Seen elsewhere
Twitter
Support

 

Buy

Click images for more details

Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Merry Christmas | Main | Ridley response to Romm »
Sunday
Dec232012

ABC of bias

A couple of interesting bits and piece from Oz.

Tony Thomas looks at the ABC's claim to be not nearly so biased as the BBC, covering the CMEP story and my Propaganda Bureau pamphlet in some detail.

"We may be biased but we're not as bad as the bad boys in the Beeb" is a pretty weak claim, but I'm not sure even this is going to hold up well in the light of Jo Nova's revelation of how the ABC edited the interview they did of Jo and her husband.

What a sorry state of affairs.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (25)

Dec 23, 2012 at 10:53 AM | Unregistered CommenterSara Chan

Every time I look at that list of attendees, I get the feeling that this was a full-court press. Almost every department of the BBC was represented (even comedy) to meet with a huge phalanx of heavy hitters from all areas of the Left/Green movement.

It was though the main agitators had decided that this would, for once and all, cement in the BBC as a full member of the alarmist camp and as its agit-prop herald to the captive millions of UK viewers.

If that's how they conceived it, then that's how they would expect it to be viewed by outsiders, and in that light, their desperate efforts to keep the guest list secret make a lot of sense.

Dec 23, 2012 at 11:30 AM | Registered Commenterrickbradford

I pointed out the "unlike the BBC..." quote here a week or so ago in a comment - glad to see it has been given more coverage. No doubt the Beeb won't be happy that even another alarmist organisation recognises it's bias.

Dec 23, 2012 at 11:46 AM | Unregistered CommenterMorph

So Joanne what viewing figures did this particular Show get.

Are the Austrian public as Apathetic toward Climate Change as much as the British public.
What were the Australian viewing figures for the Martin Durkin Global Warming Swindle documentary.

Dec 23, 2012 at 11:58 AM | Unregistered Commenterjamspid

Jamspid

Quite. The calculus is simply that for sheer proselytizing power agencies like ABC/BBC have the attention of an overwhelming proportion of the audience and so the best efforts of Jo et-al would resemble little more than 'noise'.......not a loud one at that unfortunately.

The purpose of any debate is rarely to convert the person you are debating against but (in truth) to alter the mindset of your audience....

Given the streak of totalitarianism that exists in entrenched institutions of state with the point above my guess is that they won't give a damn.

They certainly won't publicise their own bias.

Not good copy after all......

Dec 23, 2012 at 12:26 PM | Unregistered Commenterboo

@rickbradford

+1

Dec 23, 2012 at 1:34 PM | Unregistered Commenterdread0

Jamspid

too right, most Aussies couldn't give a rat's about climate change or even less about the ABC.
sort of goes against the countries psyche "Da ya want to be lectured by intellectual do-gooders mate?"

The only climate change that goes on here is when footy in winter is replaced by cricket in summer. Ah.. summer in OZ: cold beer, throbbing cicadas and gently burbling cricket commentary from the ABC.

About all they're good for mate!

Dec 23, 2012 at 1:35 PM | Unregistered Commenterdlb

ABC actions are hardly a surprise , their has much 'committed' to the cause has the BBC , and like most national broadcasters then spend a lot of time looking over their shoulders to see what those in power think and most of the rest of their time thinking what their fellow 'elites ' what to see.

Dec 23, 2012 at 2:08 PM | Unregistered CommenterKnR

Happy Christmas to Bishop Hill Blog, from FenBeagle

http://fenbeagleblog.wordpress.com/2012/12/22/we-see-things/

Dec 23, 2012 at 2:54 PM | Unregistered Commenterfenbeagle

Well - I watched the video up to 26 minutes when the audio stops (though presumably the audio exists because there is a transcript). Jo and David demolished the ABC people.

Weren't NBC were recently sued over their selective edits?

Dec 23, 2012 at 6:20 PM | Unregistered CommenterZT

I think the ABC have it wrong...they make the BBC look like a bunch of amateurs compared the the catastrophiliasm that has swept through the ABC.

Mailman

Dec 23, 2012 at 6:28 PM | Unregistered CommenterMailman

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20804192

This is another piece of crap. They ( the 'scientists') know that the BBC/ABC will publish whatever crap they write as long as it supports AGW.

Dec 23, 2012 at 7:21 PM | Unregistered CommenterStephen Richards

OR

What a sorry affair of state.

Dec 23, 2012 at 8:14 PM | Unregistered CommenterStephen Richards

Salutary. My admiration for Jo Nova and David Evans has just gone up another notch, while my contempt for the ABC has deepened by a commensurate amount. Is that corporation full of hardened warriors of the left, or are they soft-minded dupes of a prevalent mindset? I am inclined to the latter. If they had good brains and strong hearts, they would not have produced such a travesty as that programme and its failure to reflect at all fairly the views of Jo and David. If the ABC journos were hardened warriors of the left, they would not have bothered to get involved in the first place. So, even in Australia, land of strong characters and love of freedom and fair dinkum, we see atypical types prominent in their mass media. Atypical, unimpressive, sloppy deceivers. All for a good cause of course. Their intentions are no doubt admirable by their own lights.

Dec 23, 2012 at 8:22 PM | Unregistered CommenterJohn Shade

So, even in Australia, land of strong characters and love of freedom and fair dinkum, we see atypical types prominent in their mass media.

Mate! The Aussie intelligentsia are probably some of the easiest to fool in the world. They like to think that they ride the crest of the Now, and so are very faddist. That means they are easy to sucker.

Eddie Burrup, Clifford Possum Tjapaltjarri and, my favourite, Ern Malley.

Every country has fakers and suckers, but for a small(ish) country, Australia seems to outperform at the "intelligentsia" end of the market. There's some great Aussie thinkers, but many of them leave – which may well be because a genuinely great thinker doesn't do too well in a circuit devoted to fads.

Sadly, my country – NZ – hasn't a decent real hoax to its name. Assuming you don't count Peter Jackson's amusing "Forgotten Silver".

Dec 23, 2012 at 9:50 PM | Unregistered CommenterMooloo

We know that BBC staff have been warned about editing Wiki,

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/8637867/Official-BBC-Twitter-rules-tell-staff-Dont-do-anything-stupid.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/08/wikipedia_edits.html

so why has the BBC seminar story still not yet made it into the climate change section of the BBC criticisms Wiki piece below?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_BBC

Dec 23, 2012 at 9:51 PM | Registered CommenterPharos

This post is from Oz - born here a long time ago and have observed the ABC closely for over 50 years

Yes, they are biased towards anything that smears free market philosophy (since CAGW attacks cheap, reliable energy supplies, it is a very handy tool indeed) - but what really distinguishes them is the absolutely relentless malice with which this aim is pursued

And no ... they really don't give a rat's xxxx for the large majority of the populace. The staff-captured ABC cares only for the exercise of power through the oxygenated publicity of edited exposure. Truly despicable, and completely irreparable

Dec 24, 2012 at 1:16 AM | Unregistered Commenterianl8888

MooLoo,

Ern Malley is not a good example. Most of Australia’s current crop of public intellectuals and commentators are a pathetic bunch compared to Max Harris. James McAuley’s ‘hoax’ rebounded upon himself, and arguably destroyed him, because he wanted to be a great poet, but is remembered not for such lines as

Take salt upon your tongue.
And do not feed the heart
With sorrow, darkness or lies:
These are the death of art.

Living is thirst for joy;
That is what art rehearses.
Let sober drunkenness give
Its splendour to your verses.

Move like the sable swan
On the luminous expanse:
In sight but out of range
Of barking ignorance.

(To Any Poet, James McAuley, Collected Poems 1936–1970 )

but instead for

I had often, cowled in the slumberous heavy air,
Closed my inanimate lids to find it real,
As I knew it would be, the colourful spires
And painted roofs, the high snows glimpsed at the back,
All reversed in the quiet reflecting waters —
Not knowing then that Dürer perceived it too.
Now I find that once more I have shrunk
To an interloper, robber of dead men’s dream,
I had read in books that art is not easy
But no one warned that the mind repeats
In its ignorance the vision of others. I am still
the black swan of trespass on alien waters.

(Durer: Innsbruck, 1495, Ern Malley, The Darkening Ecliptic)

How Max Harris (then in his early 20s) was supposed to realise that Durer: Innsbruck was a manifest nonsense has baffled many a critic. McAuley’s problem was that he wrote much better when he wasn’t trying:

“Swamps, marshes, borrow-pits and other
Areas of stagnant water serve
As breeding-grounds ...” Now
Have I found you, my Anopheles!
(There is a meaning for the circumspect)
Come, we will dance sedate quadrilles,
A pallid polka or a yelping shimmy
Over these sunken sodden breeding-grounds!
We will be wraiths and wreaths of tissue-paper
To clog the Town Council in their plans.
Culture forsooth! Albert, get my gun.

(first verse, Culture as Exhibit, Ern Malley, The Darkening Ecliptic)

“While the hoax did cause significant embarrassment to Harris—and has been seen by some as inhibiting the development of literary modernism in Australia—the poems of ‘Ern Malley’ have remained in print and continue to be a subject of significant critical debate: a consequence Stewart and McAuley surely did not intend.”

“While unquestionably seen as a major Australian poet in his own time, it is a lasting irony that critical interest in McAuley’s work since his death has been largely eclipsed by the interest in his short-lived creation ‘Ern Malley.’”

http://www.poetrylibrary.edu.au/poets/mcauley-james

The Ern Malley affair is fascinating on many levels. A good general reference is

http://www.ernmalley.com/index.html

As an interesting aside, McAuley was among the founding editors of Quadrant, whose Doomed Planet articles are frequently cited by CAGW sceptics.

Dec 24, 2012 at 3:01 AM | Unregistered CommenterDaleC

Jo Nova is a treasure. It was a treat to see her in action in the videos.

We all owe her a debt of gratitude. She's a fighter for the only thing that matters in this controversy: the truth.

Dec 24, 2012 at 4:46 AM | Unregistered Commentertheduke

@theduke

Of course I appreciate Jo Nova's efforts, but I have been of the view for some considerable time now that she is fighting the last war all over

By that I mean that the AGW propaganda war has been long won; considerable majorities of Western populations implicitly believe that homo sapiens is deleteriously changing the climate with atmospheric CO2 emissions and "something must be done". The basic reason for this inculcated belief is that most of the populace is scientifically illiterate and mathematically innumerate. They cannot follow the details of the arguments and have absolutely no wish to ... hence they follow the manufactured "scientific consensus". No amount of reasoned argument or data will alter this now

But the question: "What to do about it ?" is the AGW Achilles Heel. All answers to date have entailed reductions in the standards of living, which enrages this same populace. This aspect of AGW must be pushed and pushed by sceptics (including myself), and especially pushed onto the publicity stage of organisations like the ABC (who are resisting any hard analyses of this situation as hard as they can)

How many GWh do we currently use as base load ?
How many windmills will reliably replace this base load ? At what cost ?
How can solar power the high-rises in Shangai ? What is their base load requirements ?
How can we move goods and people long distances from production centres to suburban dwellings without petrol ?

etc

These questions scare the bejesus out of the "meejas", especially those who infest organisations like the ABC - because they too are scientifically illiterate, mathematically innumerate and as dumb as a box of rocks on questions of large-scale, reliable, effcicient engineering. So we push, push, push them here

Dec 24, 2012 at 7:54 AM | Unregistered Commenterianl8888

DaleC (3:01 AM)
     Nice little essay, Dale!
     Thank you from a fellow colonial (and sometime sword-crosser with Max, who published me in Australian Letters).

Dec 24, 2012 at 9:26 AM | Unregistered CommenterRoger Carr

ianl8888 (7:54 AM): "Of course I appreciate Jo Nova's efforts, but I have been of the view for some considerable time now that she is fighting the last war all over"
     I share that sentiment, Ian... and endorse the rest of your comment.

Dec 24, 2012 at 9:36 AM | Unregistered CommenterRoger Carr

Ianl8888: You are correct, I believe.

I think you have to focus on the effects of warming and how dangerous / beneficial they are. People just seem to accept that AGW means the end of the world and are blissfully ignorant of any of the benefits.

When was the last time you heard the MSM report that higher atmospheric CO2 means higher crop yields?

Dec 24, 2012 at 2:26 PM | Unregistered CommenterBuck

I would love the warmists to sit down watch and LISTEN to the video on this link...http://www.ted.com/talks/margaret_heffernan_dare_to_disagree.html

Dec 25, 2012 at 12:56 PM | Unregistered Commentertux52

No, Joanne is not fighting the last war all over. She is working away at the pillars on which the global warming edifice was constructed. Here in Australia, we have had episode after episode where official pronouncements have been plain wrong. Some of these affect the temperature record, which is generally untrustworthy and available in several parallel, official versions that differ substantially. You can choose the version that suits your project. That way, you can do proxy reconstructions several times on different calibrations, then publish the one that best promotes your cause.
When the citizen majority solidly concludes that global warming was overcooked, the confirmation will be there for all to see in the faulty construction of the pillars. It's so easy to cement the realisation once some of the bloopers are shown to have been on record for many a year, with no satisfactory explanation.
Good science requires an explanation for all relevant questions - or at least an attempt to answer.

Dec 31, 2012 at 12:21 PM | Unregistered CommenterGeoff Sherrington

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>