Update - Pacific Islands story wrong journal quoted

ABC have replied to our request they amend a report titled "Pacific islands growing, not sinking" posted ABC News Online 3/6/2010 to provide the correct primary source. The report covered recent research that indicates that many low-lying Pacific islands are growing, not sinking, as claimed by the IPCC. In its report the ABC suggests the findings were published in New Scientist magazine "The findings, published in the magazine New Scientist". As we demonstrated in our complaint the findings were actually published in the journal Global and Planetary Change. The journal article is by Andrew Webb and Paul Kench and is titled "The dynamic response of reef islands to sea level rise: evidence from multi-decadal analysis of island change in the central pacific". The DOI is http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2010.05.003

ABC's statement about the source of the work is misleading, especially in the context of publication of peer reviewed science. We have asked ABC Complaints Review Executive to review the complaint lest we end up with secondary sources being made to appear as primary in future ABC reports. Based on ABC's assessment below the following statement would be considered passable:

"Findings published in the Sydney Morning Herald suggest that..."

"Recent research published in Womens Day..."

"Research published in the National Inquirer finds..."

We have suggested once again ABC correctly attribute the source of the research findings and amend their report.

The full reply appears below...

Received 27/7/2010

Thank you for your email of 3 June concerning the ABC News Online article “Pacific islands growing, not sinking” published that day. Please accept my apologies for the delay in responding.

In keeping with ABC complaint handling procedures, your concerns have been considered by Audience and Consumer Affairs, a unit separate to and independent from ABC program areas. In light of your concerns, we have assessed the sentence of the article to which you refer against the ABC’s editorial requirement for accuracy in news and current affairs content, as outlined in section 5.2.2(c) 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.

The story reported that new research had identified that many low-lying Pacific islands are growing, not sinking, challenging the view that Pacific islands are sinking due to rising sea levels associated with climate change. As you point out, the story referred to the findings as having been published in the magazine New Scientist. New Scientist is a weekly science magazine and website providing coverage of recent developments in science and technology, and it published a story about the research and its findings:http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627633.700-shapeshifting-islands-defy-sealevel-rise.html.

On review, Audience and Consumer Affairs do not agree the article’s reference to the findings having been published in New Scientist magazine was inaccurate. As noted above, details of the research and its findings were published in New Scientist. While we appreciate that the full research paper was published in the peer-reviewed journal to which you refer, and this may be of interest to some readers, we are satisfied that reference to the findings being published in New Scientist magazine was accurate and in keeping with section 5.2.2(c) of the ABC’s Editorial Policies.

Notwithstanding this, please be assured that your comments have been noted and conveyed to ABC News management. Thank you again for taking the time to write, and for your interest in the ABC. For your reference, a copy of the ABC Code of Practice is available at: http://www.abc.net.au/corp/pubs/documents/200806_codeofpractice-revised_2008.pdf.

Yours sincerely

Audience & Consumer Affairs

ABC News 24 a black hole

COMMENT: According to The Australian  ABC pledges improvements to 24-hour news


Prior to News 24, ABC News Radio was already providing an effective 24 hour news service, and it was always possible for important breaking news to be broadcast on ABC1 by interrupting into scheduled programming. In creating ABC News 24, not only did ABC duplicate services already satisfactorily provided by the private sector, it duplicated its own internal services with no marked improvement. ABC have now generated a singularity in its Ultimo head quarters that threatens to suck the rest of the organisation in with it.
We have shown ABC News already does less with more, and now by spreading itself more and more thinly with is News 24 channel it has succeeded in undermining the quality of its own product.
Based on its performance to date we suggest scrapping it and sinking the funds into more investigative journalism. Perhaps Auntie can start with an investigation into its own Groupthink culture.

in the MSM

The Media Diary Blog in Yesterday's Australian caught our eye...

More people say less

IN January, Melbourne-based media commentator Margaret Simons ruffled feathers when she said the ABC, with 900 journalists, doesn’t break much news. The Australian said much the same in a fiery editorial on Saturday.

But how to quantify such a thing? Another media commentator, Marc Hendrickx, has had a go on his website, ABC News Watch. He says the total number of stories posted in the ABC new archive for June 2010 was 6666 (compared with 7230 in 2003, and 7999 in 2007). By contrast, the number of staff in 2003 was 766, compared with about 942 today. He says: “Productivity is at a record low of just 7.07 stories per staff member for the month (compared with 9.4 stories per month in 2003).”

http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/mediadiary/index.php/australianmedia/comments/not_quite_all_the_news_in_24_hours/

See the results of the Productivity Survey HERE

From the vault - no penguins in the Arctic

Look familiar? See notes below

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Also available from istockphoto:

World Today: two versus one

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

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

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

ABC Bias in Election coverage

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

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

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

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

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

Less opinion and more news needed at the ABC

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

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

ETS Survey results muddy the water

Got my mojo working,

but it just don't work on you

Muddy Waters "Got my mojo working"

UPDATED BELOW

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


More Muddy Waters HERE

H/T to Australian Climate Madness


ABC reply received 16 August 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yours sincerely

Audience & Consumer Affairs