There has been some suggestion that in my recent blog post on a dead possum I was too hard on the ABC. Gavin and others have suggested there are bigger issues and that it doesn’t matter that sometimes some journalists get it wrong.
I disagree.
It’s my experience that it is common practice for many environmental reporters to just repeat the content of media releases and briefings from activists, particularly when the perceived villain is a miner, logger or irrigator. The story is set up for them … and they run with it.
Indeed I see significant problems with how the mainstream media reports on environmental issues and I believe there is a need for much more accountability.
I’m not sure we can properly address the many pressing environmental issues out there if journalists keep responding to activist campaigning rather than making their own minds up about what does and doesn’t need to be reported.
Then there is the human dimension of the misreporting.
There is a guy, Richard Ness, who sometimes reads this blog, and who is currently on trial in Indonesia probably because some local environmental activists thought they could create the perception of an environmental disaster. They probably assumed, given the way the media tends to work when it comes to environmental issue, that their fabrication would quickly become a news story. All they had to do was grab a few props (in this case babies with skin problems) and make a few accusations.
Indeed while the evidence doesn’t stack up, BBC Online continues to report the story including more comment from the activists who should by now be dismissed as scoundrels. Meanwhile, Richard Ness faces the prospect of 10 years in jail for something that never happened.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
“It’s my experience that it is common practice for many environmental reporters to just repeat the content of media releases and briefings from activists, particularly when the perceived villain is a miner, logger or irrigator. The story is set up for them … and they run with it.”
Jennifer, how come you are only addressing environmentalists and not the other side too, which is that sometimes industry etc has press reports and PR people to make the activists looks like villians etc. Where is the balance in this argument? Surely this issue should apply to both sides? I am not taking sides, I am asking for a balanced approach.
Libby/Others,
Send me in some stories that show the other side. How industry manipulates the media?
I would be happy to post the information – provided there is some evidence to support your story.
In short, I’m finding, and being sent stuff, that suggests the mainstream Australian media has swung in a particular direction…
I know the general perception is that industry holds sway …
Of course I’m interested in evidence that challenges general perceptions and I am interested in evidence that challenges my opinion.
Industry does have false reports and dodgy PR people but with transparency and accountability being incorporated in business models there is less of that now.
And there are a few in jail too, they tend to get caught out in the long run.
The ABC should not be regarded as being above the law.
“There is a guy, Richard Ness, who sometimes reads this blog, and who is currently on trial in Indonesia probably because some local environmental activists thought they could create the perception of an environmental disaster. ”
This is dishonest. If Ness did nothing wrong then there is no reason to assume he will go to jail. How about you stop prejudging the judges. Sheesh- talk about “Trial By Blog”.
Four Corners ” The A Team ” last week was a classic demonstration.
The promo talked about an expose of the dirty tricks in forestry politics – or something like that.
The actual story however was very heavily focussed on the alleged wrong doings of APM and it’s employees – the protesters were definitely portrayed as the victims despite the fact that the only clear breaches of the law were from their side.
Libby , I agree that balance is essential but the taxpayer funded broadcaster rarely delivers it on environmental ( or political ) matters.
Any party relying on deception ,spin and media sympathy to promote their argument, undermines their credibility with these tactics.
Anyone who wants examples of dirty tricks by corporations and the think tanks they fund should read “Global; Spin: the corporate assault on environmentalism” by Sharon Beder. The book lists plenty of examples.
As I’m not a proponent of “trial by blog” I won’t label the current Gunns action in Tasmania against 20 environmentalists and environmental organisations a dirty trick but I will point out that Justice Bernard Bongiorno has so far mandated that the writ be rewritten 3 times. Justice Bongiorno has labelled parts of the writ “embarrassing and unintelligible”.
Environmentalists claim the 360 page writ constitutes a SLAPP, ie. a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. Such writs are a common corporate ploy in the United States. The beauty of a SLAPP is that it ties up people and resources in court cases for years and makes members of the public unwilling to challenge corporate behaviour.
Folk can stay up to date with the court case via this website: http://www.gunns20.org/
So what? Gunns are suing for economic damage caused by defamation much as MacDonalds sued when those two activists campaigned outside their store and interrupting their conducting their lawful business, and Maccas lost.
Businesses are soft targets for activists, like PETA, GP and trade unions. They also cop a fair bit of bogus public liability payouts thru spurious OH&S cases, sore backs, emotional stress over spilt hot coffee and other ambitious claims.
I’d like to think that we’re on the eve of social reform; through the establishment of a mechanism that expunges the corruption that taints almost every aspect of western environmentalism.
Prime Minister Howard has previously described his offense to the idea that the extreme greens have a mortgage on concern and compassion for the forests or for the environment of this country. He has told of his long belief that it is never fair to ask a small section of the Australian people to carry the burden and the cost of implementing something that the overwhelming majority of the wider community wants. He has affirmed his unshakable belief (and that of his government) that in achieving the goals of a better environment we shouldn’t throw on the scrapheap vulnerable, isolated, regional communities, their families and the people who owe their livelihoods to the activities of those communities.
At some point in time (and I hope sooner rather than later) citizens will be able to take their case to a commission (like the HR&EO) and enjoy an Australia that is environmentally accountable.
The problem that lurks behind Green activism and media reporting of Green activism is one of skewed ethics.
Greens believe they have the “moral high ground” and therefore believe that the jailing of Ness, the impoverishment of mining communities or economic damage to Gunns are at best “collateral damage” in campaigns they believe are blessed by a higher mandate.
In this way, “civil society” excuses itself from conduct which violates the most fundamental notions of civility. As proof of this one merely needs to listen to their squeaks of outrage when they are jailed for vandalism, assault or arson, or sued for inflicting economic damage.
The media are to a significant extent complicit in fomenting this notion of exculpatory virtue. To the extent that they forego reporting the news in favor of acting as “watchdogs,” they become similarly guilty of this form of noble turpitude.
Accordingly, it is with wry amusement that I read remarks about ‘PR people to making the activists look like villians’ and ‘the corporate assault on environmentalism.’ The fact that activists and environmentalists excuse their own villainy does not require others–and certainly not the media–to excuse them.
Speaking of activism,
Apparently Sea Shepherd have failed to purchase their new boat:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/whaling-opponents-fail-in-first-bid-on-ship/2006/10/10/1160246132282.html
They talk about taking “decisive” action on their webpage to stop Japan’s whaling, despite the fact that the ICR took their quota of whales last season.
Apparently Sea Shepherd have already hauled in 1.2 million smackeroos in donations for their boat purchase, but what happens if it falls through? And what happens if they fail to “save” a single whale again this year?
I guess that depends on the terrorist backers in Australia and other countries who support their actions.
Schiller,
If the environmentalists are in fact the villians you say they are then the courts will find that to be the case. Unless, that it is, you believe the judiciary are in on the conspiracy.
Once again, I would prefer to avoid “trial by blog”.
Jennifer’s concern about influencing the media is shared by the Nation’s educators and we now have as part of the Curriculum a Unit on Discovering Democracy. It focuses in part on “How can Australian citizens influence the media and how does the media influence governments and political parties?”
The example for students to workshop and base their assignments on is the manipulation of the media and public opinion by the Tasmanian Wilderness Society on the Franklin River action, when ‘environmentalists’ protested against the construction of a hydro power station.
http://www.curriculum.edu.au/ddunits/units/ms6fq3acts.htm informs students and fellow web surfers that
“The concern of national politicians about the destruction of a wilderness area was not simply a result of principle or belief. They were responding to growing public pressure. For example, writing ‘No dams’ on ballot papers, first done in the Tasmanian referendum, spread to mainland elections. In the ACT election of 1982, 41 per cent of voters wrote ‘No dams’ on their ballot papers. This groundswell of public opposition to the dam did not just happen; it was the result of a skilful campaign and one the most influential elements of the campaign was the use of the media.”
The Wilderness Society borrowed heavily from the experiences and success of Greenpeace in the 1970’s who used their knowledge of communications media to create events that television news could not resist.
Perhaps in the 70s and 80s there may have been a need to raise awareness of environmental issues and these tricks were condoned, but now decades later we are all now aware of the environment, and Governments and communities have made massive commitments to ‘save’ the environment.
Take the Tasmanian example in the last three decades reservation levels have increased to a massive 42% of the land mass including 97% of high quality wilderness yet only as recently as the last Federal Election the environmentalists, the media and both major political parties were demanding more reserves to save the last of the state’s high conservation /old growth/wilderness forest! Maps showing this massive reservation can be found at http://www.ffic.com.au/images/forestindustryenvachlarger.jpg but will we ever see them in the media?
Is the dirty trick taking some one to court and sueing for economic damage caused by throwing urine onto the goods for sale and this contaminating a shipment, or is the dirty trick peeing in the bottle and throwing it on the shipment of product?
Is taking a group of ‘thugs’ to court for assualting one of your employees a dirty trick or is the dirty trick the actual assualt?
Is suing someone for claiming that your negilence is to damage a city’s public health a dirty trick, or is making the alarming claim based on hearsay rather than medical evidence, especially when you claim to be a doctor, a dirty trick.
Is suing someone who is orchestratining a campign against you with your customers and your shareholders a dirty trick or is that campaign based upon misleading and incomplete information the dirty trick.
These dirty tricks are all detailed in the Link Steve M provides, no where in the writ on this site, either version 1, 2 or 3 is anyone being sued for exercising their freedom of speech in lawful protest action. All the alegations relate to breaches of the law or commerce.
The problem for the court is not just one in deciding the case, but if it can be managed as there are so many dirty tricks in an alleged well organised campaign to influence the media, public opinion and Government. This case will be first decided on technical issues long before the “guilt” or “innocence” is determined.
We often see, on TV, activists braking the law, to gain the notoriety, to get the publicity.
Obviously, the activists, & the journalists have conspired to film the law braking, or it would be all over without the cameras.
Why are these people not charged with conspiracy to commit a crime?
Activists can camp on the lawns of parliament house. If I tried it I’d be arrested, or at least, moved on.
So, yes steve, the judiciary, & the law enforcement agencies are in on it, with a softly softly attitude.
The activists are getting their way too. You are more likely to get a severe punishment for belting the dog, than for belting a little old lady, as you pinch her purse.
Bloody redicules, isn’t it.
If no one else will try them for their villainy, which surely can never ensue without an arrest by a notably impartial constabulary, accusation and trial by blog seems not only expedient, but of utmost necessity.
The eminent Ingo Potrykus, among others, has accused Greenpeace of crimes against humanity, and we should proceed to judgment with all deliberate speed.
Australia should develop its own declaration of environmental justice.
At the risk of presumption, it could evolve from a collection of draft articles:
Article 1
Australia is defined by its people and their relationship with their natural environment;
Article 2
Individuals and families, bound by common territorial possession, form the building blocks of both communities and nationhood;
Article 3
Australia remains triumphant through the interdependence of its unique communities – bound in territorial respect for the aspirations, life and memory of their constituents;
Article 4
Natural assets and liabilities are respected by communities in proportion and entitlement to both proximity and longevity of association.
Article 5
Local communities have a vital role in management and development of their environment because of their knowledge and traditional practices. Their identity, culture and interests must be supported to enable their effective participation in the achievement of sustainable development.
Article 6
Economic and environmental considerations must be effectively integrated in order to improve community well-being and to benefit future generations.
Article 7
Environmental actions must be cost-effective and not disproportionate to the significance of the problem.
Article 8
To maximise benefits and/or minimise costs, those most embedded should develop their own solutions and responses to environmental problems.
Article 9
The productivity of environmental assets, as well as their health and diversity, are to be maintained or enhanced.
Article 10
Prices based on the full life cycle costs of providing environmental goods and services are to be met by user-pays principles.
Article 11
Of concern to all Australians, the natural environment requires protection from invasive interests and maintenance of both fair trade and competitive neutrality across tenure.
Article 12
With respect to any matters that seek to change the relationship between individuals, communities or corporations and the natural environment, the jurisdiction of the federal court is activated and invoked in the Land Courts of the States.
Steve
Regarding your comment on the 11th about “is the judiciary in on the conspiracy?”
There is no conspiracy as such, because that implies a level of coordination and strategic thinking that is not plausible for such a diverse group as the modern middle and upper-middle class. However, a large majority of the right-thinking middle and upper-middle class believe (not “think”, but “believe”) logging is a terrible thing. In my experience that same large majority has almost no understanding of the complex issue of forestry and our collective consumption of wood fibre. The judiciary as a group are likely to be represented in this majority of right-thinking people.
To turn it around the other way, do you think it is feasible that some proportion of the judiciary could allow their personal feelings interfere with the administration of justice? History says “yes”; for example the law being prejudiced against the property rights of women up until about the second half of the last century, and some quite contemporary judges who believed that the victims of sexual assault “were asking for it”.
So it is reasonable to argue that some of the judiciary may subscribe to the popular belief that environmental activists do not have a vested interest and that they therefore reside upon the high moral ground. They should not be held responsible for vandalism in the same way as some dirty little graffiti artist or drunken football hooligan. Justice Bongiorno finds the Gunns writ to be “embarrassing and unintelligible” – this sounds like an unnecessarily personal response. Could it be a cover for his lack of understanding? If he has a personal dislike of the plaintiff, will justice be served?
Boxer, I agree that people need to have a more realistic attitude to logging. On principle I have no problem with sustainable logging in native forests.
You are making a very serious accusation about Justice Bongiorno. Perhaps you should read the writs and judge for yourself whether they are “embarrassing and unintelligible”.
The only accusation about Justice B is that he may be human and bring some preconceived ideas to the case. I find the environmental movement is given the benefit of the doubt with regards to their motives by almost all people, hence the venom you see directed towards them on this blog. To again turn this around, I think it a little unrealistic to imply that the judiciary doesn’t suffer from the same weaknesses as the rest of us. Law is like science, it’s not necessarily right, but it’s trying hard to be less wrong.
Schiller “accused Greenpeace of crimes against humanity” – rich when your leadership have directly precipitated the deaths of over 600,000 in Iraq. Shame on you.
And our “terrorist backers” from David – good grief. I wonder who are the real terrorists. Great spin attempt mate.
Notice nobody here seems to have any rage against the excesses of business or our “democratic” governments – I guess that’s OK because a bit of collateral damage is fine if there’s a quid in it.
Luke,
Let’s look at the death toll.
9.5 million deaths from malaria. See excerpt below.
Golden rice is hotly opposed by Greenpeace, but could prevent 500,000 annual cases of childhood blindness and an additional 2 million from maladies related to vitamin A deficiency.
So let’s go on the low end of the estimates and say, greenpeacers have killed 12 million people.
Compare the deaths of 12 million to “save the environment” to other efforts to save people from systematic torture, rape and “ethnic cleansing”.
Luke, you are truly wretched. The indefensible in pursuit of the helpless.
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1796
Theirs is the disease you don’t hear about on the nightly news. Newspaper editorialists, too, are silent about the death toll from this ailment — nearly 9 ½ million people since 1999, of which 8½ million were pregnant women or children under the age of five. No, the disease isn’t AIDS. It’s mosquito borne malaria, and we’ve had the means for wiping out this affliction for over a century. However, thanks to environmentalist mythology, the tool, DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane), has been banned in most countries worldwide.
http://www.oism.org/ddp/skewed.htm
This miracle rice could help reduce widespread Vitamin A deficiency that causes up to 500,000 children to go blind every year – and 2,000,000 a year to die from diseases they would likely survive if they weren’t so malnourished. Just a few ounces a day will do wonders.
Unfortunately, thanks to anti-biotechnology zealots, the rice is still not available. Even if it were, these unfortunate children would probably still go without. The activists would simply reprise their 2002 tactics, which convinced Zambia’s government to reject 26,000 tons of US corn that had been sent as food aid, because some of it was genetically modified (GM).
Sections of the media need to be dragged up before the courts and charged with both crimes against humanity and crimes against the environment.
The crimes against humanity, would include their ‘limp wristed’ approach, to the scourge of blood borne disease and its association with homosexual ‘communities’ and drug addicts.
The crimes against the environment would include wildfire management. In particular, the complete lack of acknowledgement, of the excessive fuel loads lying under the canopies of our forests. While the media falls over itself to include mention of ‘global warming’ prior/during/after wildfire reports, little is mentioned, of the absolute reality of excessive, environmentally unsustainable, fuel loads.
The media, of course, have not actually caused the problem, of blood borne disease or excessive fuel load but they have gone easy on these issues, by not applying their standard ‘trial by media’ style, as they do with issues involving other groups.
Simultaneously, the greens, led by Brown, also do not apply the same level of ferocity and vindictive campaigning technique to these issues, like they do with other issues involving farmers, miners, forestry workers, fishermen, 4wd’s, etc..
Very ironic (remiss), considering Brown must be very familiar with these issues, for he is a homosexual ‘rights’ campaigner and has built his standing on environmental protesting.
The media has turned a blind eye, to elements of the above mentioned issues, so as to provide a smooth as possible transition into politics, for the greens and their hangers on.
Surely this is criminal behaviour.
So how have Greenpeace stopped malarial control or the distribution of rice varieties seriously. People campaign on all sorts of issues. I would argue Greenpeace have been ineffective in preventing much at all.
Use of broadscale use of DDT in agriculture has caused rampant developmenet of resistance. Use of DDT in mosquito control is a special case and I have no issue with it.
And now we’re saying greenie indulgence is the cause of AIDS are we? So greenies are spreading AIDS in Africa?
How much illness will cigarettes cause in Africa. Or dumping third grade pharmaceuticals. Why not drag our graziers through the courts for degrading their land and promoting woodland thickening by overgrazing.
No let’s just say everything is Greenpeace’s fault. What crap.
Let’s also drag mis-behaving corporations through the courts as well. No favourites here now !
Anyway Schiller your leadership has precipitated the deaths of over 600,000 in the cause of non-existent WMDs, and nonexistent terrorist links. Your campaign has environmentally destroyed Iraqi society and now unleashed more terrorist loonies than ever. And you have the hide to talk about criminality and the environment.
Crimes against humanity – what dross. You’re having yourselves on. Meanwhile back to the cheer squad – bleat on !
Luke, ease off a bit old chap, before you blow your puffoo valve. You are becomming “SCHRILLER” by the day.
Hassy – thanks I’ve now had a Bex and good lie down. Smoulder, smoulder. Oh the inequity of it all ! Oh the injustice.
No Luke, the greens/media did not ‘cause’ blood borne diseases. (How/why did you misinterpret what was said?)
The greens political ambitions and media relationships, are perceived by many, as contributing to the spread of blood borne disease, due to an incomplete analysis of the social ‘make up’ of this issue. The media did not look under every rock. They caused political procrastination, just like they have with the issue of wildfire management and fuel reduction burning.
You water things down, with reference to ‘greenie indulgence’ and understate their ambitions. They are campaigning for a complete change to the way we are governed, in an environmental, social and economic sense. More than indulgence.
Greenpeace and the like, have probably done nothing in real terms, to ‘save the planet’. You are right on that point. But their campaigning style has created angst, anger and dislocation within societies, for no positive outcome. They do this while remaining anonymous and distant. They work as extreme fundamentalists do.
You say, “No let’s just say everything is Greenpeace’s fault.”
Nobody said ‘everything’ is Greenpeace’s fault.
Such a statement reminds me, of the kind I have heard so often, when you talk to a greenie, when you try and suggest that a significant increase in fuel reduction burning is needed, urgently. Their reply, “What? Do you want to burn all the forests down”.
Complete exaggeration and mis-representation of what is said, is a method often used by greenies. Extremism at work.
What’s another one. Lets see. Oh yes.
Any negativity towards homosexuality and your ‘homophobic’. Any negative comment towards the disgraceful situation in some indigenous communities (child prostitution, petrol sniffing, chid rape, no financial accountability, etc.) and you are a ‘racist’.
And all along, large sections of the media have played the game. The ABC in particular have been gross in their dereliction of duty. An absolute disgrace.
Luke, I am quite impressed by your study of global warming. Equally impressed with the opposing views. However, clearly it is far from ‘provable’.
What is provable though are excessive fuel loads in our forests and I do not see yourself indulging in this issue, to the extent that you have/do with GW. In fact, in a previous post you seemed to have a ‘we have been there, discussed that’ attitude, to excessive fuel loads and the conversation was over. And yet really it had only been touched on.
What do you see as the the greater single ecological threat to our forests today and all that lives within. The existing excessive fuel loads or global warming theory?
We can clearly see where the media lies on these issues.
Anchor yourselves in indignation and vituperate, “You lying bastards!” and never the twain shall meet!
Phil is so ideologically interdependent on Schiller that neither can possibly consider the other’s eradication.
Let’s be honest.
If we considered the human footprint as a disease of global proportions, what would be the cure,
Scientifically?
Extinction, through natural attrition, is one option…
Ok Luke, perhaps I should be clear that I don’t think everyone in Australia is a terrorist backer, but certainly some on the Gold Coast are:
http://david-in-tokyo.blogspot.com/2006/09/whaling-anti-whalers-support-violence.html
If you want to talk about what “terrorism” means to you, then by all means, be my guest.
OK Stewie – we may not be as far apart as you might suspect.
Yes I think any management of forests that does not include a sensible fire regime is bloody stupid. And more fool any government who has been duped by poor advice on the subject. If Greenpeace are promoting bad fire regime policy in Australian forests they want a kick up the bum. But are they? Is this their policy?
And yes happy to discuss fullsomely indigenous issues, homosexuality – anything you’d like. No problems.
On practical concerns – my personal major worry is drought which is full on in today’s headlines. Affects real people and rural communities. And eventually the land itself. And the unsettling concern that we may have climate change NOW and know not what we do.
Neil is close the truth – I’m actually co-dependent on Shillsy. I need to know he’s out there. I rail against his bias. But just to remind him on the other side for a bit of balance and that any sector of society can and does get it wrong. Let he who is without sin cast the first gibber.
So there it is … Luke is Phil
No Phil is at the shops but this is his computer.
Email: mediawatch@your.abc.net.au
Mail:
Media Watch
GPO Box 9994
In your Capital City
Telephone:
02 8333 4454
Fax:
02 8333 4962
Piers it now looks like following comments made by Doctors for Forests in our local Mercury news paper and on ABC Ttalk back radio green groups like Doctors for Forests are all to ready to abandon the ABC when they have been caught out.
Have done a bit of research since you exposed this event surrounding the ABC misuse of film footage.
And interestingly ever since the Franklin River blockade in 1983, the Green movement has seen the value in providing their own vision to media outlets to create television news:
The television stations begged for it – they loved it. If you can take some film, cut it into the best bits, and give them a 3 minute selected clip (well labelled), they’ll use it time and time again. There is nothing more productive for any conservation campaign than to have film in the hands of the TV stations … and that they get fresh film as the campaign proceeds.
Brown, Bob 1984, ‘Wilderness versus hydro-electricity in South West Tasmania’ in Fighting for Wilderness, Fontana Books,p 60.
Habitat/Australian Conservation Foundation.
To combat the flooding of the ABC with films from only one side of the issue the ABC developed it Editorial policy Section Section 6.10 and 6.12 to ensure that video file footage supplied in a third party media release is identified by on screen acknowledgment. This policy is also designed to ensure the independence of the ABC together with high standards of accuracy, balance and impartiality.
As you exposed a news story screened on ABC Tasmania on 25 April this year failed this standard. The story was that Doctors are warning of chemical pollution due Tasmania’s commercial forestry practices. Footage of an animal lying in the creek accompanied verbal claims by Frank Nicklason, Doctors for Forests, that when the animal decomposes the bowel will decompose and fecal material will enter the waterway.
This threat to Tasmania’s drinking water was presented as a current and urgent problem that needed to be addressed and to warn viewers that their drinking water could be contaminated.
Again as per you exposure it appears that the ABC has now admitted that the film footage was supplied by Doctors for Forests and was not current after first being advised by DFF that the footage was taken 2004 then 2003, the ABC now admit it was taken in 2000 and they have given a number of locations for the footage.
Meanwhile Doctors for Forests who supplied the footage and subsequent advice on the accuracy date and location of the filming that has since been proved to be in error, has abandoned the ABC. In a letter to the Mercury news paper dated 11 Oct 06 Doctors for Forests state:
Some time prior to this interview I had given a copy of the independent documentary Two Visions by David Warth to the ABC (and to a number of other media outlets). Two Visions features footage of rotting 1080 poisoned wallabies in a stream in the upper catchment of the North Esk River. The film also features a deer lying dead on the bank of the stream, again poisoned by 1080. The wallaby footage was, I understand, used by the ABC for its April news story.
Timber Communities Australia’s Barry Chipman does have a legitimate complaint against the ABC as the footage was not labeled.
Pretty clear that Doctors for Forests have no regard for the poor old ABC, “use um and then ditch um”
Despite claims of poisoning by DFF they have failed to provide any evidence and when first contacted by the ABC after the news item appear to have provided conflicting advice on the date and location of the footage.
In fact it now clear that only in April , just prior to the time of DFF giving the film to the ABC Dr Nicklason was informed that the ‘Two visions” documentary was based upon inaccuracy and mistruths.
ou are very correct in that something stinks and it’s not the wallaby carcass!
It is of utmost importance for journalists to report the correct information, if media is to have a role in opinion formulation of Australian Culture. Time and time again, we see errors in Government data and therefore media articles in the following days. It is hardly setting a standard for the media when our Government departments are tryin to whitewash our brains and hijack the media for a ride.
I would like to commend the excellent job activists have done over the years in getting some alternative media circulated amongst the government lies. And for all those who constantly defied scientists, who informed us global warming was environmentalist extremism, then wallow in your sunburnt country.