Sinking islands: Part 3 Down the memory hole

The Courier-Mail (Brisbane, Qld. : 1933 - 1954), 

Friday 2 April 1948, page 3

ACMA reply to a complaint about an ABC report that omitted key historical information. Based on ACMA's finding it seems ABC have carte blanche to throw important historical facts and context down the memory hole.


A number of low lying islands in Torres Strait are prone to inundation during king tides and storms. No surprise, that's what happens when your front door is only a few feet above the high tide mark. In the late 1940s the islands of Saibai and Boigu near the PNG coast were evacuated following tidal erosion caused by summer storms. The islanders were resettled on Cape York. For some reason ABC chose not to include this critical historical information in a report broadcast by The World Today in January titled "Fears Islanders may soon be forced out of their homes". In their alarming report the ABC claimed:
"The rise in sea levels and an increase in extreme weather events in the region make the islands at this time of the year particularly vulnerable."
While we agreed the islands are vulnerable to inundation, the historical information makes it clear that the vulnerability is not new, and does not arise as a consequence of any change in local or global climate, as ABC's report would have us believe.


Our complaint to the ABC about the missing information critical to placing the recent inundations into historical context was rejected (see earlier posts HERE and HERE and HERE) and we applied to ACMA for a review contending that:
The report failed to include reference to previous devastating inundation of the islands that occurred in 1948 that was so extreme that it resulted in the evacuation of islanders to the Queensland mainland... This information appears highly relevant to the report and l suggest it is highly remise of the ABC to have omitted mention of it in their report. This is especially so, given the facts surrounding the 1948 inundation and evacuation could have been conveyed so simply... 
The audience would rely on ABC‘s reporters to include all the relevant information. including reference to previous similar events of relevance (such as the previous inundation and resulting evacuation in 1948). If the audience put weight on the claimed reputation of The Worid Today as a comprehensive current affairs program it may have been lead to the false conclusion that no such previous events existed. 

As such, through the omission of critical, relevant historical information, that constitutes a lack of accurate reporting, it is my contention that AEC has mislead its audience. This is in breach of its Code of [Practice] standard 2.2...

ACMA's Kathleen Silleri ruled in favour of the ABC finding:

"The ACMA notes the complainant’s concerns that the reporter could have provided more specific historical context, such as citing the occurrence of a flood of significant magnitude to the islands in 1948.3 However, it is the ACMA’s view that previous flooding was referred to, either directly or indirectly, and that the matters covered in the interview were appropriate given the duration of the report (3 min 11 sec) and the nature of the report. The ACMA does not consider the lack of any direct reference to the previous inundation in 1948 materially misleading. 

The ACMA considers the ordinary reasonable listener would have concluded the program was, on the whole, concerned with the current issue of funding for restoration of island seawalls and the consequences of the seawalls not being repaired as a matter of urgency. The ACMA is satisfied that the presentation of factual content would not have misled the ordinary reasonable listener when presented in context."

What a weird media landscape we currently reside in, where a self described  "comprehensive current affairs program" can send key facts to the furnace and get away with it.

ACMA: as effective in upholding journalistic standards at the ABC, as a wet sponge is at fending off hungry lions.

ACMA's Investigation Report No. 2787 should be able from their website soon (ed. why does it take so long???)

Investigation 2681

Dear Mr Hendrickx,

Thank you for your email in response to the outcome of Investigation 2681. There is no formal right to have the ACMA review its decision in this matter under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992, but we can make some observations about your concerns.

You have queried why the ACMA did not consider the outcome of a 2007 UK  High Court decision concerning the accuracy of Al Gore’s film.

This aspect of the investigation concerned the statements made by the presenter of the ABC’s program,Background Briefing on commentary by Lord Monckton on a particular statement by Al Gore. The focus here was on the accuracy of the presenter’s statement, assessed against the ABC Code of Practice.

The ACMA consulted the scientific paper to which Al Gore and Lord Monckton’s statements referred.   As noted in the investigation report, the research findings could have led to either of the interpretations in dispute, but the material facts were presented in context.

Al Gore’s film, An Inconvenient Truth was not the subject of the investigation, and therefore the UK decision concerning Al Gore was not taken into the assessment of the material broadcast, against the ABC Code.

The ACMA considers that it took relevant considerations into account.

If you remain dissatisfied with the way in which the ACMA has handled this matter, you may make a complaint to the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman - http://www.ombudsman.gov.au/

Regards,

Broadcasting Investigations Section

ACMA: into the looking glass

Image from Wollongong Library-South Coast Road, NSW  circa 1880

(Reality at right)

The very lengthy response from ACMA in regard to our complaint about ABC's factual errors and weak reporting in its Background Briefing story on Lord Monckton brought back memories of a disagreement I had a few years back with a librarian over the orientation of a photo I had printed from a historical negative. The photo printed was a mirror image of reality; the print having been taken from the negative turned upside down, hence reversing the image. When I pointed out the mistake, showing a recent photo of the same location, which I was extremely familiar with, complete with exactly the same features, but reversed, there was a blank response and flat out denial of the evidence presented. No point in arguing with some people.
It appears this is also the case with ACMA's report, and with the ABC in regard to their broadcast. However....

Here again are a few of the substantive points:
1. Death of four Polar Bears. In the broadcast Lord Monckton pointed to errors made by Al Gore in his movie "An Inconvenient Truth" about the deaths of four polar bears in the Arctic. Monckton pointed to a paper (Monnett and Gleason 2006-see full ref below) about the deaths of four polar bears that indicating the bears drowned in a storm. Monckton described the deaths thus "They drowned because there was a big storm with high winds and high waves and they got swamped.” ABC claimed the deaths of the four Polar bears in the Arctic was due to them being "drowned because of there was less sea ice for them to rest on because of climate change." The paper on which this was based reported that the particular bears in question "drowned during a period of high winds and correspondingly rough sea conditions between 10 and 13 September 2004. No other deleterious environmental conditions were present that might have led to the deaths of those polar bears.” 
ACMA acting in "Quincy" mode claim the bears "died from exhaustion due to the extra exertion of swimming in turbulent seas for longer distances." (We note no autopsy was performed on the bears in question)

A UK judge who found 9 other errors in Al Gore's movie agreed with Monckton's view:

Justice Burton:  Mr Gore says: “A new scientific study shows that for the first time they are finding polar bears that have actually drowned swimming long distances up to 60 miles to find the ice. They did not find that before.” 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.

In an interview (see page 35) to do with an investigation of potential scientific misconduct, the author of the very paper in question, Charles Monnett, puts the deaths down to: "Um, this paper is very narrow in that it only focuses on the swimming and drowning and what, and what we thought was related to it, in other words, a storm."

The paper in question was reviewed by "Um, Lisa Rotterman, my wife". (To quote Media Watch's Jonathan Holmes “so much for peer review”.)

We referred ACMA to this transcript but it appears it was never looked at. Somewhat surprising given the time for the investigation was over 6 months.

Monnett, C., and J. S. Gleason, 2006. Observations of mortality associated with extended open-water swimming by polar bears in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea. Polar Biology, 29, 681-687.

2. Sea Level Rise: ABC claimed Lord Monckton made erroneous claims about sea level. The facts show otherwise. ACMA didn't even bother to check the relevant section of the IPCC report "ACMA does not consider it necessary to consult the relevant IPCC literature in this instance". In six months it didn't think to check the facts. Again here's what Justice Burton had to say about the matter: "This is distinctly alarmist, and part of Mr Gore's 'wake-up call'. It is common ground that if indeed Greenland melted, it would release this amount of water, but only after, and over, millennia, so that the Armageddon scenario he predicts, insofar as it suggests that sea level rises of 7 metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus."

Along with not looking at the IPCC report it seems ACMA's investigator didn't even bother to consider the only relevant judgement on the issue. The question of competence comes to mind.

3. On the question of bias. When alarmists such as Al Gore receive the same critical scrutiny from the ABC as sceptics I'll put aside the issue. Until then, sadly for public journalism, the balance it tipped is favour of ABC's alarmist groupthink position.

In its report, ACMA placed great emphasis on the opinion of an ordinary listener. Seems an ordinary UK Judge was able to see through Al Gore's spin in much the same way as Lord Monckton did. And what of you dear reader? Based on the above, and ACMA's report, what do you make of the evidence provided? 

Which reality do we live in?