some in the ABC are asking ALP national secretary Karl Bitar to brief them on what questions to ask."
"Deborah Cameron's morning program in Sydney combines a suspicion of business with advocacy of deep-green lifestyles."
"We also pay the ABC to break news, and lots of it, but the corporation recycles stories across its services."
"And while The 7.30 Report used to set the agenda for the next morning's news, its MO today is for O'Brien to tell us what he thinks. More often than not, his main interview is with another ABC journalist."
"He must extract productivity improvements from staff so there is more original news content."

As we revealed in our Productivity survey, the productivity of ABC News has plummeted over the last 2 years. Time for a clean flush.

ETS Survey results muddy the water

Got my mojo working,

but it just don't work on you

Muddy Waters "Got my mojo working"

UPDATED BELOW

ABC News posted a brief report titled "WWF say marginals back carbon trading" on a recent poll commissioned by the World Wildlife Fund on community attitudes on an ETS. According to the ABC the poll found: "74 per cent of respondents in the seats of Brisbane, Bowman, Petrie and Ryan say they are in favour of an ETS to reduce carbon pollution."
However given the WWF are strong supporters of an ETS, you'd think the ABC would take the time to check on how the survey was conducted, just in case the WWF used its "Mojo" to get the result it desired. 
Rather than wait for the ABC to ask the hard questions this time we put them to the WWF directly. 
Unlike the ABC they provided a prompt, polite response (They sure got that Mojo workin'):

Many media sources that covered our media release have also asked to see the questions – and WWF has happily provided them whenever asked. Certainly we have nothing to hide. We are proud of the rigor of our work and always strive for the highest standards. Perhaps not including the questions in the press release was an error, and we appreciate your feedback on that.

This is the list of questions used in the survey provided by the WWF:

A1. Thinking about federal politics. If a federal election was held today, which one of the following would you vote for? (List of political parties follows)

A2. To which one of the following do you have a leaning? (List of political parties follows)

A3. Overall, are you in favour or opposed to the introduction of an Emissions Trading Scheme to help reduce carbon pollution in Australia? (In favour, Opposed, neither-don't know)

A4. An Emissions Trading Scheme requires the biggest polluting companies to buy licences to pollute and under the government’s proposal low and middle income households would be compensated for electricity price rises. Knowing this, would you now favour or remain opposed to the introduction of an Emissions Trading Scheme?

(Favour, Remain opposed, Neither/Don't know)
A5. Under Kevin Rudd the Government back-flipped on its promise to implement an Emissions Trading Scheme by 2011 delaying it to 2013. On balance, would you be in favour or opposed to the new Prime Minister Julia Gillard making a commitment, before the election, to introduce an Emissions Trading Scheme by 2011?(Strongly in favour, Just in favour, Just opposed, Strongly opposed, Neither/ Don’t know)
A6. It has been estimated that the cost of an Emissions Trading Scheme would be in the order of $12 per household per week, although all low and most middle income households would be protected by government cash assistance. Given this possible cost would you be in favour or opposed to the introduction of an Emissions Trading Scheme to help reduce carbon pollution in Australia?(In favour, Opposed, Neither/ Don’t know)

All well and good, except that the question makes the mistake of equating carbon - the element, with carbon dioxide the gas. It then loads the question with the inference that carbon equals "pollution". Now who is in favour of "pollution"? 
We wonder what the response would be if the following question was included:
Recent peer reviewed scientific evidence indicates that the climate's sensitivity to carbon dioxide has been exaggerated and future warming due to higher levels of atmospheric Carbon Dioxide will probably be much less than 2 degrees, with global temperatures predicted to be similar to historical natural warm periods such as the Minoan, Roman and Medieval Warm Periods. It has also been demonstrated that higher levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide is beneficial to the Earth's biosphere. Considering these statements: Are you in favour of an emissions trading scheme? Would you support an increase in Carbon Dioxide emissions?


Don't let those survey result go to work on you!


More Muddy Waters HERE

H/T to Australian Climate Madness


ABC reply received 16 August 2010

Thank you for your email of 22 July concerning the ABC News Online story “WWF says marginals back carbon trading” published the previous day.

In line with ABC complaint handling procedures, your concerns have been considered by Audience and Consumer Affairs, a unit separate to and independent from ABC program areas. In light of your concerns, we have assessed the story against the ABC’s editorial requirements for accuracy and polls, surveys and statistics, as outlined in sections 5.2.2(c) and 5.6.3 of the ABC’s Editorial Policies:http://www.abc.net.au/corp/pubs/edpols.htm.

The story in question was a brief reported that the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) claimed a majority of voters in four marginal seats in Queensland were in favour of an emissions trading scheme (ETS). The basis for the claim was a new Galaxy poll, commissioned by the WWF.

On review, Audience and Consumer Affairs believe the report made clear that the survey was commissioned by the WWF; an organisation the audience would be aware is in favour of conservation and action to address climate change. We do not believe further details of the organisation’s stance on the issue was required, or that the report need have included details or an analysis of the survey methodology, as you suggest. Instead, we consider the story included sufficient context for the audience to judge the survey and its findings.

As noted in the report, the survey was conducted by recognised market research company, Galaxy Research. We believe the poll, as one measure of community sentiment on an issue of ongoing debate and of relevance to the federal election, had genuine news value and significance beyond the interests of the organisation that commissioned the survey. It is important to note that the story reported on the findings of the poll, and the views of the WWF, and does not represent the editorial opinion of the ABC.

Accordingly, while noting your concerns, Audience and Consumer Affairs are satisfied the story was in keeping with sections 5.2.2(c) and 5.6.3 of the ABC’s Editorial Policies. Nonetheless, please be assured that your comments have been brought to the attention of ABC News management.

Thank you again for taking the time to write, and for your interest in the ABC. For your reference, a copy of the ABC Code of Practice is available at: http://www.abc.net.au/corp/pubs/documents/200806_codeofpractice-revised_2008.pdf.

Yours sincerely

Audience & Consumer Affairs

Send in the clouds

ABC Environment online posted a brief article by reporter Graham Readfearn titled "Climate change and the role of clouds" on July 12. The article opens with the rather pithy statement "Clouds and water vapour play an important part in climate change, but the exact details of their role remains cloudy." Based on what follows perhaps ABC should have left it there.

In the ABC article Prof. Steven Sherwood, a professor of atmospheric physics at the University of New South Wales Climate Research Centre is quoted as saying: "We have quite a good understanding of water vapour. All our models say water vapour will increase by about seven per cent for every one degree of warming and we have observations to show that's happening."

We wondered which observations Prof. Sherwood was referring to, so we sent him an email. However Prof. Sherwood has not (yet) replied and given the ABC failed to do their job and ask which observations Prof Sherwood was referring to, we are left to speculate on their source. 
It's probably not the observations reported in a paper titled "Trends in middle - and upper-level tropospheric humidity from NCEP reanalysis data" by Garth Paltridge, Albert Arking and Michale Pook. This paper, published in the peer reviewed journal Theoretical and Applied Climatology, finds that: 
First, the observations of relative humidity RH do not support the proposition that emerges from the behavior of general circulation climate models that the value of RH at any given height in the troposphere remains fairly constant under the influence of global warming (e.g., Soden and Held 2006; Pierrehumbert et al. 2007). 
Second, while the specific humidity q has increased at the lowest levels of the troposphere over the last three or four decades in concert with the surface and 1,000 hPa temperatures, it has decreased in the middle and upper levels. This is particularly obvious in the tropics, where the crossover to negative trends occurs somewhere about 850 hPa—roughly near the top of the convective boundary layer... These negative trends are not supported either by the predictions of climate models or by the few indications from satellite observations (e.g., Bates and Jackson 2001; Soden et al. 2005; Minschwaner and Dessler 2004) that the long-term trend of q in the upper troposphere is positive.
It seems these observations of water vapour don't support Prof. Sherwood, I guess he must be referring to something else.

Once again ABC's reliance on too few experts leaves it in the lurch. Perhaps the ABC could have asked Dr Roy Spencer for a comment? Or perhaps Prof Richard Lindzen?


ABC Reply 20/8/2010
Thank you for your email regarding the ABC Environment feature article 'Climate change and the role of clouds', published on 12 July. I understand you believe this article lacks balance.

I should explain that the article is categorised as topical and factual content for the purposes of the ABC's editorial standards. This content category is not subject to any requirement to achieve balance within individual programs or stories. However, it is subject to the impartiality requirement outlined in section 7.4.1 of the ABC's Editorial Policies (http://abc.net.au/corp/pubs/edpols.htm), as follows:

"The ABC is committed to impartiality: where topical and factual content deals with a matter of contention or public debate, a diversity of principal relevant perspectives should be demonstrated across a network or platform in an appropriate timeframe."

I understand the article was intended to canvas some of the current knowledge on the role of clouds and water vapour in climate change. ABC Innovation has advised that due to the incredible volume of scientific literature on climate science it was neither possible nor desirable to comprehensively cover all published articles and researchers in the field. However, the article cited four sources: Professor Steve Sherwood, Dr Rob Colman, research published in the journal Science, and research published in the Journal of Geophysical Research. It also made reference to two current research projects: the VAMOS Ocean-Cloud-Atmosphere-Land Study and the Silver Lining Project.

I note your comment that the article did not include the perspectives of Dr Roy Spencer or Professor Richard Lindzen. ABC Innovation has advised that they were not interviewed because, in contrast to Professor Sherwood and Dr Colman, they are not cloud and water vapour specialists based in Australia.

Audience & Consumer Affairs has reviewed the article, considered the perspectives it presented, and considered the range of other content on climate change and cloud science published on ABC Online. On review, we are satisfied that a diversity of perspectives has been demonstrated across the platform over time, in accordance with the requirements of section 7.4.1 of the Editorial Policies.

I note your comments about Professor Sherwood's reference to observations showing that water vapour is increasing by about 7% for every degree of warming. ABC Innovation has drawn attention to the paper 'Identification of human-induced changes in atmospheric moisture content' by Santer et. al., published in the journal PNAS in 2007, which corroborates Professor Sherwood's claim. However, I should point out that the claim was clearly attributed to Professor Sherwood and did not constitute factual content for the purposes of section 7.4.2(a) of the Editorial Policies.

Please be assured that your comments, including your suggestion for a follow-up article featuring the views of Dr Spencer and Professor Lindzen, have been noted and conveyed to relevant staff in ABC Innovation. Thank you for taking the time to write.

Yours sincerely
ABC Audience & Consumer Affairs

From the Vault - You say Scientists, we say Engineers

Independent Complaints Review Panel Decision: Catalyst

24/04/2002

The Independent Complaints Review Panel (ICRP) has upheld a complaint made by Dr Brian Lloyd and Mr Michael Rice against the ABC Television program Catalyst.
The ICRP Report stated, in part:
'Two engineers, Dr Brian Lloyd and Mr Michael Rice, complained to the ICRP about the Catalyst program of 31 October 2002 which dealt with research into brain trauma following car crashes'.
The complainants said the program attributed the work to 'scientists' without mentioning the fact that the great bulk of it had been done by engineers, with some input from scientists. Dr Lloyd and Mr Rice said engineering was not a subset of science. Engineers were not scientists nor scientists engineers. 'Supers' at the bottom of the screen had identified some of the participants as engineers, but these had been fleeting and most viewers would not have noticed them.
Both complainants say that the persistent downgrading of engineering, as particularly exemplified in the ABC program, is against the national interest, as it makes engineering less attractive as a profession, and limits the number of young people entering it.
In its reply the ABC has defended the use of the umbrella term 'scientists' as it includes a number of professions without the need to itemise them. 'Scientist', the reply says, is a term easily understood by a diverse audience and is short and succinct.
The Panel finds, however, that as the bulk of the work done on setting up the conditions under which causes of brain damage could be examined, was done by engineers, the complainants are justified in their objections to engineers and scientists being lumped together. 'Engineer' is also an everyday term understood by a diverse audience, and is short and succinct. Catalyst is a program which seeks to inform its viewers about developments in various disciplines and it is therefore important it gets its definitions right.
The Panel notes that the complainants seek only from the ABC an acknowledgment that their objection to engineers being loosely described as 'scientists' will be taken into account in future programs. Limiting its finding to `unfair treatment', the complaint is upheld.
In his capacity as Editor-in-Chief, Managing Director Russell Balding, has written to the complainants to apologise on behalf of the ABC and inform them that due regard will be shown in future to the use of the terms 'engineers' and 'scientists'.
The ICRP is an independent body established by the ABC Board to investigate allegations of 'serious cases of bias, lack of balance and unfair treatment arising from an ABC broadcast or broadcasts.'
http://www.abc.net.au/corp/pubs/media/s839551.htm

"From the Vault" - digging up past corrections and clarifications from the ABC archives.

Missing News: Climate models are an each way bet

Updated October 6 2010-see below
The NSW Government are in the process of introducing "Water Sharing plans" across the state. Based on the ABC 's reporting it seems that the plans have been met with some controversy. 

Irrigators await water charge decision (20/5/2010)

About 50 Peel Valley irrigators last night attended their first meeting since the Peel Valley Water Sharing Plan was gazetted. Under the new agreement, which comes into force on July 1, irrigators must make do with only 6.2 gigalitres of water. They are also waiting nervously on a recommendation from the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal, which will see charges for bulk water rise dramatically. Laurie Pengilly, from the Peel Valley Water Users Association, says water users could be paying more than three times their current rate.

(See also Draft water plan anger sparks talks - 6/11/2009, Call for amended water sharing plans-19/2/2010, and Irrigators hope for future water plan 'reassessment - 23/4/2010).

One aspect of the plans that the ABC does not appear to have reported on is the results of climate modelling contained in the NSW Office of Water's Background document titled "Draft Water Sharing Plan Greater Metropolitan Region unregulated river water sources." dated May 2010. From page 11...

Climate change and variability

The NSW Office of Water has forecast rainfall and runoff across NSW using 15 global climate models for the IPCC SRES A1B climate scenario. The A1B climate scenario indicates a global temperature in 2030 that is 0.90C higher than the global temperature in 1990. For the Greater Metropolitan Region the worst case forecast is a 5-10 per cent reduction in mean annual rainfall by 2030, while the best case is a 5-10 per cent increase in mean annual rainfall. 7 of 15 models predict that mean annual rainfall would decrease by between 2 and 10 per cent, while 8/15 models predict that rainfall would increase by between 2 and 10 per cent by 2030. The worst case prediction for mean summer rainfall is a reduction of between 5 and 10 per cent, while the best case prediction is an increase by between 10 and 20 per cent. 13/15 models predict that summer annual rainfall would increase by between 2 and 20 per cent, while 2/15 models predict a decrease of between 2 and 10 per cent. Worst case winter rainfall is a reduction of between 10 and 20 per cent, while the best case prediction is an increase of between 2 and 10 per cent. 7/15 models predict that annual winter rainfall for the region shall fall by between 2 and 20 per cent, while 8/15 models predict an increase in annual winter rainfall of between 2 and 10 per cent. The Office of Water has recently configured a hydrology model for the Hawkesbury-Nepean River to estimate variation in flows and frequency and duration of licensed access to flows due to water sharing rules. On completion of the hydrology modelling required for the plan, the Office intends to commence modelling the effects of the above rainfall forecasts on flows and water user access across the plan area.

Based on these modelling results the NSW Office of Water could have saved some money and flipped coin or rolled a dice for the same result. No wonder the ABC didn't cover the results - the headline"Climate model results no better than a magic 8 ball" certainly doesn't fit in with the ABC's Groupthink position on climate change. 


Update: We provide the following correspondence between ABC and ANW:
From ABC Received 8 September, 2010:
Thank you for your email.
On review, Audience and Consumer Affairs is satisfied that ABC News reported the Water
Sharing Plan on a newsworthy basis and in keeping with 5.2.2(f) of the ABC Editorial
Policies.   News reported the release of the plans and sought reaction from those
affected.
Nonetheless, please be assured that your comments are noted.  For your reference, the
ABC's Code of Practice is available online at:http://www.abc.net.au/corp/pubs/documents/200806_codeofpractice-revised_2008.pdf
Yours sincerely
Audience & Consumer Affairs


ANW replied 8/9/2010:
ABC Audience and consumer affairs appear to have mis-understood the complaint. I agree
that  the Water Sharing Plan was newsworthy. The complaint outlined lack of questioning
on the part of the ABC such that important information regarding the need for the plan
(ie failure of climate models to provide a degree of certainty over future rainfall
either more or less) was not covered. Are you suggesting that the ABC did not find
problems with the models newsworthy?


ABC responded 6 October 2010
Thank you for your email.  I apologise for the delay in responding.
I do not believe I have misunderstood your complaint; the story in question highlighted newsworthy elements of the Water Sharing Plan and I am satisfied that this was in accordance with 5.2.2 (f) of the Editorial Policies.  It noted that the new agreement was shortly to be introduced and included comment from those most affected; the irrigators.
Nonetheless, please be assured that your comments are noted.
Yours sincerely
Audience and Consumer Affairs


ANC replied 6 October 2010
Thankyou for your reply. I remain unsatisfied with it and in accordance with ABC's complaints process I request you forward it on the ABC Complaints Review Executive for further deliberation. The complaint outlined lack of questioning on the part of the ABC News. Why didn't ABC News provide coverage of the climate modelling results of the NSW Office of Water that show half the models predict more rain, and half predict less rain? Are you suggesting that the ABC NEWS did not find problems with the models newsworthy?


ABC provided this reply October 6, 2010

Thank you for your email.

To clarify, in the context of a short news online story which focussed on the introduction of the new agreement and the concerns of the irrigators, it was not necessary for the item to include reference to the climate models you cite to meet the requirements of 5.2.2(f).

If you would still like your complaint referred to the Complaints Review Executive, I would be happy to do so.

Yours sincerely
Audience and Consumer Affairs

ANC reply 6 October 2010

The concerns of irrigators were the subject of a number of ABC news reports, not just "a short news online story". The omission of important newsworthy points such as the failure of climate models needs to be seen in this broader context, and as such this news should have been part of ABC News' coverage of the issue. In this sense the ABC has also failed to achieve balance in its reporting. 

In light of this, please pass this on to ABC CRE for further consideration.

We await ABC CRE's response.