FOI request turned down: Help Annabel!

ABC's Annabel Crabb recently lamented the lack of cooperation from the Public Service when it comes to releasing government documents. Perhaps she would be willing to assist me with an FOI request that has run into trouble?
It is with some irony (given that ABC are a member of the Right to Know Coalition) that today I received notification from the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner, that in my FOI request for ABC documents it has sided with the ABC and rejected it. Readers may recall I had hoped to establish the nature of internal correspondence between ABC's Audience and Consumer Affairs branch and its news division over its reporting of purported death threats sent to climate scientists. It seemed to us on the evidence available that ACA had acted independently of ABC news in replying to us. Recall in May this year we wrote:

Dear  ABC,

ABC Audience and consumer affairs provided the following comment in reply to a complaint I made on 10 May at 9:21pm about missing news of the privacy commissioners findings on ANU death threat emails  "Audience and Consumer Affairs does not consider there is a case to correct the stories."  I received the reply from your Mr Maley at 10.39am on May 11. 

Mr Maley stated in his email that he had consulted ABC News   "In the interests of procedural fairness, we have also sought and considered material from ABC News." However at  May 11, 2012 09:06:07am, over an hour before his reply to me, ABC News posted the following story:FOI emails reveal threats to climate scientists. on its website (this story subsequently corrected on 21 May).

Can you please confirm whether there was in fact any consultation between ABC News and ABC Audience and Consumer Affairs. On face value it seems there was no consultation at all. How else do you explain the timing?

As ABC were not forthcoming we looked to FOI to provide correspondence between ACA and News that might reveal what occurred. So we requested:
-emails and phone records concerning a complaint I submitted to ABC Audience and Consumer Affairs on 10 May 2012; and

-copies of all emails and phone records between ABC Audience and Consumer Affairs and ABC News between the period 3 May 2012 to 6 June 2012 dealing with complaints or other issues stemming from a number of ABC news reports.

The information commissioner has sided with the ABC and ruled the documents are exempt from the provisions of the FOI act as they somehow relate to programming.


Given that the Federal Court has clearly found that "letters of complaint about the ABC's programs and responses to those complaints on the same subject as well as documents internal to the ABC on this subject" fall within the definition of program material, it would appear that the ABC's decision on your freedom of information request was correct. As such, without further explanation of why your request and the ABC's decision is not consistent with the view expressed by the Federal Court I must conclude that your application is lacking in substance. As such I intend to finalise your application for 1C review unless you provide me with reasons to reconsider this decision.


It seems ABC use this excuse to hide all its dirty linen and the Information Commissioner lacks the will to rule otherwise. Perhaps with the right lobbying and the election of a government interested in accountability, ABC might be forced to open its dark chamber. Until then perhaps ABC should remove itself from the right to know coalition.

Cracking ABC's chamber of secrets-review requested

Our request for a review of ABC's recent decision to withhold internal (non-program) correspondence requested under FOI that related to complaints about its misleading  and erroneous coverage of purported ANU death threats has been sent to the Information Commissioner.

Given it is successful we would expect ABC to provide a reasonable cost estimate for delivery of the documents. However based on the amount requested by ANU  to comply with the release of documents requested under FOI by Simon Turnhil, it seems ABC will have another card to play in their attempts to avoid public scrutiny and accountability.

Cracking ABC's chamber of secrets

The ABC is one of the only parts of the public sector that is virtually unaccountable to parliament and the public. It is not responsible to its minister, large parts of its operations are exempt from FOI and its governing board rules with a wet sponge. 


Back in 2010 we tried to open ABC's chamber of secrets through an FOI request for internal correspondence about ABC's faulty climate timeline. It didn't succeed thanks to provisions in the act that render aspects of the ABC exempt from FOI.

As Chris Merritt reports in today's Australian newspaper (ABC tries again on death threats report)

we are having another crack at ABC's chamber of secrets, with an FOI request regarding internal correspondence related to complaints about its faulty reporting about death threats at ANU. ABC have responded with their standard line that the correspondence is exempt: from ABC's head of corporate governance Judith Maude received June 5, 2012:

I refer to your email of 30 May 2012 in which you sought access to documents under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (the FOI Act). Specifically, you have requested access to “copies of email communications or phone records between ABC Audience and Consumer Affairs Mark Maley and ABC News between the period 9:21 pm 10/05/12 and 11am on May 11, 2012.  Specifically communications purportedly dealing with a complaint I submitted to ABC Audience and Consumer Affairs on May 10 at 21:12”.

The documents you have sought access to are outside the scope of the FOI Act.

Under section 7(2) and Part 2 of Schedule II of the FOI Act, the ABC is exempt from the operation of the Act in relation to documents that relate “to its program material and datacasting content”. The Federal Court of Australia considered the scope of this exclusion in Australian Broadcasting Corporation v The University of Technology, Sydney [2006] FCA964, and decided that the exclusion applies to “program material” (such as scripts and tapes) as well as any document that has a “direct or indirect relationship to program material”.

I am satisfied that the documents you have described would have a direct relationship with the ABC’s program material such that they fall outside the operation of the FOI Act.

If you are dissatisfied with this decision you can apply for Internal or Information Commissioner (IC) Review. You do not have to apply for Internal Review before seeking IC Review. Information about your review rights is attached.

The FOI will initially be expanded to request all correspondence between ABC News and ABC Audience and Consumer Affairs relating to ABC's two erroneous reports (FOI emails reveal abuse of climate scientists and Climate scientist abuse emails released) rather than just the narrow window we initially requested. We will inevitably receive another letter like the above which will then be passed onto the Information Commissioner for review. In our opinion, internal correspondence about complaints do not constitute "Program Material". They are an important part of ABC's governance and accountability provisions and should be open to public scrutiny. We shall see what the information commissioner thinks of it.

Here's what Sen John Faulkner had to say about changes to FOI made by the government in early 2009:
"Sen Faulkner will be taking steps outside of the legislative process, sending personal letters to agency heads, which will highlight the need to embrace the new “pro-disclosure” culture.
These changes will help to create “a shift from the culture of secrecy we saw under the last Government to one of openness and transparency,” he said."
Source http://www.reportage.uts.edu.au/media/detail.cfm?ItemId=14713
It appears none of those letters found their way to the ABC.

In the meantime we are still waiting for that brave whistle, who might blow some of the dust hiding our Aunty's light.

More Death Threat corrections-or are they updates?

Twelve months after they first covered purported death threats to climate scientists at ANU, the ABC get around to making an editorial comment on that article...(preserved here just it case it disappears)

UPDATE (June 4 2012):  Following  the release  of specific emails under Freedom of Information request, climate change sceptics have claimed that the released emails contradict suggestions that any death threats were received, but a spokesperson for the ANU says the university is standing by its claims that death threats were received. Questions have also been raised about whether one of the released emails did, in fact, constitute a threat to use a gun, with a person involved in the kangaroo culling program claiming the comments were made by him, and were in no way intended as a threat. The specific emails released under FOI were found by the Privacy Commissioner to contain abuse, but not overt threats.

We raised the issue of the wording with ABC's Alan Sunderland who offered this response:

Dear Marc,
I note that it was an update, not a correction.
The reference to "climate change sceptics" was not specifically a reference to you at all, but to the response from a range of sources.
I think the broad term is accurate in its use. I am aware of the sensitivity and level of contest around the use of terms like "climate change deniers", but I have always considered "sceptic" to be a neutral and accurate description to cover the broad range of views among those who question what they see as the "consensus" view. The Macquarie defines a sceptic as " someone who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be knowledge.", which I think is appropriate in the circumstances.

Score one for the climate sceptics, who it seems include the Privacy Commissioner. ABC News yet to formally report on the Commissioners findings. All reference to the Privacy Commissions findings on documents requested by ACM's Simon Turnill contained in corrections, editorial comments or in Mediawatch waffle. As Harry Hoo says "Amazing".

Simon at ACM points out that those ANU death threats are yet to be released.

Score +1

ANU Death Threats a final request

The Australian's editorial in today's paper makes a simple request: Correct your errors, Mr Holmes

"IT'S no surprise that the ABC's Media Watch has no bite when it comes to scrutinising the national broadcaster's own news coverage. On Monday night it lost its bark as well. Host Jonathan Holmes fell silent over an issue that he bungled badly the week before -- the ABC's erroneous report in June last year that: "Several of Australia's top climate change scientists at the Australian National University have been subjected to a campaign of death threats, forcing the university to tighten security."

The sensationalised story, which followed up a report in The Canberra Times, gained such wide airplay on radio, on television and online that it was picked up internationally by The Guardian and the scientific journal Nature, fuelling a perception that climate sceptics are dangerous fanatics.

The problem was that a crucial element of the story was wrong, which the ABC now concedes -- sort of -- in a "clarification" buried deep on its website. It is yet to correct the record on radio or television....We expect him to correct his mistakes next Monday."

Apparently "Media Watch tries to monitor some of the major media outlets but there's no way our small team can keep track of all the media's crazy and unethical behaviour or even all the stories that are just plain wrong.We rely on tip-offs from our audience for many of our stories. If you know something about the media that we should know, please fill out the form below."

Here's a link to that form, why not help them out. Tip offs

ANU Death Threats a final word

Is this ABC's new News motto?  

We leave the final word on this to the Chief Scientist Ian Chubb, who is reported today in The Australian saying: "For the record, there were no alleged death threats except when journalists picked up the story."


Which journos? How about these....

ABC NEWS June 04, 2011 10:48:00 - Death threats sent to top climate scientists

Several of Australia's top climate change scientists at the Australian National University have been subjected to a campaign of death threats, forcing the university to tighten security.

Those corrections again...

ANU emails
Posted Thu May 24, 2012 4:13pm AEST
News Online: On May 11, the ABC reported on the release under FOI of a number of emails relating to climate change received by staff at the ANU. The story should have made clear that the emails were found to be abusive, but NOT to constitute death threats or clear threats of violence. However, the ANU maintains that staff have received death threats in other communications not released under the FOI action. The story has been clarified and updated. View the report.

Climate scientist abuse emails released

Editor’s Note (May 25): Questions have been raised about whether one of the released emails did, in fact, constitute a threat to use a gun, with a person involved in the kangaroo culling program claiming the comments were made by him, and were in no way intended as a threat. This story also has been amended to clarify that the specific emails released under FOI contain abuse, but not overt threats.

FOI emails reveal abuse of climate scientists
UPDATE (May 21): The release of these emails under Freedom of Information followed reports last year (see related stories above) that ANU scientists had received death threats. Climate change sceptics have claimed that the released emails contradict suggestions that any death threats were received, but a spokesperson for the ANU says the university is standing by its claims that death threats were received. Questions have also been raised about whether one of the released emails did, in fact, constitute a threat to use a gun, with a person involved in the kangaroo culling program claiming the comments were made by him, and were in no way intended as a threat.

Editor's note (May 24): This story has been amended to clarify that the specific emails released under FOI were found by the Privacy Commissioner to contain abuse, but not overt threats.

Further death threat corrections

The Australian add to their reports about corrections ABC have made to its recent reporting about the release of "death threat" emails from ANU following an FOI.
ABC issues correction on ANU scientists email threats claim
Here's another correction not covered in the Australian's report, from an article that went missing but has now returned...
Climate scientist abuse emails released
Editor’s Note (May 25): Questions have been raised about whether one of the released emails did, in fact, constitute a threat to use a gun, with a person involved in the kangaroo culling program claiming the comments were made by him, and were in no way intended as a threat. This story also has been amended to clarify that the specific emails released under FOI contain abuse, but not overt threats. 

An exploration of Groupthink at the ABC

Update: see also Simon's comments at Australian Climate Madness. Simon's successful FOI request for ANU's emails sparked the current controversy.

The Australian has a series of articles in today's paper that examines the deleterious effects of "Groupthink" at the ABC.

In the first Chris Kenny delves into the way Groupthink has spread its tentacles through the ABC. There is a bright light however, exemplified by ABC reporters who work outside ABC's inner city Ultimo and Melbourne latte lines.

Groupthink takes over at national broadcaster

"Critics see the problem at the ABC as too much news judgment, opinion and perspective flowing in the same direction on a range of key issues. The ABC tends to favour an alarmist view on climate change, open borders approach on asylum-seekers, rights over responsibilities in indigenous affairs, antagonism towards Christianity but tolerance for Islam, reverence for the UN, animus towards the US, enthusiasm for gay marriage, suspicion about business and development, and deference to the green agenda. "

"Yet it can be argued that this "collection of low-lying tribes" - as one senior ABC journalist describes the organisation - acts as a counter to groupthink, ensuring that somewhere in the vast empire, always, dissent can flourish. And few would argue, for instance, that ABC regional radio stations aren't more entwined with their communities."

This blog gets a mention in the second article by Legal Affairs editor Chris Merritt. that discusses further issues surrounding reporting of the ANU "Death Threat" emails.

The world according to ABC has its own climate

"THE only uncontested lesson from the furore over the ABC's coverage of climate change is this: those inside the national broadcaster see the world very differently from their external critics."

"Everything else is the subject of deeply held views that are as polarised as they are sincere.

Alan Sunderland, head of policy at ABC news, gives every indication of being a reasonable man. But so does Marc Hendrickx, who runs the blog ABC News Watch. He has been left dumbfounded at what he sees as the national broadcaster's inability to accept that when it comes to climate change, the organisation is riddled with groupthink that diminishes its journalism on this subject.

Even when the ABC qualifies earlier reports on climate change - as it did this week - it does so in a way that Hendrickx believes is grudging and inadequate."

Our series of articles exploring aspects of ABC's reporting on Climate change can be found under the Climate coverage at the ABC page at the top right.

There's also a related piece in today's Australian by Christopher Booker about bias at the BBC mothership.
BBC's climate change scam

No doubt the Oz will carry contesting opinions on the above in next week's editions.

Questions for A&CA

Dear  ABC,

ABC Audience and consumer affairs provided the following comment in reply to a complaint I made on 10 May at 9:21pm about missing news of the privacy commissioners findings on ANU death threat emails  "Audience and Consumer Affairs does not consider there is a case to correct the stories."  I received the reply from your Mr Maley at 10.39am on May 11. 

Mr Maley stated in his email that he had consulted ABC News   "In the interests of procedural fairness, we have also sought and considered material from ABC News." However at  May 11, 2012 09:06:07am, over an hour before his reply to me, ABC News posted the following story:FOI emails reveal threats to climate scientists. on its website (this story subsequently corrected on 21 May).

Can you please confirm whether there was in fact any consultation between ABC News and ABC Audience and Consumer Affairs. On face value it seems there was no consultation at all. How else do you explain the timing?

Regards

ABC NEWS WATCH

Death threat back story

This blog gets a mention in a report in today's Australian (The Science is in: we were right on death threat emails)  that follows up on Media Watch's misleading broadcast on Monday. The Oz's Chris Merritt outlines point by point where Media Watch failed to accurately report on the media's coverage of so called ANU "Death Threat" emails, and where it misrepresented the Australian's reporting. The emails were released following an FOI request to ANU by Simon Turnill and a decision by the Privacy Commissioner. These emails demonstrate that ABC's reporting of June last year and last week was hopelessly in error. Of those emails the Privacy Commissioner (and not "climate change sceptics"-see below)  found that 10 of 11 documents, all emails, "do not contain threats to kill" and the other "could be regarded as intimidating and at its highest perhaps alluding to a threat". The "threat" described in the 11th email has since been shown to have been a mis-understanding and over reaction to the production of a shooting licence at an ANU hosted event. See John Coochey's explanation to Media Watch (that was also misrepresented by Jonathan Holmes).

Chris Merritt covers our request for ABC to update its June 2011 story given the appearance of new facts, namely the Privacy Commissioners report and coverage by The Australian. Following The Australian's report of the 3 May I was keeping an eye on ABC News to see whether they would report on it. After nothing appeared after more than a week, I sent this simple question to ABC Audience and Consumer Affairs (sent 10/05/12 @ 21:21).

Subject: correct an old story
Comments: Last year ABC reported on death threats made to scientists. It now seems these were false. When can we expect a correction or story update?

Here's the reply from the so called "independent" ABC Audience and Consumer Affairs division, who it now seems are now attempting to determine what constitutes news at our ABC (Ed. is that a case of the wag tailing the dog?)

Received Fri, May 11, 2012 at 10:39 AM

RE: correct an old story 

Thank you for your email of 11 May concerning the story “Death threats sent to top climate scientists”.

As your correspondence raised concerns of a lack of accuracy, your email was referred to Audience and Consumer Affairs for consideration and response. The unit is separate and independent from ABC program areas and is responsible for investigating complaints alleging a broadcast or publication was in contravention of the ABC's editorial standards. In light of your concerns, we have reviewed the story and assessed them against the ABC’s editorial requirements for accuracy, as outlined in section 2 of the ABC’s Editorial Policies:http://www.abc.net.au/corp/pubs/edpols.htm.  In the interests of procedural fairness, we have also sought and considered material from ABC News.

In relation to the allegations that climate scientists at the ANU were subject to threats, the Privacy Commissioner made a finding in relation to the material he was presented with, he did not make, and could not make, a finding about whether there were threats made. The ANU maintains that most of the emails were discarded and of course there is no record of the phone calls or threats that were made in person. As the Commissioner specifically noted:  “Correspondence from the ANU to the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner indicates that emails and records of calls containing abuse were not generally retained before the FOI request”. 

Neither the ANU, the scientists concerned nor scientists from other institutions who reported similar threats, have withdrawn the claims. The implication of your email is that a large number of very reputable scientists fabricated these threats; there is no reason to conclude that that is the case on the basis of the Privacy Commissioner’s finding. Audience and Consumer Affairs does not consider there is a case to correct the stories.

Thank you for taking the time to write; your feedback is appreciated.

For your reference, the ABC Editorial Policies are available online at http://www.abc.net.au/corp/pubs/edpols.htm   

Yours sincerely

Mark Maley

Audience & Consumer Affairs

The time on ABC's report on May 11 is First posted May 11, 2012 09:06:07. It seems ABC NEWS decided the story worth covering after all despite considerations from Mr Maley. Its reporting so bad however that the following editorial explanation was required. The explanation and the story still omits to mention what the independent findings of the Privacy Commissioner about the emails actually were. That is that none of the 11 emails were death threats. Instead the ABC suggests it was  based on the opinion of Climate change sceptics. And just think our taxes paid for this woeful reporting and the subsequent hopelessly inaccurate and misleading  MediaWatch report.

UPDATE (May 21): The release of these emails under Freedom of Information followed reports last year (see related stories above) that ANU scientists had received death threats. Climate change sceptics have claimed that the released emails contradict suggestions that any death threats were received, but a spokesperson for the ANU says the university is standing by its claims that death threats were received. Questions have also been raised about whether one of the released emails did, in fact, constitute a threat to use a gun, with a person involved in the kangaroo culling program claiming the comments were made by him, and were in no way intended as a threat.

Climate Death Threats Media Watchers play deaf dumb blind

Updated from last night.
Update: The Australian comments HERE
On tonight's Mediawatch program Jonathan Holmes seemed to suggest the Canberra Times did not report that ANU scientists were subject to death threats. From the transcript Holmes smugly states "But hang on, The Canberra Times article did not report that death threats had been made to academics at the ANU." As a result it suggested that The Australian's recent article on the issue was wrong. That CT article did not specifically mention death threats but these articles from the Canberra Times (Below) from last year did. And based on these, and the absence of any police investigation, the ANU claims are indeed debunked.

Article HERE

or how about this ONE...

Seems the Canberra Times article that Media Watch featured is no longer online...

UPDATE Media Watch have a PDF HERE

Page Not Found.

We could not find the page you requested.

The reporting on this issue by all parties is somewhat confused, some of the confusion caused by those involved. As to the other "death threats", we await the outcome of police investigations (Ed Are there any?).

ABC's flawed DT reporting Part 2

Australian Climate Madness has an update on ABC's flawed death threat reports.
It seems the story has been updated somewhat, with the following editorial comment added to one of its stories:
UPDATE (May 21^st) The release of these emails under Freedom of Information followed reports last year that ANU scientists had received death threats. Climate change sceptics have claimed that the released emails contradict suggestions that any death threats were received, but a spokesperson for the ANU says the university is standing by its claims that death threats were received. Questions have also been raised about whether one of the released emails did, in fact, constitute a threat to use a gun, with a person involved in the kangaroo culling program claiming the comments were made by him, and were in no way intended as a threat.

We asked Alan Sunderland over the weekend (ABC's Head of News Policy) what happened to a similar story ABC posted on May 16 that also claimed:
that released emails " include an email describing a physical threat to use a gun against an academic because the conference participant reportedly disagreed with the climate change research."  (The released emails and subsequent reporting shows this is utter BS).

Here's Alan's response received this evening (Thanks Alan):

As far as I can tell, based on advice from Radio Australia, the story wasn't pulled, but it may have been affected by a technical glitch as there are currently some problems with elements of the Radio Australia redesigned site.

Certainly, the same story appears to have been posted to two different places on the Radio Australia site:-

http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/international/2012-05-11/climate-scientist-abuse-emails-released/941900
http://www.radioaustralianews.net.au/stories/201205/3500473.htm

The first one has been up continuously; the second one seems to have a broken link at the moment. But in one place or another, the story remained live on the RA site, as it did on our main site.

Furthermore, in the light of the ongoing controversy over elements of the details, and the contested views put forward about aspects of the story, it has now been updated to provide further information.

The fundamental point, however, remains the same: the ANU reported a year ago that it had received death threats and other abusive and/or threatening messages, and they have confirmed that they stand by this despite the release of the recent emails. 

As ACM point out it seems those "Sceptics" include privacy commissioner Timothy Pilgrim!

Score +1

ABC's flawed DT reporting

In The AUSTRALIAN  today:
ABC 'climate death threats' reports undermined

"THE accuracy of the ABC's reporting on climate change has been called into question by an activist who uncovered documentary evidence that undermines one of the national broadcaster's most sensational reports on the subject.

Climate change blogger Simon Turnill told The Weekend Australian the contents of 11 emails he uncovered using the Freedom of Information Act were at odds with last year's ABC report that death threats had been made against climate scientists at the Australian National University.

Then, when the ABC reported on the contents of those emails after they were uncovered, it did so in a manner that he regarded as being incomplete. The ABC neglected to include the key fact that there was no evidence in those emails of death threats at ANU, contrary to previous ABC reports. Mr Turnill said he was disappointed but not surprised because he believed the ABC's approach to climate change "toes the consensus line" and anyone who challenged the orthodoxy received short shrift."

MEANWHILE MORE DECEPTIVE REPORTS
Here's an example of how ABC were reporting the so called death threats this week, (this is after they were released!):
Climate scientist abuse emails released

According to the ABC the emails " include an email describing a physical threat to use a gun against an academic because the conference participant reportedly disagreed with the climate change research." 

This is Bullshit! The story has now removed from ABC's website following our request for more information, so I guess ABC agree.

We asked head of policy for news, Alan Sunderland for an explanation

Hi Alan, 

I note that the article posted on the Radio Australia website on May 16 titled "Climate scientist abuse emails released" in which claims were made (falsely) that released emails " include an email describing a physical threat to use a gun against an academic because the conference participant reportedly disagreed with the climate change research." has been removed from ABC's website. To my knowledge ABC have not provided an on air, or online correction to the false claims made in this report. Is it the ABC's intention to allow these errors to go uncorrected with no apology provided to those falsely implicated?

Can you also please explain why the article was removed and an editorial note was not simply added. I was hoping to link to the article as another example of misrepresentation by the ABC on this issue but it's no longer there.  I don't suppose you are able to provide a copy of the full text.

Regards

Marc Hendrickx

ABC NEWS WATCH

Death threat beat up

We covered ABC's headline from June 4 2011: Death threats sent to top climate scientists in the following post: Death threats a beat up

Report in today's Australian Newspaper confirms early suspicions: Climate scientists' claims of email death threats go up in smoke
"CLAIMS that some of Australia's leading climate change scientists were subjected to death threats as part of a vicious and unrelenting email campaign have been debunked by the Privacy Commissioner."
How long will it take ABC to provide an update?

Congratulations to Simon Turnill for persisting with an FOI request that lifted the covers on these exaggerated claims. Congratulations also to the Privacy Commissioner, Timothy Pilgrim who according to The Australian "was called in to adjudicate on a Freedom of Information application in relation to Fairfax and ABC reports last June alleging that Australian National University climate change researchers were facing the ongoing campaign and had been moved to "more secure buildings" following explicit threats.
In a six-page ruling made last week, Mr Pilgrim found that 10 of 11 documents, all emails, "do not contain threats to kill" and the other "could be regarded as intimidating and at its highest perhaps alluding to a threat".

If only our own FOI requests met with similar success!



Update: The Catallaxy Files asks a tough question: The other point to consider is whether the ABC reported (ed-reporter)  read the emails before writing the story. If so, why were they reported as being death-threats and if not, why not?

Death threats a beat up

Turns out the recent claims aired by ABC news (twice) and others about death threats to Australian Climate Scientists is a beat up, based on just two threats, one posted in 2006-07, and the other an offhand remark made in person, 12 months ago. The threats so innocuous they were not officially reported to police.

Today's Telegraph have the facts. We look forward to seeing ABC's correction, or will they let their audience continue to be mis-informed about the nature of the threats?

Carbon death threats go cold

CLAIMS prominent climate change scientists had recently received death threats have been revealed as an opportunistic ploy, with the Australian National University admitting that they occurred up to five years ago.

Only two of ANU's climate change scientists allegedly received death threats, the first in a letter posted in 2006-2007 and the other an offhand remark made in person 12 months ago.

Neither was officially reported to ACT Police or Australian Federal Police, despite such crimes carrying a 10-year prison sentence.

The outdated threats raised question marks over the timing of their release to the public, with claims they were aired last week to draw sympathy to scientists and their climate change cause.

The university denied it was creating a ruse, maintaining the initial report, in the Fairfax-ownedCanberra Times last week, failed to indicate when the threats were made.Reports also suggested the threats had forced the ANU to lock away its climate change scientists and policy advisers in a high-security complex. The Daily Telegraph has discovered the nine scientists and staff in question were merely given keyless swipe cards - routine security measures taken last year.

Tim Blair has more under the header...False Alarmists

UPDATE May 3, 2012. Claims Debunked!