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

Weeks leave

Sorry, great boo is up. Next post will be on Murray-Gate part 3, the reply, the debate. Hopefully on Saturday. Cheers Marc

Comments Policy Change

In recent correspondence with the ABC's Audience and Consumer Affair department we wrote:

I remain surprised that ABC still allows anonymous comment posting. A more responsible course of action that would not reduce the opportunity for ABC's audience to comment on articles, would be to require anyone contributing to use their real identity. Newspapers rarely allow anonymous letters to the editor and in the same way ABC should only publish comments people are prepared to stand behind.

ABC NEWS WATCH will now be instituting this policy. Anonymous comments will no longer be accepted. If you have something to say, be prepared to put your real name to it.

Ask an expert, the right expert

Tim Blair noted the Sydney Morning Herald thought an alarmist piece by an activist volcanologist, and "evangelical advocate of drastic cuts in greenhouse gas emissions", was so good they ran it twice. ABC asked the same activist  to provide an expert opinion on links between recent earthquakes and global warming. Seems ABC can't tell their experts from a hole in the floor.

Here's my Letter to the Sydney Morning Herald outlining problems with McGuire's SMH article. They left this one on the cutting room floor.

Dear Editor,
Volcanologist Bill McGuire places undue emphasis on the effect our thin atmosphere has on our even  thinner crust and in the process makes the mistake of linking recent calamitous geological events with anthropogenic global warming (skating on a thin crust,22/3). The inescapable grind of the earth's plates,  the ultimate cause of earthquakes and volcanoes, is driven by large scale processes in the earth's 3000km thick mantle. Changes in the atmosphere play an important minor role.  To blame anthropogenic global warming for recent geological disasters, such as the Japanese tsunami and the eruption of unpronounceable volcanes in Iceland, is like blaming the bird landing on the bonnet of a car perched on a cliff edge for its topple, while ignoring the bulldozer pushing from behind.

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

Mugged by the ABC

We have an Op Ed in The Australian today under the headline "Press and ABC polar opposites in complaints arena".

"The ABC, on the other hand, has turned the process of correcting even the most basic factual errors into a saga. If Finkelstein had the ABC in mind as a model for handling complaints, it is clear he has never put himself through this harrowing process. I have.

For example, a recent report on ABC radio's AM program erroneously claimed that South Australia had experienced the hottest start to summer in 100 years. There was no basis for the sensationalist statement. It took 58 days to settle, with action taken only after I submitted an analysis of SA weather stations along with news reports from January 1960 when temperatures were higher."

Subscription required to read the rest. I'll post it a draft version here later in the week (see below) .
This was introduced by this line from Gerard Henderson in the hard copy version:
Update-here's the version as it appeared in The Australian on the 14th of March.

Press and ABC polar opposites in complaints arena

• BY:MARC HENDRICKX 
• From:The Australian 
• March 14, 2012 12:00AM 
• 8 comments

“You have to be a mug to submit yourself to such a procedure.”

Gerard Henderson about the ABC's Complaints Process

MediaWatch Dog Issue 128, 9 March 2012

THE government's report into the media by Ray Finkelstein QC was released last week.

What caught my attention was the complaints-handling procedures of the proposed News Media Council.

Finkelstein says: "The media outlet concerned has two days to respond to a complaint and the panel then has a further two days to resolve the complaint and make a decision." It seems most complaints would be resolved in a week, a tight timeframe.

Some media outlets, such as this newspaper, respond rapidly to correct factual errors and deficiencies in reporting.

A major mechanism not discussed in Finkelstein's report is the publication of letters to the editor. Just last week The Sydney Morning Herald announced the appointment of the new ABC chairman, omitting to mention his previous relationship with the ALP. I sent a letter to the editor highlighting the unreported connection that was published the next day.

In The Australian recently, an apology was posted for a report that purportedly defamed Tim Flannery within seven days of the article appearing. There is no commercial rationale for prolonging the complaints process.

The ABC, on the other hand, has turned the process of correcting even the most basic factual errors into a saga. If Finkelstein had the ABC in mind as a model for handling complaints, it is clear he has never put himself through this harrowing process. I have.

For example, a recent report on ABC radio's AM program erroneously claimed that South Australia had experienced the hottest start to summer in 100 years. There was no basis for the sensationalist statement. It took 58 days to settle, with action taken only after I submitted an analysis of SA weather stations along with news reports from January 1960 when temperatures were higher.

Even then, the ABC was reluctant to make the correction, producing more than 1000 words of argument over three emails for a story only 600 words long.

In June 2010, the ABC claimed that "Studies show temperatures are rising faster at Mount Everest than in the rest of South Asia".

When challenged on the source of the studies, the ABC took two months to point to a table in the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report. However, the table showed that temperatures were rising faster in another region of South Asia. Moreover, the IPCC table contained significant errors that were later corrected. It took three months for the ABC to publish a correction.

In July last year, the ABC's Background Briefing broadcast The Lord Monckton Roadshow. ABC reporter Wendy Carlisle claimed that Christopher Monckton misrepresented the science of climate change, providing two examples. One example involved a scientific study on the death of four polar bears in the Arctic. On the drowned polar bears the study states: "Polar bears swimming in open water near Kaktovik drowned during a period of high winds and correspondingly rough sea conditions between 10 and 13 September 2004."

This was conveyed by Monckton as: "They died because there was a big storm with high winds and high waves, and they got swamped." However, in Carlisle's opinion, "The paper suggests that the polar bears most likely drowned because there was less sea ice for them to seek refuge on because of climate change."

She went on to state, "Lord Monckton is not one to let the facts stand in the way of a show." It seems that neither are Carlisle and the ABC.

Rather than admit an error, ABC Audience and Consumer Affairs involved the ABC's chief editor, managing director Mark Scott. Scott's office responded, "In relation to the various references by Al Gore, Lord Monckton and Background Briefing to the issue of drowned polar bears, the managing director did not regard it as proportionate in the circumstances to go into the detail.

"Noting that specialist literature is open to varying interpretations by specialists and non-specialists, and that both in public presentations such as Lord Monckton's and in journalism such as Background Briefing, specialist literature must necessarily be tightly compressed, the managing director concluded that the program did not breach the accuracy standard in the ABC Code of Practice."

In a well known 2007 British High Court case about the accuracy of Al Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth, judge Michael Burton concluded, on the polar bears in question: "The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm. That is not to say that there may not in the future be drowning-related deaths of polar bears if the trend continues."

It took the ABC 51 days to put together a reply that refused to acknowledge basic factual errors in the program were made. I wasn't satisfied, and the matter has been with the Australian Communications and Media Authority since last September.

Looking over the ABC's website, the past 20 upheld complaints took an average of 58 days to go from broadcast to posting on the ABC website. The last 20 corrections listed on the ABC News corrections web page took an average of 21 days from broadcast to listing. This is clearly unacceptable by anyone's definition, especially Finkelstein's, it seems. He proposes a turnaround of just four days. In 2010-11, the ABC received 41,258 complaints; for some reason Finkelstein mentioned only the 22,875 written complaints in his report. Of the written complaints, 4864 were investigated and only 463 (9.5 per cent) were upheld.

In the unlikely event the News Media Council comes into being it shouldn't look to the ABC for its complaint-handling process, lest it create more mugs like me.

Marc Hendrickx edits the ABC News Watch blog.