T W A W K I

The world as we know it

ABC bias – ABC corporate affairs responds

A couple of weeks ago the Drum decided not to publish a response from Professor Bob Carter on climate change. (QUADRANT, Andrew Bolt, Joanne Nova all covered the topic) so I decided to write to the ABC board to complain about its actions as follows;

Subject: Bias and discrimination

Comments: The ABC continues to have complete disregard for discrimination and bias when it comes to the topic of climate change. In an ongoing litany of examples where those who are skeptical of global warming are discriminated against by the ABC by either being criticised or excluded from having a say the latest example where Professor Bob Carter has his opinions rejected by ‘The Drum’ is an example of the ongoing travesty against freedom of speech continually exhibited by the ABC. The ABC is there to present information not to censor it, it is there for a wide variety of opinions and not just it’s own select propaganda.

Could you please advise what actions will be taken to remedy the ongoing discrimination and bias by the ABC against those who are skeptical of climate change.

I look forward to your response.

More here;

http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2010/03/abc-gags-bob-carter

And here;

http://twawki.com/2010/03/04/who-owns-the-abc/

To which they have responded as follows;

Dear Mr McIntyre

Thank you for your email of 4 March concerning the ABC’s The Drum website. In line with ABC complaints procedures, your concerns have been investigated by Audience and Consumer Affairs, a unit which is separate to and independent of content making areas within the ABC.

The Drum brings together analysis and opinion pieces on a range of subjects, and provides opportunities for ABC audiences to comment and share their views. The Drum features analysis pieces by ABC journalists, as well as opinion pieces from people outside the ABC. The opinion pieces are presented on the Unleashed area of the site, which signposts to audience that the content is opinion by the site banner describing it as “robust community debate”. The ABC does not endorse the opinions expressed in the articles published on Unleashed.

The content on Unleashed is classified ‘opinion content’ for the purposes of the ABC’s editorial standards. As outlined in clause 4.3 of the ABC Code of Practice, opinion content must demonstrate impartiality through the presentation of a diversity of perspectives across a network or platform in an appropriate timeframe. Unleashed has featured numerous articles in recent weeks and months on the subject of climate change, presenting a diversity of views, including those from the sceptical side of the debate. Most recently this has included pieces from Dr Alan Moran, Tom Switzer, Joanne Nova, and Emeritus Professor Garth Paltridge, and has previously included articles by Professors Ian Plimer and Bob Carter.

I am advised that the decision to not publish the recent article by Professor Bob Carter on Unleashed was made on the basis of an independent editorial determination. I understand that an editorial decision was made to instead publish pieces commissioned from other writers from the sceptical side of the climate change debate, namely Joanne Nova and Emeritus Professor Garth Paltridge. As you may appreciate, all media outlets including the ABC reserve the right to select which stories and articles are published or broadcast. Many pieces commissioned or submitted to Unleashed are ultimately rejected, because of space constraints or editorial decisions; conversely, many pieces are run on Unleashed after they were rejected by other outlets.

On review, noting the range of articles on the subject published on Unleashed, Audience and Consumer Affairs do not agree that the site has discriminated against those who are sceptical of climate change. Instead, we are satisfied that Unleashed has presented a wide range of perspectives from a variety of authors on both sides of the debate, in keeping with the ABC’s editorial requirement for impartiality in opinion content. Nonetheless, please be assured that your comments have been noted and conveyed to the editors of Unleashed. Articles on Unleashed remain available online for viewing, and for readers to post their views in response, in keeping with the site’s intention to promote robust community debate. We would encourage you to participate in the online message boards and contribute to the discussion: http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/.

Thank you again for taking the time to share your concerns with us, 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

Kirsten McLeod
Audience & Consumer Affairs

In other words they will do nothing! What is becoming increasingly obvious is how out of touch these people in positions of power in government are to both reasonable fairness and the general public sentiment. Their ivory towers are becoming even more isolated.

ABCs iron curtain descends

ABC fails to mention …

ABC chairman identifies bias“contrary views on climate change have not been tolerated (by the ABC) and those who express them have been labelled and mocked.”

ABC media eco-evangelists

ABC pushing the propaganda

It seems part of the problem with the ABC is those who are meant to be keeping it in line and impartial are as biased as some of the presenters. It would seem Ms McLeod is having huge problems seeing what is so blatantly obvious to all of us including the ABC chairman – that the ABC is biased! (a similar problem exists at the Press Council).

To borrow a phrase from Janet Albrechsten An organisation whose first reflex is to reject even the most measured criticism will end up undermining its reputation and its legitimacy”. Not only did the ABC refuse to publish the measured criticisms of Bob Carter but they have also rejected any criticism of their bias. Their actions on both of these show that the ABC no longer has any legitimacy as a public broadcaster. If the ABC is to survive and have any credibility those responsible for this ongoing bias and whitewash should be stood down.

As poster Herman says the only solution is to have their funding withdrawn. Good idea to contact your local political representative and strongly suggest that this action is supported!

……………………………………………………………………………………

The folly of ABC’s self assessment, How rush rush Rudd lost your billions, The eco elite pat each other on the back, Alarmists caught out in their own web of lies and deceit,

More from poster Elio over at Andrew Bolt’s blog about how most of the ‘rural’ stations are in fact not very ‘rural’;

Installment 3 of the CSIRO+BoM “robust, peer-reviewed” climate report – this time looking at the Reference Climate Station (RCS) Network with the help of Google Earth. The RCS is the BoM’s subset of monitoring stations used for “high quality, long-term climate monitoring” (their words, not mine).

According to the BoM website, the stations are selected for their “location in an area away from large urban centres”. In all probability, this is the set of stations that was used for the CSIRO+BoM work of fiction.

The RCS comprises 103 stations, covering all states and territories, plus the Antarctic Territory and several offshore islands.

An analysis of these 103 stations shows that:
– 49 (47.6%) are airports (including 6 RAAF/RAN air bases)
– 16 (15.5%) are Post Offices or locations within a population centre
– 14 (13.66%) are locations just outside a town
– 9 (8.7%) are located at lighthouses (big lumps of cement)
– 15 (14.6%) are locations that could be classified as “rural”

So, it appears that of the locations selected for Australia’s “high quality, long-term climate monitoring”, nearly half are at airports, and over a quarter are in or adjacent to population centres. Even most of the Antarctic stations are located amongst the settlements.

From reading the CSIRO+BoM report, it is fairly obvious that the RCS Network has provided the data for the report. The giveaway is the start year for the temperture report: “Trend in mean temperature 1960-2009”. The reason they have had to select 1960 as their start year is blatant cherry picking – 36 (35%) of the RCS stations weren’t commissioned until after 1969. To go back any further would pose a real credibility problem – only 30 of the stations are more than 70 years old.

The report is political propaganda and a complete fraud.

Eloi (Reply)
Thu 18 Mar 10 (12:10am)

ETS blamed for up to 64% hike in electricity prices – wheres the prices watchdog when you need them?


Filed under: Uncategorized

2 Responses

  1. Herman Dobrowolski says:

    Some 2-3 years ago, I corresponded with this ABC person over much the same topics. I got the same replies. double speak, refusal to accept that their code of conduct had been violated and straight-out lies.

    I feel the only solution is withdrawal of funding.

    • twawki says:

      So it’s an ongoing endemic problem then. Yeah I figured the letter I got was possible a standard letter that has been sent to many other – and yes I think a withdrawal of funding might be the best solution – why pay for a propaganda service when we were meant to be getting an unbiased news service

What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

We fight not to enslave, but to set a country free, and to make room upon the earth for honest men to live in. Thomas Paine

Above all, we must realize that no arsenal or no weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. RONALD REAGAN,
.......
My definition of a free society is a society where it is safe to be unpopular. Adlai E. Stevenson Jr
.......
If you want to be free, there is but one way; it is to guarantee an equally full measure of liberty to all your neighbors. There is no other. Carl Schurz
.......
The First Amendment is often inconvenient. But that is besides the point. Inconvenience does not absolve the government of its obligation to tolerate speech. Justice Anthony Kennedy
.......
Self-reliance is the only road to true freedom, and being one’s own person is its ultimate reward. Patricia Sampson
.......
Many politicians are in the habit of laying it down as a self-evident proposition that no people ought to be free till they are fit to use their freedom. The maxim is worthy of the fool in the old story who resolved not to go into the water till he had learned to swim. Thomas Macaulay
.......
The law will never make men free, it is men that have to make the law free. Henry David Thoreau
.......
If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter. George Washington

%d bloggers like this: