The worst thing about Michael Duffy is that unless you buy the Sydney Morning Herald on Saturday, chances are you will never get to read his column. While the Herald puts most of its stuff (and staff) on the internet, trying to find Duffy’s column on the internet is not always easy.
Why is he missing from the columnist’s internet page?
I live in Brisbane and read the Courier Mail on Saturday, but then by about Monday, I am wondering what Duffy might have written in the Herald on Saturday.
Trying to find his column on the internet one Monday, I once came across the following piece written about him in 2003 by their aboriginal affairs writer – though I don’t think Duffy is aboriginal.
I have also discovered (on several occasions) that Michael Duffy is the Washington Bureau Chief of Time magazine – but a different one.
(There are advantages in having a name like Jennifer Marohasy.)
Anyway this week NSW Environment Minister Bob Debus sent a letter to the Herald Editor complaining about Duffy and his column of last Saturday – on Monday.
Debus’s piece provided a title for the column which made (google) searching for it that much easier. But then when I found the piece written on Saturday, with the same title provided by Debus, I wondered whether it really was the same piece.
Debus complained about Duffy complaining about National Parks funding, yet the piece I read by Michael Duffy was a story about Peter Spencer and doing it tough on the land.
Maybe Minister Debus was putting words in Michael Duffy’s pen?
What do you think? And if so, why did the Herald publish the letter? Don’t they bother to check what their columists write? Maybe, like me, the Letter-to-Editor Editor has trouble finding Michael Duffy’s columns?
But hey, on the subject of Debus’s letter …does misrepresentation get any worse?
Exhibit A., The Debus letter
Facts about funding
Michael Duffy repeats a myth (“Farmers are pushed beyond limit”, Herald, June 18-19). He alleges the Carr Government’s huge expansion of national parks (creating 360 national parks in 10 years) has not been matched by an increase in their funding.
Fact: management spending has increased from $15 per hectare in 1995 to $34 per hectare today. That includes $18 million to tackle feral animals and weeds alone, up from $1 million in 1994.
Bob Debus NSW Environment Minister
Farmers are pushed beyond limit
Date: June 18, 2005
By Michael Duffy
THIS week I heard grief at the end of the phone line. They’re coming to take away Peter Spencer’s sheep. Next week he will meet relatives to decide whether to walk off his farm, which is near Bredbo. Spencer is the latest victim of the drought, and also of the cruel green war against farmers that the State Government has been waging for the past decade.
In Bob Carr, political power is combined with religious passion (in his case, for green beliefs), a mixture that has long been acknowledged in the West as potentially dangerous. Supported by green activists and the city’s lack of interest in the fate of farmers, Carr has been gradually destroying the lives of many people in the country … read full article here.
http://www.smh.com.au/text/articles/2005/06/17/1118869093828.html
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Jen,
Somewhat interesting – I started noticing Duffy’s comments in the last month , and whenever, and actually spotted his latest one on the SMH site.
Puzzling to be sure.
As for his recognition of Premier Carr’s conflation of politics and Eco-religion, sad to say it will take the citizens of NSW quite some time to realise what the re-elected.
It must be emphasised that NSW was and apparently still suffers from the mindset that allowed the Rum Corp to occur.
As for Bob Debus’ statsistics, I automatically invoke the Sir Humphrey Appleby factor when such numbers are announced. Statistically correct depending on how one defines things.
I was, until now, unaware of the majority of Michael Duff’s work. It seems clear, however, that he is guilty of the heinous crime of telling people what they don’t want to hear.
This is just another example of when objective and rational debate is needed on issues such as the environment, subjective and irrational responses prevail.
Duffy’s work will never been given its due regard and will be belittled by those who ‘ideologically’ oppose his opinion.
The NSW Environmental minister can quote as many figures as he wants but the reality on the ground, with the custodians of the land, is that the ‘green policy’ is flawed.
Even after 3 500 000 hectares go up in flames it does not register that it is time for a rethink on environmental policy. Instead it is blamed on climate change and the whole ‘green spin’ wheel continues.
The Fairfax press, SMH and Age are a joke, thats why I dont read them.
In the Hunter Valley they give the SMH away free, that is its true market value.
Duffy is God. Fairfax is Satan.
ionolsen23 So interesting site, thanks!
Michael Duffy always throws the baby out with the bath water, and seems to hold ideas responsible for the hypocrisy of those who supposedly believe in them.
He is exasperating, last week Jan 2007 he was denying the existence of global warming and also dismissing the green movement because he saw some woman with reuseable shopping bags hop into a 4×4.
A fool I say!!!!
I wish to champion the idea of evidence based commentary. This would render Duffy unemployable. Or radically change his Alan Jonesish style of quoting other equally non-evidence based sources in selective chunks. He seems to champion the causes dear to the wealthy, urban priveleged . Either he’s bucking for Jones’ job or one with Murdoch. Who the hell are these commentators other than just commentators? Since he doesn’t offer testable facts to back his poorly stuctured arguments (fact:read his stuff!) he’s just a propagandist. Does he entertain us by giving us someone to hate? Do we believe that writing about him in Blogs constitutes taking action?