History repeating: dysfunctional RN repeats mistakes

Yesterday ABC's complaints division finally got around to publishing an upheld complaint made way back in May (wow, now that's a quick response!). The details are below:

Upheld complaints: 

The World , 16th May 2017
Summary published: 14th August 2017
Complaint:
A viewer complained that an interview with Max Bergmann from the Centre for American Progress was a “one-sided criticism of Donald Trump” and that the presenter failed to disclose the political affiliations of the Centre for American Progress.

Complaint Finding Status: Upheld
Upheld against 2.2 ABC Editorial Policies (11 April 2011)

Audience and Consumer Affairs response:
The ABC agreed that more information should have been provided about the Centre for American Progress. This information was relevant and important to the audience and its absence meant that viewers were not able to weigh Mr Bergmann’s observations and criticisms in their proper context. Accordingly, the broadcast was not in keeping with the ABC’s editorial requirement not to present factual content in a way that will materially mislead the audience. The complainant’s other concerns were not upheld.
Complaint finalised July 2017.

Now you'd think this may result in some ABC wide advice along the lines of: 

"When interviewing representatives from the Centre for American Progress don't forget to mention their political affiliations to provide listeners with the proper context in order to weigh the opinions and observations offered."

It seems Geraldine Doogue missed the memo, for last weekend she interviewed Max Bergmann from the Centre for American Progress, and once again listeners were given scant information about Mr Bergmann's background that would enable them to place his observations in their proper context.

ABC: the place where no one learns from history, and everybody ignores the complaints department.

UPDATE 28/8/2017:

On August 5, Saturday Extra host Geraldine Doogue introduced Mr Bergmann as “a former senior advisor, also a speechwriter for John Kerry”.

At the end of the interview, Ms Doogue referred to Mr Bergmann as “until this year, a senior advisor at the State Department under John Kerry, now a senior fellow at the Centre for American Progress, a think tank in Washington”.

In response to this complaint, Saturday Extra has updated his title on its website to specify that his time as senior advisor at the State Department was under Barack Obama's Presidency. http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/saturdayextra/dysfunctional-state-department/8775560

Ms Doogue also will make reference on air on Saturday August 26 to the Centre’s links to the Democratic Party.

Regards

Nerida

Radio National

Listener enquiries 

ABC Fact-check on another planet

ABC's fact checkers provide a highly biased and skewed version of India's record on nuclear non-proliferation. Surprisingly they are unable to recognize diplomatic language in a speech from the PM. The article reflects a distinct naivety among ABC reporters about the world and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in particular. But when the organisation is so severely hampered by inbreeding of ideas through a collective groupthink and a reticence to seek alternate informed views what else would do you expect?

As an example of their  "analysis" ABC provide the following quote:
"The NTI Nuclear Materials Security Index assesses the security of nuclear materials around the world. Dr Rublee says India scores below Pakistan on the index, and is ranked above only North Korea and Iran."

The NTI Index is a non peer reviewed report; that it places India below Pakistan, a state verging on failure is a testament to its lack of accuracy, but ABC happily recycle this dirge without question.

They also naively give air to BS like this: Professor Thakur says India is not bound by the NPT requirement to disarm its nuclear arsenal. Countries in the NPT with nuclear weapons capabilities are, but have increased their nuclear stockpiles since signing the treaty.
The irony of this sentence apparently beyond the simple minds at ABC FACT CHECK.

In their "analysis" they downplay India's positive contributions to NNP. A realistic analysis suggest Tony Abbot's comments are on the whole, correct.

This lack of balance and shallow analysis would be fine, except that the ABC is a government funded organisation paid for by all tax payers. It should reflect a diversity of opinion, and meet its obligations under its charter, that include reference to factual accuracy, but it does not.

We expect more than cliché and superficial analysis but it seems that this is all the organisation is capable of delivering.

Bias revealed

In today's Oz...

ABC accused of bias against coalmining

THE ABC treats stories on the ­renewables industry highly favourably, while the coalmining and coal-seam gas mining industries are treated unfavourably,­ ­according to a study of the ABC’s presentation of energy issues.

No surprise when your news staff are dominated by environmental activists on a mission from Gaia.

Mark Scott (and underling) in diversity denial

The publicly funded  academic blog The Conversation (or as we know it "The Con") recently published an article that revealed some interesting statistics about the voting intentions of ABC reporters.

The voting intentions of 34 ABC reporters turned out as follows:
41.2% of the 34 ABC journalists who declared a voting intention said they would vote for the Greens, followed by 32.4% for Labor and 14.7% for the Coalition.

There were questions asked of the authors about the statistical significance of the results given the low number of respondents.  In regard to the study the authors state:

If we disregard the 42.8% of journalists who are undecided, refused to answer or would vote for a party or candidate other than the major three, this is a statistically significant result.

So the authors claim a statistically significant result and have their work published in a peer reviewed journal.

We asked Mark Scott to explain his organisations diversity problem that appears to break the back of ABC's charter, here's his response, through one of his underlings:

Dear Mr Hendrickx,

The Managing Director’s office has asked me to acknowledge receipt of your email.

As the passage you have quoted acknowledges, the survey referred to in that article included the voting intentions of only 34 members of the ABC’s staff.  The ABC’s most recent annual report gives a staff head count of 5,429 people. 

The survey results do not support your contention that the ABC’s employees ‘are demonstrably dominated by one cultural group’.

Yours sincerely,

Kirstin McLiesh

Head, Audience and Consumer Affairs

Seems Mr Scott is in denial of this "statistically significant result"! Does that constitute a clear case of confirmation bias? We think so, here's our quick reply:

Hi Kirsten,

Odd that Mr Scott should deny statistically significant results published in a peer reviewed paper, or was that your opinion? Perhaps some remedial statistics classes are in order.

Regards

Marc

Shock: ABC's extreme left wing bias confirmed

An article on the Tax payer funded The Conversation has some interesting statistics on the voting intentions of ABC activists journalists. Based on the latest Newspoll figures current community voting intentions are as follows for primary votes:
ALP: 31%
Coalition: 46%
Greens: 9%
Other:14%

The upside down figures for the ABC:
"41.2% of the 34 ABC journalists who declared a voting intention said they would vote for the Greens, followed by 32.4% for Labor and 14.7% for the Coalition."
Is it any surprise that ABC leans left of the left? One wonders whether the 14.7% are real or fudged, especially as ABC does not employ a single conservative to lead any of its prominent current affairs programs.

That clause from ABC's charter (our bold):
The functions of the Corporation are:...to provide:
(i) broadcasting programs that contribute to a sense of national identity and inform and entertain, and reflect the cultural diversity of, the Australian community;

Mark Scott, how can your organisation reflect the cultural diversity of, the Australian community when its employees are demonstrably dominated by one cultural group?

Election Timing and ABC

Other commentators have drawn attention to an editorial comment posted under an opinion piece at The Drum by former politician Peter Reith.

The comment reads: "*Editor's Note: While the ABC maintains due impartiality and balance in its coverage of politics throughout the year, the formal campaign begins in August when the writs are issued. That is when we will begin monitoring and recording "share of voice" and determining free time for the relevant parties."

Firstly the notion that ABC "maintains due impartiality and balance in its coverage of politics throughout the year," is highly contested. Given it does not have a single conservative commentator maintaining "due impartiality and balance" appears an impossibility.

Secondly it seems the editor's reading of the relevant legislation is open to question and if so we may see ABC forced into providing equal time for the major parties.

From the act, the red highlighted text along with the PM's public announcement of the election date, makes it pretty clear ABC's Drum editor is simply wrong. 

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION ACT 1983 - SECT 79A

  Broadcasting of political or controversial matter

             (1)  Subject to this Act, the Corporation may determine to what extent and in what manner political matter or controversial matter will be broadcast by the Corporation.

             (2)  If the Corporation broadcasts political matter at the request of another person, the Corporation must, immediately afterwards:

                     (a)  if the matter was broadcast by radio--cause the required particulars in relation to the matter to be announced; or

                     (b)  if the matter was televised:

                              (i)  cause the required particulars in relation to the matter (other than the particulars referred to in paragraph (c) of the definition of required particulars in subsection (5)) to be announced; and

                             (ii)  cause all the required particulars in relation to the matter to be transmitted in the form of images of words.

             (3)  The Corporation must, in relation to political matter broadcast at the request of another person, keep a record of the name, address and occupation of the person or, if the person is a company, the name and the address of the principal office of the person, for the required period and must give to the ACMA any particulars of the record that the ACMA, by written notice, requires.

             (4)  For the purposes of this section, a person authorises the broadcasting of political matter only if the person is responsible for approval of the content of the political matter and the decision to present it for broadcasting.

             (5)  In this section:

"election" means an election to a Parliament or a local government authority of a State or Territory.

"election period" means:

                     (a)  in relation to an election to the Legislative Council of Tasmania, or an ordinary election to the Legislative Assembly for the Australian Capital Territory--the period that starts 33 days before the polling day for the election and ends at the close of the poll on that day; and

                     (b)  in relation to any other election to a Parliament--the period that starts on:

                              (i)  the day on which the proposed polling day for the election is publicly announced; or

                             (ii)  the day on which the writs for the election are issued;

                            whichever happens first, and ends at the close of the poll on the polling day for the election; and

                     (c)  in relation to an election to a local government authority--the period that starts 33 days before the polling day for the election and ends at the close of the poll on that day; and

                     (d)  in relation to a referendum whose voting day is the same as the polling day for an election to the Parliament of the Commonwealth--the election period in relation to that election; and

                     (e)  in relation to any other referendum--the period that starts 33 days before the voting day for the referendum and ends at the close of voting on that day.

"Parliament" means:

                     (a)  the Parliament of the Commonwealth; or

                     (b)  a State Parliament; or

                     (c)  the legislature of a Territory.

"person" includes a political party, a corporation and any other association (whether incorporated or unincorporated).

"political matter" means any political matter, including the policy launch of a political party.

"referendum" means the submission to the electors of a proposed law for the alteration of the Constitution, whether or not the proposal to make the submission has been announced.

"required particulars" , in relation to a political matter that is broadcast, means:

                     (a)  if the broadcasting was authorised by a political party:

                              (i)  the name of the political party; and

                             (ii)  the town, city or suburb in which the principal office of the political party is situated; and

                            (iii)  the name of the natural person responsible for giving effect to the authorisation; and

                     (b)  if the broadcasting of the political matter was authorised by a person other than a political party:

                              (i)  the name of the person who authorised the broadcasting of the political matter; and

                             (ii)  the town, city or suburb in which the person lives or, if the person is a corporation or association, in which the principal office of the person is situated; and

                     (c)  the name of every speaker who, either in person or by means of a sound recording device, delivers an address or makes a statement that forms part of that matter.

"required period" , in relation to the keeping of a record in relation to political matter, means the period of 2 years commencing on the day on which the matter was broadcast.

Insiders, more like left siders

A bevy of letters in today's Australian putting forward a strong case for pro ALP bias at ABC's Insiders program. Ruth Bonetti has one of the best lines..."Insiders is an ABC Labor Party love-in." (See here for more- subscription required).

Nothing abnormal about NT fires

ABC claim that "An abnormal amount of carbon is being released into the atmosphere from wildfires raging across Central Australia." (I'm guessing they are referring to Carbon dioxide).

This is a gross distortion of the facts. Firstly the scientist interviewed for the story clearly indicates the current bushfires are part of a natural cycle. 

"Dr Ashley Sparrow from the CSIRO laboratory in Alice Springs says it is an example of the boom-and-bust ecosystem in the Red Centre at work.

He says spectacular wet years are always followed by a growth spurt of grasses and scrubs, then a significant bushfire season and the release of massive quantities of carbon dioxide."

So it seems that there is nothing  "abnormal" about the amount of carbon dioxide being released. 

Secondly the briefest check of historical newspaper archives reveals numerous instances of significant fires in the past. 

For instance:
State bushfires checked: Huge NT blaze. The Sydney Morning Herald Thursday 25 October 1951

Bushfire Havoc in two states and NT. The West Australian Thursday 25 October 1951

Huge Bushfires in the NT.  Advocate Wednesday 12 May 1948

So nothing "abnormal" about large bush fires in the NT.

It seems the only thing "abnormal" is ABC's distortion of the facts.

In support of Mr Uhlmann

ABC 7:30 presenter Chris Uhlmann, should be congratulated for his reporting. Despite being married to a sitting ALP politician he has dealt with the conflict of interest well in the past 6 months, and he remains one of the few journalists in the ABC to live up to the corporation's charter that aims for impartial reporting. A challenge in an organisation whose own chairman recognized in it, a pervasive culture of Groupthink. 

Now the left wing "ignorarmy" at GETUP ("Petition hits ABC for shift to Right",The Australian 20/5) are calling for his resignation on the basis of one tough interview with Greens leader the "morally superior" Senator Bob Brown. Having been given a soft run by the media in recent years the Greens appear to be crumbling under the slightest scrutiny, leading its staffers to launch a "hate" campaign against Uhlmann and other members of the press. The Australian report (Brown staffers join the media war, 21/5) that Senator Brown's director of media, Marion Rae, posted a photograph of The Australian's James Massola, with the caption: "There's a hypertroll outside the window." and of the ABC's Chris Uhlmann, she said: "Some are born great, some become great and others have talented wives, eh mate?"

To get the ABC back to its charter, rather than sacking its one balanced journalist, it could start by sacking its cherry picking science reporter: Mr Confirmation Bias, Robyn Williams. Its doom saying radio announcer: the eco-catastrophist, Deborah Cameron. Its resident shamrock reporter: environmental activist Sara Phillips (so named as she only covers the green side of issues). And its one eyed opinion editor: Jonathan Green, who balances 12 left wing articles with just one from the right (Aunty makes no secret of prejudice, 11/5). That would make a start.

Lack of balance in opinion

Gavin Atkin's proves bias at ABC's opinion site, The Drum, in a piece titled "Aunty makes no secret of prejudice", in today's Australian. Worth a read.

Bias on QandA

Reader Nicholas runs an eye over Q and A transcripts for February finding some interesting results. We wonder if things will level out by the end of the season.(click images to enlarge)

Online Opinion: an appropriate space for ABC staff to post their views

Our article on ABC Environment's blatant bias and ignorance that featured in The Australian on Monday has now been reposted at Online Opinion (http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=11658). Please take time to add your thoughts there and support Online Opinion. This is the sort of of web space ABC staff could be using to voice their views, rather riding on the back of the tax payer. The savings of cutting ABC's opinion pages would not be insignificant and could be used to pay for additional reporters, some of whom may be able to cover some of those missing news items. Alternately this money could be used to support sites like Online Opinion, be used elsewhere or returned to the tax payer.

Use of tax payers funds to provide free entertainment and information to a demographic that can well afford to pay for it is just another form of middleclass welfare. If ABC continues with its opinion content it should do so under a subscription model.

ABC Bias yields no apology for Mr McIntyre

In an article published in The Australian last year we speculated that ABC's biased and unbalanced coverage of all things climate was not malicious but born from sensationalism and naivety. It seems that we were wrong and for one ABC reporter at least the basis for decided what news is worth reporting on is based on idle internet gossip and ideology rather than facts. Read why in an article titled Bias at the national broadcaster is as easy as ABC in today's Australian newspaper. This goes a long way to explain why there are so, so many peer reviewed papers sceptical of a climate catastrophe that are missing from ABC's news coverage. Maurice Newman, ABC's chairman, recognised Groupthink in ABC's climate reporting, here's a clear example of it.
Meanwhile there is no apology for Mr McIntyre, and his important research remains a mystery to ABC's Audience. We attempted to contact ABC's reporter on this but she declined to respond (see below).

As Jonathan Holmes put it last week regarding an unrelated ACMA finding..."But how anyone could conclude anything from this one, other than that the regulator is an ass, I have no idea." ABC regulates its own, its audience and consumer affairs section finding nothing wrong with ABC's moderation process. 

Update: Brief interview on the issue of ABC bias with Gary Hardgrave on Brisbane's 4BC this afternoon.

Email correspondence with the ABC (in italics) related to the matter is presented below...
To: Audience Consumer Affairs
From: Marc Hendrickx
Subject: offending comments on ABC's environment blog
Date: 06/12/10 12:53
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABC program: ABC enviroment-Cancun may see the abandonment of the UN process
Date of program: 30/11/2010
Contact type: Complaint
Location: NSW
Subject: offending comments on ABC's environment blog
Comments: The comments at the bottom of this complaint appear on ABC's Environment Blog under the post "Cancun may see the abandonment of the UN process" by Sara Phillips. The comments are defamatory and should not have been posted by the Blog moderator, contravening the following sections of ABC Online condition of use. I request ABC withdraw the comments and issue an apology to Mr McIntyre.
 Sections 4.4.1 defamatory, or otherwise unlawful or that it violates laws regarding harassment, discrimination, racial vilification, privacy or contempt;
4.4.2 intentionally false or misleading;
4.4.4 abusive, offensive or obscene;
4.4.5 inappropriate, off topic, repetitive or vexatious. 4.4.9 deliberate provocation of other community members.

from ABC Corporate_Affairs7
to marc hendrickx
date Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 5:08 PM
subject Re: offending comments on ABC's environment blog
Dear Mr Hendrickx
Thank you for your email regarding a comment from a user published in the comments section under the article 'Cancun may see the abandonment of the UN process' on the ABC Environment blog. I understand you believe the comment contravened the ABC Online Conditions of Use.
I should explain that the investigative remit of Audience & Consumer Affairs encompasses the ABC's editorial standards (as set out in the Code of Practice and Editorial Policies) only. The Conditions of Use are not editorial standards; they are the conditions under which users contribute to the ABC's interactive services.
Section 9 of the Editorial Policies sets out the principles and standards relevant to user-generated content (UGC) such as comments submitted on blogs. In particular, sections 9.4.3-8 set out the various types of UGC moderation available; section 9.4.10 provides that the ABC is not required to verify the accuracy of UGC or correct inaccuracies in UGC, but may exercise its discretion to edit, remove or clarify UGC containing errors; and section 9.4.12 requires the ABC to "be open to the spectrum of views and give users a fair opportunity to participate".
The moderator of the ABC Environment portal has advised that the comment to which you refer was approved for publication, following the pre-moderation process (see section 9.4.4(a)), as it was deemed not to be defamatory or otherwise in contravention of the Conditions of Use. The moderator has explained this decision as follows:
"Mr McIntyre is described by "Annie" as being an "extremist right wing provocateur".
Mr McIntyre's views are seen by some as extreme. "Annie", clearly, believes they are.
He could reasonably be described as "right wing" as a speaking member of the George C Marshall Institute, which is known for its right-leaning politically conservative views.
"Provocateur" is a name given to describe those whose thinking goes against that of the status quo, another label that could reasonably be given to Mr McIntyre.
As such, the comments from "Annie" are not unfounded and therefore not defamatory."
I appreciate that you may disagree with the moderator's decision. However, Audience & Consumer Affairs is satisfied that the relevant standards set out in section 9 of the Editorial Policies were met. The moderation process took place, as required, and users were given a fair opportunity to participate.
Nonetheless, please be assured that your comments have been noted and conveyed to the moderator. Thank you for bringing your concerns to our attention. For your reference, the ABC's editorial standards are available here: http://abc.net.au/corp/pubs/edpols.htm.
Yours sincerely
SM
ABC Audience & Consumer Affairs

from Marc Hendrickx
to scott.mark@abc.net.au,
Newman.Maurice@abc.net.au
date Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 8:22 PM
subject Fwd: offending comments on ABC's blog
Dear Mr Newman,
I refer the reply received from ABC complaints below above. What a low bar ABC now sets for itself.
Regards
Marc Hendrickx

from Marc Hendrickx
to ABC Corporate_Affairs6
cc smcintyre
date Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 10:15 PM
subject Fwd: offending comments on ABC's environment blog
To Head of ABC Audience & Consumer Affairs
Dear K,
Can you please review this response. It seems that ABC Audience & Consumer Affairs are editorialising on the part of the anonymous blogger concerned. There is in fact no way of knowing the reasons behind the defamatory post, unless ABC have contacted the blogger concerned. In regard to Mr McIntyre, ABC claims that "He could reasonably be described as "right wing" as a speaking member of the George C Marshall Institute, which is known for its right-leaning politically conservative views." The fact that Mr McIntyre has spoken at the Marshall institute does not make him a member of the "extremist right wing", it in fact says nothing about Mr McIntyre's political views whatsoever. As there is no foundation for the anonymous blogger's comments they can indeed be seen as defamatory.
This is perhaps the weakest argument I have had from the ABC and surely one beneath the usual high standard one expects from ABC Audience & Consumer Affairs. How does ABC contend this is the basis for the anonymous bloggers view point. It seems to be the uninformed view of the ABC staff member(s) concerned. Can you please clarify if this is the case?
Will ABC now retract the comments and issue Mr McIntyre with a formal apology?
Regards
Marc Hendrickx

from Steve McIntyre
to ABC Corporate_Affairs6
phillips.sara@,
CORPORATE_AFFAIRS7.
cc Marc Hendrickx
date Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 1:23 AM
subject RE: offending comments on ABC's environment blog

I am not a “member of the George Marshall Institute”. This allegation on your part is untrue. I once spoke at a briefing session sponsored by George Marshall Institute, but that does not make me a “member” or imply any endorsement on my part of their views. I would have been delighted to make the same presentation at a session sponsored by the Pew Center.
Nor is there any basis for characterizing my political views as “extremist right wing”. I have seldom expressed political opinions, though I once said that, in American terms, I would have been a Bill Clinton supporter. My only recent political contributions have been to a left-wing municipal politician in Toronto, Pam McConnell. I challenge you to provide any evidence that I hold “extremist right wing” political views.
The comments by Annie are totally unfounded and defamatory.
Yours truly,
Stephen McIntyre

from ABC Corporate_Affairs7
to marc hendrickx
date Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 4:34 PM
subject Re: offending comments on ABC's environment blog
Dear Mr Hendrickx
Thank you for your emails.
I wish to clarify that the section of my previous email explaining the reasons the comment you referred to was considered to be consistent with the Conditions of Use was a direct quote from the moderator. Audience & Consumer Affairs did not investigate the veracity of the moderator's position, and certainly did not editorialise on behalf of the user who submitted the comment. Instead, Audience & Consumer Affairs satisfied itself that the moderation process took place and the relevant provisions of section 9 of the Editorial Policies were met.
Please be assured, your additional comments have been brought to the attention of the moderator. The comment in question has now been removed from the comments section under the article.
Yours sincerely
SM
ABC Audience & Consumer Affairs

from Marc Hendrickx
to ABC Corporate_Affairs7
cc ABC Corporate_Affairs6
phillips.sara@abc.net.au,
smcintyre
Bruce Belsham
Newman.Maurice

date Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 7:30 AM
subject Re: offending comments on ABC's environment blog
Dear SM (Audience and consumer affairs),
Given your response it seems there is a problem with the moderator's judgement in allowing the comments through in the first place.
It surprises me that it has taken almost 4 weeks to sort this matter out. That the comments were posted in the first place is unacceptable. That it has required mine and Mr McIntyre's intervention to correct the matter speaks volumes about ABC's lack of capacity for independent investigation. For instance why didn't you contact Mr McIntyre in the first instance to independently confirm the moderators response, so that a quicker resolution to this complaint could be achieved?
Can you ensure:
1. An apology to Mr McIntyre will be posted to the ABC environment blog in the form of an editorial comment. Here's an example:
"Defamatory comments regarding Steve McIntyre were posted to this blog due to an error in judgement by the blog moderator. The comments have now been removed and ABC Environment apologies for any offence it may have caused Mr McIntyre. The moderator has been provided with additional training in ABC Editorial Policies to prevent such an event recurring."
2. The moderator will be provided with additional training in ABC Editorial Policy and condition's of use to prevent such a failure of judgement reoccurring.
Given Item 1 is not forthcoming, please pass this complaint on to ABC Complaints Review Executive for further consideration.
Regards
Marc Hendrickx

from Marc Hendrickx
to phillips.sara@abc.net.au,
ABC Corporate_Affairs6
ABC Corporate_Affairs7
date Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 7:00 AM
subject Fwd: offending comments on ABC's environment blog
Dear Ms Phillips,
I am in the process of writing up this episode for a possible opinion piece for an Australian Newspaper. Can confirm you are the moderator referred to below. Did you advise ABC Audience and Consumer Affairs the following:
"Mr McIntyre is described by "Annie" as being an "extremist right wing provocateur".
Mr McIntyre's views are seen by some as extreme. "Annie", clearly, believes they are.
He could reasonably be described as "right wing" as a speaking member of the George C Marshall Institute, which is known for its right-leaning politically conservative views.
"Provocateur" is a name given to describe those whose thinking goes against that of the status quo, another label that could reasonably be given to Mr McIntyre.
As such, the comments from "Annie" are not unfounded and therefore not defamatory." Sara it's your blog I'll presume it's you, unless you tell me otherwise. By the way have you provided an apology to Mr McIntyre yet?

K and SM,
Given you are independent of the ABC, if Sara declines to admit the comments are hers can you please confirm she is the originator of the comments quoted above.
Regards
Marc Hendrickx

from ABC Corporate_Affairs7
to Marc Hendrickx
date Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 1:27 PM
subject Re: offending comments on ABC's environment blog
Dear Mr Hendrickx
Thank you for your email.
Audience & Consumer Affairs has nothing further to add to our previous responses in relation to this matter. Your correspondence has been brought to the attention of ABC Innovation.
Yours sincerely
SM
ABC Audience & Consumer Affairs

We received no reply from Sara Phillips

ABC Complaints Review Executive correspondence
From: Marc Hendrickx
Sent: Thursday, 30 December 2010 11:57 AM
To: ABC Corporate_Affairs6
Cc: Steve McIntyre
Subject: Re: offending comments on ABC's environment blog
Thanks for your reply K,
As no apology to Mr McIntyre has been posted on the ABC Environment Blog can you please forward this matter on to ABC CRE for further deliberation. The grounds for further investigation are as follows:
1. Absence of independent verification of ABC Moderator's claims by ABC Audience and Consumer affairs. In this case ABC audience and consumer affairs have failed to be independent.
2. The failure in moderation process that allowed the offending comment to be posted and subsequent editorialising by ABC Moderator to support the defamatory post, who in the absence of other advice is assumed to be the author of the blog piece, namely Sara Phillips.
3. Absence of an apology to Mr McIntyre who was defamed by the ABC.
Regards
Marc Hendrickx

from CM
to marc hendrickx
date Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 2:53 PM
subject ABC Complaint - Acknowledgement
Dear Mr Hendrickx
The ABC’s Complaints Review Executive (CRE) has received your complaint concerning a blog posting on an online ABC Environment story published on 30 November 2010.
The CRE will consider the matter against the ABC’s editorial requirements and aims to complete the review by 1 February 2011.
Yours sincerely
CM
Assistant to the Complaints Review Executive

from
Marc Hendrickx
to "CM
cc ABC Corporate_Affairs6
date Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 6:13 AM
subject Re: ABC Complaint - Acknowledgement
Dear C,
Thankyou for the eacknowledgement. Further to the points raised in correspondence with ABC Audience and consumer affairs I challenge the claim that the complaint was not upheld. While the defamatory blog posting may have been moderated in the first instance, clearly the moderation failed to accord with ABC's Code of Conduct. That the moderator can hold such ignorant views appears to support Maurice Newman's claims of Groupthink in the ABC. That the views are held by a senior ABC reporter (Sara Phillips) is flabbergasting and suggests Ms Phillips needs help to distinguish environmental activism from environmental journalism. The biased views help account for the lack of coverage of the work of Mr McIntyre by the ABC.
Regards
Marc Hendrickx

REVIEW OF COMPLAINT
Background
On 24 December 2010 a request for review was received from a NSW reader of the ABC Environment blog, dissatisfied with a response from Audience and Consumer Affairs (A&CA). The complainant was advised that the Complaints Review Executive (CRE)would aim to complete the review by 1 February 2011.
Content
On 30 November 2010, the story Cancun may see the abandonment of the UN process was published by Sara Phillips on the ABC Environment blog with a number of subsequent contributions by members of the public.
Correspondence
On 6 December, the complainant wrote:
“The comments at the bottom of this complaint appear on ABC's Environment Blog under the post "Cancun may see the abandonment of the UN process" by Sara Clarke. The comments are defamatory and should not have been posted by the Blog moderator, contravening the following sections of ABC Online condition of use. I request ABC withdraw the comments and issue an apology to Mr McIntyre. Sections 4.4.1 defamatory, or otherwise unlawful or that it violates laws regarding harassment, discrimination, racial vilification, privacy or contempt;4.4.2 intentionally false or misleading;4.4.4 abusive, offensive or obscene;4.4.5 inappropriate, off topic, repetitive or vexatious. 4.4.9 deliberate provocation of other community members.

A&CA responded on 16 December and advised the complainant that A&CA is responsible for the ABC’s adherence to the Editorial Policies and the Conditions of Use are not editorial standards; they are the conditions under which users contribute to the ABC's interactive services. The item was assessed against Section 9 of the ABC’s Editorial Policies and found to be in keeping with the ABC’s process of user generated comment in that a moderation process was undertaken and that users were given a fair opportunity to contribute their views. In subsequent communication with the complainant, A&CA advised that the moderator of the content was made aware of the complainant’s views and the comments made by “annie” were removed from the blog.
Dissatisfied with the response the complainant replied on 24 December and requested a review by the CRE.
Basis of Assessment
Comments submitted on the ABC’s Environment blog are subject to Section 9 of the ABC Editorial Policies, which sets out the principles and standards relevant to usergenerated content (UGC). In particular the following:
9.4.10 Accuracy and corrections. The ABC cannot reasonably be expected to verify the accuracy of UGC or to correct all inaccuracies in UGC, other than for UGC that is used by the ABC in another content category (see section 9.1.6). However, where the ABC is satisfied it is necessary or appropriate, it may exercise its discretion to edit, remove or clarify UGC that contains an error or is otherwise false or misleading.
9.4.12 Mindful of its duty to maintain its independence and integrity, the ABC will be open to the spectrum of views and give users a fair opportunity to participate.
Assessment
I have read the relevant material contained on the ABC’s Environment blog as well as the email correspondence between the ABC’s A&CA and the complainant. In investigating this matter I note that the moderator of the Environment blog posted the “annie” comment on 3 rd December. Following correspondence between the complainant and the ABC, including additional comments sent to A&CA on 16th December (these comments were brought to the attention of the moderator), the “annie” post was removed from the blog.
This is action which conforms with Section 9 of ABC Editorial Policies, whereby the ABC may exercise discretion by editing or removing UGC considered to be false or misleading.
It also appears that under the terms of the ABC’s Editorial Policies relating to UGC this is all that the ABC is required to do in this matter.
I note the difficult task faced by journalists (in this case online moderators) having to quickly and accurately assess UGC, while maintaining an ongoing conversation with contributors used to rapid responses. Part of that difficult task involves dealing with the unpredictability of defamation law.I note that the complainant claims that the “annie” comment was defamatory, but this has not been legally tested.
In first choosing to post the “annie” comment I find that the Environment blog moderator was applying Editorial Policy 9.4.12 i.e. treating the “annie” comment as one which was within the spectrum of views.
I conclude that the moderation process did take place, as required, and users were given a fair opportunity to participate.
Finding
Having assessed the content and the concerns of the complainant I consider that ABC editorial requirements were met. Therefore the complaint is not upheld.
MARK BOWLING
COMPLAINTS REVIEW EXECUTIVE
DATE: 27 January 2011