When I worked for the sugar industry, there was a guy who lived in Ingham, in Far North Queensland, who used to regularly pull the same fish out of the freezer when there was a fish kill and get it on television as an example of poisoning from acid sulfate soils.
It seems activists also keep wildlife in their freezers in Tasmania and have no worries pulling a possum killed by a motorcar out of the freezer and parading it as an example of 1080 poisoning. At least that’s the message we get from Pier Akerman writing in The Daily Telegraph on Saturday in a piece entitled ‘Hello, wasn’t that the ex-possum again?’.
While some activists have no real interest in the truth, just a particular barrow to push, you would like to think journalists from the Australian national broadcaster, the ABC, were a bit more diligent. But it seems they don’t even have a particularly good system for keeping track of file tape/news footage… click here.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Pot stirring or stewing Jennifer, what’s your goal?
1080 is widely used in Tasmania to kill native anaimals. Industry bodies such as the Forest and Forest Industry Council of Tasmania readily concede this. The FFIC says it used 5.5kg of 1080 in 2003 for example. It is also an uncontroversial matter of fact that thousands of target animals, including possums, Bennett’s wallaby and pademelons are killed by the 1080 baiting.
Gavin asks what is your goal with this post. I’m also intrigued by your agenda. Is it merely to embarrass the ABC for using file footage, which is something that every media outlet does, included The Australian?
Once again, best wishes and I look forward to your reply.
cheers
Steve Munn
Reminds me of the GP Tree stealing incident 😉
http://www.formaths.com/sivu1english.htm
You are sourcing information from Piers Akerman? This guy is expecting the ABC to apologise for recycling a dead possum. Excuse me? So should the producers of the SBS doco on climate change last week apologise for showing footage of penguins when talking about climate change in the Arctic? Why isn’t Piers devoting his precious column to the actual story Four Corners ran on the A team, or would that be compromising some of his friends? Oh wait, there were no Muslims so wouldn’t make for interesting reading.
Four Corners approached me a few months ago about filming a barramundi eating a small fish for their story “Little Fish Big Fish”. I told them apart from being cruel and unnecessary, I was not allowed to under the exhibited animal protection act. Nevertheless, they went somewhere else and got their 2 second shot of a little fish being eaten, spat out and finally consumed. I would much rather have seen them use a cartoon to illustrate their story, but if I can’t visually substitute a road kill possum for a poisoned one, or a southern ice cap for a northern one, then I really am taking life too seriously.
Jeez George , I heard about that too…wish they kept their acts straight.
Anyway, it is almost impossible for me to participate in some blogs as a person here and as well back at David’s blog wrote to one GPI web editor and told her I spoiled his efforts ” to corner in JM”!
Don’t we have fun!!!
I like many of Greenpeace’s actions and work but as I criticize them as well sometimes I have called off all my work for them… don’t want to be disloyal…
The problem with “off the shelf” news stories is that you could end up attributing a fish kill to acid sulfate soil disturbance because the guy ran out with the frozen fish and started telling you about acid sulfate soils … meanwhile it was actually a truck load of potatoes falling into the river that killed the fish.
I reckon if journalists threw away the media releases/spin, and the wildlife from the freezers, they might get to the bottom of some of these stories. Also it might not have taken them about 20 years to work out that salt levels are falling rather than rising in the Murray River.
Libby, Are there really penguins in the Arctic? 🙂
Only when they have a polar exchange and the bears need to go down south for a story on the hole in the ozone layer.
Jennifer, you really shouldn’t be so naughty as to make Gavin and Steve Munn so defensive in their posts! They really do abhor misrepresentations, but just can’t quite bring themselves to say so.
Anne
“Anyway, it is almost impossible for me to participate in some blogs as a person here and as well back at David’s blog wrote to one GPI web editor and told her I spoiled his efforts ” to corner in JM”!”
Care to post a link? – Doubt if I have read that one 😉
Well, I was not supposed to say that there didn’t exist any bloody blubber mountain in Norway… … and I got some quite nasty e-mails from this guy, who forwarded this info to webbie A , who told this to webbie B…
Anne …
link to the thread if you can I´d like to read this one 🙂
Nasty emails? did he/she use their real name?
I find it positively gorgeous that Jennifer Marohasy finds Piers Akerman a credible source of information given the number of times he has been caught out telling porkies about the ABC.
Who could forget Piers Akerman’s hysterical foaming at the mouth about political correctness on Play School, for instance. http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s1732800.htm
Once again, best wishes.
Steve Munn
I believe this link is one of the whaling threads:
https://beta.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7388972&postID=114582994872187187.
Is it possible to have a more anti whaling position???
And I get e-mails from the guy( who actually has a real name) and from the GP webbie that I ” spoil LN efforts to corner in JM” and I make the prowhaling guys to laugh!!!
Everything had been OK and forgotten if I just hadn’t heard the story again this summer…
Nope
Link doesn´t work …
Ah .. LN?
The Lamna nasus character? …
If he/she had the moral backbone to put a name behind their arguement, perhaps folk might take him/her seriously. As it is, “spoiling” by you stating a fact( blubber mountain ) kind of shows the weakness of his /her arguement really – I´m not surprised he/she hides behind a pseudonym..
I Will have a look through davids archives anne ..
Found it – 😉
And oh I forgot to mention this… Lamna e-mailed me at least half a dozen comments on his plans how to corner JM prior to his nasty e-mails .
And advice how to stop Norwegian whaling!!!
Lamna I really didn’t appreciate those e-mails and I do hope you read this post…
In an interview Ackerman said: “I’m used to being an alien in an unknown environment. I believe Australia suffers from a lemming-like rush for people to mythologise or demonise individuals. I deplore it, but that’s the way culture is. They look for scapegoats, and if I become the whipping boy then so be it.”
Steve Munn
Are you saying its ok for the national broadcaster to mislead viewers simply because you believe the end justifies the means?
It is my understand that this matter is a lot more than the misuse of some vision taken around 6 years prior to what the ABC was saying as current.
To me it’s more about the now very evident dishonest tactics of fabricating evidence by green groups like Doctors for Forests in this case, and how the media in general to jumps to their every call with out question, as the ABC did with this story,
If you argue that this tactic of fabricating evidence to achieve the cause, then I guess you would also argue that it’s acceptable for our legal service to use the same tactic?.
And up till now I was a firm believer that honesty was the best policy, so where to from here?
some of my fellow bloggers appear to be playing the old adage, if you do’t like the message shoot the messenger, rather than debate the message.
Piers Akerman may be a journalist readers like to criticise but his message of the ABC breaching its own editorial policies and self written code of practice, time and again over one bit of footage of a dead animal designed to influence public opinion and ultimately change Government policy is one that should be widely acknowledged.
Green groups, such as the misnamed Doctors for Forests, have been peddling dubious films around the Nation and even over seas in a bid to discredit Tasmanian forest folk and their products. These types of films can only be described as propaganda and should never be included as balanced, impartial and accurate news.
Timber Jack and Cinders (is that the result of a controlled burn-off?),
Contributers here are not supposed to single out the likes Mr Akerman, but you are implying that only green groups employ such devious tactics as the dead possum and only the ABC would be morally corrupt enough to use it. My what a narrow view of the world.
The actual point a piece such as Four Corners was trying to highlight is what should be focused on, not on whether the props were real or not. For example, it’s fact that 1080 can kill possums, so should they wait until one carks it from this before filming, or use a road kill stand-in?
If you want the good old fashioned high ground of honesty Timber Jack, perhaps you could try courtesy too (re Steve Munn’s name).
This thread is yet another example of singling out green groups for doing something that is practised on both sides of the fence, but hey, that is the standard fair of Mr Akerman too. Tiring.
Travis,
I’m happy to post something from the alternative perspective … I was sent ‘this story’ and then did a couple of checks on it before posting.
What’s your best example of the timber industry misrepresenting information?
Also, I’ll correct the spelling of Steve’s name … I hadn’t noticed it.
Travis (Yes double checked your spelling and applogisies to Steve no numm attended)
If I understand your logic correct, then it appears you judge evey one by the actions of the greens.
Well guess you and the green cause are entitled to have that view but not every one uses your methods, and it’s not for me and your post confirms every thing that is so wrong with the green cause.
Doctors for Forests were dishonest with the ABC who in turn was then dishonest with its viewers, and you say that’s all ok.
What I can’t understand is why did DFF go down this path of being dishonest with the ABC, was it because the truth didn’t fit their cause?
Its publicity stunts like lacing creeks with road kill that divert attention away from the real issues. There are many in this case.
First is it legitimate for lobby groups to manipulate the mass media and thus public opinion by staging these “images”?
Why did the ABC get it so wrong in the first place needing to admit that the filming took place not in 2006, but in 2004, 2003 and then in reality 2000?
Was this because Doctors for Forest, that supplied the film to the ABC, misleading the ABC and trying to cover up the facts? Or did they have other motives?
There could have been a debate about the best ways to protect crops from damage of browsing animals? Are there better poisons, better lethal methods or should we only use non lethal means?
Such a debate could apply equally to all thing we consider pests; flies, mosquitoes, rabbits, rats, snails, weeds etc.
Yet the focus on this blog is the use of deceit to advance an argument. In my mind if the argument is so good it does not need “props” and fake images it should be able to be argued on its merits. Only weak arguments need dishonest examples!
It should be the duty of all media, not just the ABC, to ensure that they do not become just an agent for propaganda but to use caution when being hand delivered “news”, be it Channel Seven screening Sea Shepherd video, or the ABC screening Doctors for Forest vision.
Timber Jack, no I don’t judge everyone by the actions of the greens at all. I don’t think dishonesty is OK, no matter who does it, but the original 4 Corners story was actually about the dishonesty and deception of the timber/paper industry. As one of their previous staff said, war is war, and dirty tricks apply to both sides.
I realise that the issue here is the use of an old image, but the crux is dishonesty, and the irony is that the actual story was on dishonesty – from the industry not the greens.
Cinders, we are talking about a visual medium (TV), so the use of images such as fish kills and dead possums are used by the crews to illustrate. Humans are largely visual beings.
There are countless examples in wildlife documentaries of animals that have been set up to recreate a natural behaviour. You can sit and watch even the best BBC wildlife doco and see that things have been manipulated to some degree somewhere in it. Is this being dishonest? Aren’t they trying to illustrate a point as well? And this is just the nature documentary side. Have you ever dealt with the media, be it print or TV? They are notorious for changing what you said, the context it was said in, editing to suit the message of their story and so on.
It is odd that a dead possum is being bandied about as an agent of propaganda, given the actual story it appeared in. See the forest for the trees and let the possum rest in peace!
Travis
If what you are saying is true then again to tell the story why did DFF go down this path of being dishonest with the ABC, was it because the truth didn’t fit the cause?
Re the Four Corners program I would say the biggest thing to come from that show was the public self admitted dishonesty of the green activist, perhaps this is the reason we have not heard a squeak about the program from the greens.
Guess they don’t wish to re expose their big short comings on the honesty front.
I should point out that irrespective of what I have said above I understand that we must have a timber industry and I also don’t have a problem with 1080 poisoning provided it is done appropriately.
What I query is why Ms Marohasy focuses on an effective non-issue like a apparently frozen file photo possum and not issues of a much greater magnitude, like Gunn’s using its financial clout to suppress dissent through the court system.
This bit is not up for debate: This afternoon I set out with some inspiration on a brief walk to get evidence of a cloudless sky from all directions. You guessed it; for someone on the thread next door. The first digital had a flat battery so I proceeded in finishing of the card from last weekend’s party with the other digital. I was so sidetracked with the opportunity to grab dusty shots it took much longer than I reckoned. By the time I snapped the trickle falling over the weir down the creek there was plenty of evidence of the pending fire season, so I thought. That memory card was still full from my Tassie trip.
Let’s test the blog with this: Experience tells us any self respecting journo would get their files working before the evening news spot. So many would be pros I know have stuffed up on a job. They all make do sometimes and that’s a fact in all campaigns even advertising.
Cinders & TJ: Do you buy everything you see on TV?
Steve and Gavin
You both seem to see no big issue in the fact that green group Doctors for Forests mislead lead the public via the lack of standards by the ABC, if it was a one of perhaps, but going by the story published this week DFF first stated the film used for the anti forestry story was taken in 2006, then told the ABC late 2004, then 2003 then finally 2000.
I’m pretty sure in any other forum all DFF credibility would be well and truly lost, so why waste your time trying to defend the un-defendable.
There is a very big issue here and its green group being well and truly caught out for standing by their standard of the end justifiers the means and if that means being dishonest who cares and if we (greens) con the ABC along the way so be it.
Steve and Gavin I have a totally different view to that, yes fight for what you believe in, but do it with fact and honesty.
Again I will ask either of you if things where as the DFF was hopping people to believe, why did DFF go down this path of being dishonest with the ABC and the public , was it because the truth didn’t fit the cause?
Has anybody read the bleating after the screening of the A team? I thought the whole thing so hilarious. Typically the ABC took the line of the poor greens being done over by the big corporate boys. Yet when you read the “reports from the spies” posted on the ABC web site it is apparent that the “spies” were hardly super professionals.
Watching “Two Men in a Tinnie” brings tears to my eyes as I think about this blog while they get away with their “fractured log”.
Remarkably nobody yet is croaking like a frog.
Sorry Jen.
Gavin
Whats the problem is the question to hard perhapes I will put it again with no distracting comment.
IF ALL WAS CORRECT WITH WHAT THE DFF WAS SAYING THEN WHY DID DFF GO DOWN THIS PATH OF BEING DISHONEST WITH THE ABC, WAS IT THAT THE TRUTH DIDN’T FIT THE CAUSE?
TJ since I missed the program in question and have no knowledge of your DFF other than what’s on this thread there is no way I can see what is biting you. I did however watch Foreign Correspondent tonight and was upset by that program.
“Cambodia the Great Land Scam” sure got my attention and people I know go there and try and do something for the kids. I wonder who else bothered to watch it. As a former employee of the AFP our guys on the job there as they minded the Khmer Rouge made me very aware of what corruption is really like.
TJ we haven’t got much to worry about have we?
Travis’ defense of dishonesty in the service of “Green” messages is alarming.
“[W]e are talking about a visual medium (TV), so the use of images such as fish kills and dead possums are used by the crews to illustrate,” he says.
If one has to go out and find road kill to “illustrate” the effects of a deadly poison, one has to wonder if it’s all that deadly. Surely, if the message is true and accurate, the corpses of wildlife would be much more conveniently available.
Travis tries to pass off this bit of deception as “business as usual” in the nature-film industry:
“There are countless examples in wildlife documentaries of animals that have been set up to recreate a natural behaviour,” he says. “You can sit and watch even the best BBC wildlife doco and see that things have been manipulated to some degree somewhere in it. Is this being dishonest? Aren’t they trying to illustrate a point as well?”
Perhaps the most famous “set up” or “manipulation” of wildlife behavior on film was that of lemming behavior. Lemmings were shown diving pell-mell off a cliff and it was presented as an instance of herd behavior gone awry. However, lemmings don’t behave that way in the real world and in actual fact, the lemmings were herded off the cliff by humans, for the benefit of the film crew.
So long as there are people like Travis who are willing not only to countenance, but to defend, the use of deception to “illustrate a point,” we will have irresponsible journalism that verges on fiction.
Ann,
I wouldn’t worry about that LM crazy. The thing is a raving loony, and can be safely ignored.
“I do not agree that the RMP is based on reliable science” – LM @ http://david-in-tokyo.blogspot.com/2006/01/response-to-greenpeaces-john-frizell.html
Need any more be said? No.
Some people aren’t interested or capable of rational discussion – so we just have to let them slip by and worry about the other 99.9% who are 🙂
Now that we’ve all established that everyone else’s mother was a hampster and their respective fathers smelt of elderberries (apologies for misquoting the Monty Python “Holy Grail”), there is a general principle here.
It is often assumed that anybody who has a pecuniary interest in an issue has a “vested interest” and is therefore not to be considered reliable or trustworthy. I find this an astonishing oversimplification. A vested interest most commonly involves the defence of one’s ego. We adopt a position on some issue and then our personal worth becomes associated with the defence of that position. This ego defence is far more important at a personal level than the source of one’s salary. This is not to deny that if I work for an organisation, my opinions are influenced by my choice of employer, but that influence is no less than the influence that a green lobby group has upon the opinions of the volunteers who choose to work for or support that organisation.
For example, does General Motors pay me to dislike Fords? No, I dislike Fords because my first car was a Holden (Schiller, read “Chevy”), I’ve always driven Holdens (except for a brief mistaken involvement with Toyotas). Sports fans, nationalists, fanatical pushbike commuters, religious fundamentalists – all vested interests and none of them amount to more than my preference for Holdens. But we need to defend our choices against all comers. I’d rather push my Holden than drive a Ford.
So why did Jen post this little piece about an example of deceipt by some greens, and the subsequent participation in that deceipt by our ABC? Two reasons from my perspective.
1. To tackle the assumption that if a person is dishonest for a “good” cause, and in so doing attacks the position of someone who has a pecuniary interest in the matter, then that dishonesty is somehow okay. The related assumption that a person without a pecuniary interest is morally superior and inherently more trustworthy is just plain stupid.
2. Honesty in journalism is very important. If you have an axe to grind as journalist, you should be a commentator (which I consider quite acceptable). On the other hand, if you grind your axe whilst pretending to convey the facts on a matter, then you should be criticised. At every opportunity. The Press appoint themselves to watch those in positions of power and influence. They should expect no less scrutiny for themselves and their influence. In an orderly society in a complex world, dishonest journalism is as important an issue, and morally equivalent to, corruption in law enforcement. Let’s read your defence of the occasional corrupt cop.
David,
Regarding Lamna and his wildlife expertise.
I followed him on another thread. He was discussing hunting with a person called Cree Indian. He told this Cree something like ” I’m European and know for sure there doesn’t exist any hunting in Europe”.
Well, I suggest Lamna to take the ferry over to Sweden and check out the biggest land based mammal hunt in the world! The annual moose hunt…
The hunt is about “the King of the forest”.
Gavin
Rather odd after your previous attempts to defend green group Doctors for Forests and the ABC that you are now saying that you have no knowledge of the subject of this tread.
Suppose saying “I know nothing” it worth a try when in fact you have no worth while defense to present.
But as I’m such a nice soul will give you one more go at coming up with an answer as to why green activist should ever be believed?
If Doctors for Forests had hard evidence supporting thie claims, why did this green group go down the path of being dishonest with the ABC and the public, was it because the truth didn’t fit the green cause?
It is a bitter irony that Greens and the ABC wilfully use dishonest means to support their accusations of others’ dishonesty.
Anybody who continues to support the ABC and Greens position in this matter is clearly disonest.
Boxer says; “In an orderly society in a complex world, dishonest journalism is as important an issue, and morally equivalent to, corruption in law enforcement. Let’s read your defense of the occasional corrupt cop”.
Boxer: This is something I’ve had to think about a lot.
Boxer; everything is managed by degrees in an adult world but I should say from the outset that I have never met a corrupt cop.
Cops however can spin a yarn like the best of the above. Like the time a squad on exercise dropped a valuable piece of equipment in the sea and returned it a week later because they were too busy with their paperwork. Another time I went to pick up some gear from an obsolete unit and found some marvelous leather cases empty, stuff that fell between the cracks in our records.
One early morning on my way to the job I found a big metal trunk in the frost outside my place on the Avenue full of tools knocked off for sure. When I handed it over I asked for a receipt. You should have seen their expression. My boss at the time a bit of a character used to often replace his missing specs from lost property by trial and error. He also had a pretty good watch. I wore the cheapest Kmart special since they broke off my wrist every day scratching round under their seats. I have a good yarn or two about evidence; that collection of 1930 pennies in the office, all counterfeit but it is more important in this thread to focus on how we develop trust. Trust in that area of our law and order process was vital. I saw real fear in the eyes of some starting out in the game of snakes and ladders.
There is another aspect to all of this, how safe do you feel living in your community? I have lived in several areas full of cops and their families both active and retired. I met one a few weeks ago at my daughter’s place; he had been wandering in the sun every day around there with out his minder till they struck up a relationship including coffee. It took me a while to zero in on bits of memory and he recalled where I worked far side of town. This big guy we found out had been in Cyprus and everywhere else with the UN but he did not know when. Luckily I had seen a recent article about an award winning young cop one of the first to volunteer with the UN. These boys made our AFP and the state police forces.
Cinders probably knows the guy from down south. He was a big kid at my school. I met him again afterwards at a bush dance in his first police car keeping an eye on a girl we both knew well. On the way home there was a road accident. A Ute load of drunks rolled all over the road but he found it so hard to respond with her on board. We established on his radio all the ambulances were at a major fatal. We eventually got round his embarrassment and she made room on the back seat for the moaning gravel rash victims. He grew way beyond that incident as they all should.
The ABC ran a film in two parts this year featuring a popular actor. It was a story that authorities cannot tell about our boys behind the lines in ET before the UN “freedom” vote. In another post I said how I get opinion in direct feedback from the street and a new poster queried its expertise. Reading between the lines works both ways. Jim Dunn a former diplomat came over to my one man stand in the sun here one morning and cried. What he had seen the week before and what he knew those big boys were in for finally broke him up. A little later another guy who knew my background in communications came over and said he had spent ten years offshore building the same picture. That film was real regardless of its location and actor for those in the know.
When I say temptation starts for boys on patrol with a fee pie and milkshake at the corner shop frequented by the local football club there is a lot more to it that we must ignore if we are serious about getting on with the job. It never was a perfect world and life is only what you make it.
Schiller,
‘If one has to go out and find road kill to “illustrate” the effects of a deadly poison, one has to wonder if it’s all that deadly. Surely, if the message is true and accurate, the corpses of wildlife would be much more conveniently available.’
Schiller have you ever actually been to the Australian bush? It would appear you have no concept of hard it is to find live, let alone sick or injured wildlife in this country.
“So long as there are people like Travis who are willing not only to countenance, but to defend, the use of deception to “illustrate a point,” we will have irresponsible journalism that verges on fiction.”
Get over it Schiller. My point is that no matter which cause you support there are lies and deception. Please don’t try to convince me that non-green groups don’t use lies. Do you write in to your local TV station every time they show file footage of something and try and pass it off as current, or something has been deliberately set up to make it look like the actual event?
As I wrote earlier, but you conveniently missed Schiller, I don’t condone lying at all. Unfortunately it is hard-wired into human nature, and even those who do work hard to be honest can tell white, pink or whatever other coloured lies from time to time. It doesn’t matter what “good” cause you are trying to push, there should be no need for lies. If you are going to crucify me on that point Schiller, then you obviously have no idea about animal behaviour. Humans spend a large proportion of their time trying to make things seem like they aren’t.
So one last time, lying is not acceptable, but is a fact of life and a fact of the media and the cops and the judicial system and all those we hold morally high. It seems though that the beef some here have is that it was the greens who lied, and therefore we can safely ignore that non-greens do it too. To me, prejudice is far greater an evil here than lying.
If you have ever dealt with the media, you would be prepared for misrepresentation, as much as that can hurt. No Schiller, I am not defending dishonesty by greens or anyone else. I am speaking as someone who has been directly hurt by media and even police lies and corruption. I am only too aware of the games people play. Put things in to perspective, as Gavin mentioned about the Foreign Correspondent program. How does a recycled possum compare to this, in the greater scheme of things?
Jennifer: If you or TJ have something other than the Ackerman story about the ABC that is more specific on regurgitating the same possum in our important 1080 poison debate, let’s have it by email or in another thread. I have no wish to promote Ackerman or any other blog that has a load of woody heads from down south just waiting for the next broadcast from our ABC to bounce around between them. I for one want more time on the clouds in the pulp mill thread. I suspect most of your readers are looking for more substance at the boundaries of our general knowledge.
Gavin
I see significant problems with how the mainstream media reports on environmental issues.
I believe there is a real need for more accountability.
What can I do?
Keep highlighting some of the problems by way of big and small examples.
For those you care about the standard of journalism in Australia and want to learn more about the nature of the problem you may be interested in reading:
me on The Australian newspapers save the Murray campaign:
http://www.quadrant.org.au/php/article_view.php?article_id=1045
or Roger Underwood on Deja Vu in forestry:
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001633.html on forestry
or Ian Castles on the ABC and climate change:
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001183.html .
All this blather…from the tax payer funded ABC Media Watch “quote of the day” (and who is it that watches Media Watch?)
“The foulest damage to our political life comes not from the secrets which they hide from us, but from the little bits of half-truth and disinformation which they do tell us. These are already predigested, and then are sicked up as little gobbits of authorised spew. The columns of defence correspondents in the establishment sheets serve as the spittoons.”
– E.P. Thompson, Writing by Candlelight, 1980″
Let’s go back to Roger’s complaint for a moment” For me, the Four Corners attack on forestry in WA was the moment when ABC current affairs journalism lost its credibility. I realised then that a ‘crusading’ journalist was one who closes one eye in order to see better with the other. From this perspective, even though it hurts to admit it, Lords of the Forest was simply déjà vu”.
Jennifer I started out as a kid with a horizontal paint brush stretched at arms length and one eye shut before I touched the canvas. I shut one eye again today using one of those darned cameras in an attempt to update my drought files. The ones I could send to you to illustrate any point would be a very select collection indeed. But that’s my license.
Now suppose I came from Roger’s home area and compiled a series on his industry, something that has long been one of my pet subjects; bushfires. I reckon my selection could be interesting to either side in local politics but in making a point I’m bound to tread on someone’s toes.
Allow me one question to Roger if he is watching; When was the forest industry last involved in pulling the wool over both our eyes?
It may be a surprise to a few in this thread; I used to work for the old bits of the ACMA where it could be my task to put the official finger on individuals out there for things other than their media profile. Writing a complaint is the easy bit.
Jen,
Another for your collection on ABC and 1080, this one from Forestry Tasmania at http://www.forestrytas.com.au/forestrytas/media_releases/ABC_1080.htm
It related to a news item where the ABC incorrectly claimed that Forestry Tasmania was using 1080, and should have been corrected on the spot. This error was made on 9 April 06, and according to Piers Akerman the misleading vision of the possum appeared on 26 April 06 on the same news service.
Thus the need for the ABC to publicly correct their mistakes to make sure all their staff are fully aware of mistakes.
I see from the referred link it is interesting to note that FT had been phasing out 1080 use for the last 6 years, eg 2000 the year the vision was taken, yet it appeared on the ABC in February 2004 and April 2006!
The Sunshine Coast Environment Council has a frozen Platypus and the odd Koala. Even more fraudulent are the the rare and threatened plant species that seem to germinate only on land that is subject to major development applications in trendy beach locations.
The fact is very clear, the truth has become a casualty, therefore a war is being waged by a publicly funded entity on a portion of the community that provided that funding.
And to simply say, “everyone else is doing it” is not a justification. It is nothing more than the rationalisation of the criminal mind.
But if I were to take this logic to the next step then “Madam Lash” would censor me. Suffice to say that I have no choice but to list myself as an “enemy of the ABC”. Do a listener weighted analysis of green messages vs balancing alternate viewpoints and you will soon understand why.
Hi Ann,
Yep, I read your post and it reminded me that you asked me in an email to only criticise you in public in future. As the old saying goes…be careful what you wish for……
I am now finding your endless return to the alleged ‘nasty’ email tedious; especially when you had two email apologies from me within 48 hours of the original email and a third public apology for it on David@Tokyo’s blog, a fact you have strangely forgotten to make public on this forum. So I am going to publish them, right here and now.
But first I am going to clear up the small matter of your completely bogus quote from my debate with Cree1 (who it later transpired is British, lives in the UK and is involved in farming in some way, not from an American First Nation at all) –
Ann’s quote – ‘I followed him on another thread. He was discussing hunting with a person called Cree Indian. He told this Cree something like ” I’m European and know for sure there doesn’t exist any hunting in Europe”.
Complete rubbish, here is the actual quote –
Cree1 – ‘the only sanctuaries for wildlife in much of europe are those areas where hunting is more important culturally than sell out to developers.’
Lamna nasus – ‘Have you ever actually visited Europe and if so where? Because I can inform the readership that claim is as unfounded as the rest of your opinions.’
The full debate can be found at Envirolink.
Now having got that misrepresentation out of the way, on to that contentious email which in hindsight I admit probably contains slightly more exclamation marks than is polite:
Hi Anne,
Please do not lend any assistance to JM by saying you have also heard ‘rumors’ of a destruction of Norwegian whale blubber and ‘an old comment from the Bellona Magasin (1999). Ellingsens say: “…our stockpile of blubber is going to be destroyed”.’ !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Neither of those statements proves the stockpile has been destroyed!
JM is currently not at all happy to back his claim up, which is very suspicious and I am deliberately trying to get information out of him/her which does not appear to currently be in the public domain, quite possibly because it hasn’t happened! ( it is precisely because I have not been able to track down any information to confirm this ‘destruction’ that I am backing JM into a corner).
I have got JM exactly where I want him/her which is looking as though he/she is just making things up. The last thing I need right now is for JM to be able to wriggle out of that position by saying – well Lamna nasus doesn’t believe me but other Greenpeace supporters do!!!!!!!!!
I know you are trying to be good, even handed and fair but trust me, JM is not going to show you or me the same courtesy.
Never enter a gunfight armed only with a smile and a hand shake because your opponent says its fairer! 🙂
Hope you are well.
Skaal,
—————–
So that is the infamous ‘Hate’ mail that Ann keeps dredging up, sorry George and David if you were hoping for something more vicious and propaganda worthy but life is full of disappointments, eh?
The following day I realised that I had probably over egged it a bit, so I sent Ann this apology:
Hi Ann,
Apologies, I was a bit caustic in my last post! 🙂
Thanks for the update, interesting to find out that contrary to JM’s claim; the contaminated blubber was not destroyed but that some of it was made into pet food! I think owners would want to know that the food they were buying for their animals was contaminated! 🙁
Even more interesting to find out that as I suspected, the stockpile still exists! and JM is misleading people!!!
Was that information contained in the Norwegian article you provided the link for ? If so, I may be able to use ‘babel fish ‘ software to translate it.
Once again thanks for your research and sorry for being grumpy! 🙂
Skaal,
———————————-
The day after that email, I happened to check out David’s Blog and discovered that Ann had taken great offense to my comments, so I promptly sent another, more grovelling apology, since Ann was a friend who I had been corresponding with for a long time and who had been very concerned when she knew I was caught up in the Asian Tsunami in Sri Lanka and I had not intended to upset her:
Hi Ann,
Thanks for doing the translation, it turns out that ‘Babel Fish’ does not do Norwegian translations.
I have just checked Moon Clock’s blog, eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeek!, I was not saying you shouldn’t post on it! I always read what you post with great interest.
Once again big apologies for losing my temper, please don’t stop posting, just because I can be a grumpy old geezer! 🙂
Skaal,
——————————
All of that happened way back in January 2006 and after my apologies Ann told me I was forgiven for my misdemeanor.
However in May, Ann decided to dredge the subject back up again on David’s blog, so that time I apologised publicly to Ann on David’s blog. Once again Ann told me I was forgiven.
It is now October and for reasons best known to herself, Ann wishes to raise this threadbare subject again however my patience, goodwill and friendship is now exhausted, so no more apologies Ann, this time I will leave you with a quote:
‘I wasn’t born with enough middle fingers’.
– Marilyn Manson
Oh and by the way David, when you attempt to dehumanise your opponents by calling them a ‘thing’it doesn’t make you look big, tough and clever, it reminds people of Heinrich Himmler, Dr Mengele and Reinhard Heydrich and it gives readers the creeps.
To the person hiding behind the pseudonym of “lamna nasus ”
None of what you stated above proves that you did not send Anne anything else or that you may have selectively quoted – did you? is the text you have posted above the complete text from ALL emails you have sent anne? Did Anne at any time ask you to send her emails? Could it possibly occur to you that someone may not want to recieve unsolicited emails from you?
You complained about anne to a GP webbie for spoiling your efforts – your efforts?? and you consider(ed) yourself a friend of anne´s? With friends like you, who needs an enemy?
Coming from somebody who hides behind a pseudonym, I kind of find your post above hypocritical to put it mildly…
Anytime you want to come out of the closet and discuss any aspect of Norwegian whaling with me – go right ahead 😉 …Of course, you will have to use a real name to do that though … I stand behind my opinions and position(s) and I put my name to them… Do you?
If your arguments and your opinions are so good and important to your cause, why do you feel the need to send malicious emails to someone? Does it make you feel good? Do you really believe it helps your cause by doing this? Do you really believe it helps the cause(s) of the organisation(s) you may support?
If you feel that you are justified in hiding behind a pseudonym, then by all means, send Jen an email explaining why – I´m sure she will keep it in confidence and note if she feels the reason is justified.
Otherwise, you will have to forgive me if I consider you nothing more than a sad wee fanatic with a lack of basic manners – and a coward to boot ….
As for this peurile comment
” ‘I wasn’t born with enough middle fingers'”
Grow up ..
Hi George,
The emails I have published are in their entirety (minus my name).
The ‘GP webbie’ concerned was a mutual friend of both mine and Ann’s who I asked to help sort the misunderstanding out, don’t bother trying to make a big deal out of what you don’t know.
I had been corresponding with Ann about Greenpeace and other environmental issues for quite sometime before I had even heard of David@Tokyo and she never indicated that she did not wish to continue our occasional correspondance, however congratulations on a pathetic attempt to make me out to be a stalker and you want to describe other people as malicious? Laughable.
‘malicious emails’ – yawn, your interpretation nothing more.
Jen already has an email explaing why.
The fact you imagine I am in the slightest bit concerned what your opinion of me is or that I will let you dictate to me how I may talk to you, says a great deal about your inflated ego.
Impressive display for Ann though, if you keep it up perhaps she might even tell you stuff about Greenpeace which is of course the only reasion you and David are pretending to be her friends; personally I don’t think she is going to fall for it.
If thats your best shot at interrogation / intimidation, dont give up the day job.
Lamna,
I have zero intention to get into any discussion with you… I have already indicated here at Jen’s blog that I don’t wish any e-mails from you..
Still both you and the GP webbie have e-mailed me four times together after the statement that I don’t appreciate and don’t want any of your patronising e-mails…
If you continue I will contact my lawyer…
Yep, just four e-mails, count ’em:
28th July 2006
Hi Ann,
I am just checking that my computer is not playing up but it looks as though David has managed to find a way to hide or archive 99% of the posts on his blog that you, I and other environmentalists took part in!
I can still find one of the posts from a link on my blog but if one does a search while on his blog, vast chunks seems to have disappeared! Everything thats left appears to be ‘the world and whaling according to David’.
Am I imagining things or do you get the same result?
Hope you are well.
Skaal,
—————
also on 28th July 2006
Hi Ann,
Please disregard my last post, I have worked out how to use the archive system on David’s blog now but its very interesting what has been kept easily accessible on a quick search and what you have to dig around for, regardless of the date it was posted!
Skaal,
—————-
15th October 2006
Ann,
I have just discovered a very small and rather blunt knife sticking out of the back of my jacket and it has your name on the handle. Care to explain why?
—————
17th October 2006
Ann,
Since you feel unable to extend me the common courtesy of explaining why you are denigrating me in public, kindly consider our friendship terminated.
You can read my rebuttal to your remarks at –
I will also take this opportunity to remind you that it is illegal under EEC law for you, Ann Novek to release any personal / private information about me, ————————–
or my pseudonym Lamna nasus into the public domain without my permission, further I specifically forbid your to do so or to pass any such information to a third party.
I reserve the right to publish any emails (or parts thereof) I have sent to you, since they remain my intellectual and legal property further I expressly prohibit you from publishing any emails (or parts thereof) I have sent to you since they remain my intellectual and legal property, further I expressly prohibit you from passing any emails (or parts thereof) I have sent you to a third party for the purposes of publishing or any other purpose whatsoever.
Yours sincerely,
( George McC ) “is the text you have posted above the complete text from ALL emails you have sent anne? ”
( Lamna Nasus ) “The emails I have published are in their entirety ”
(Anne )” I have already indicated here at Jen’s blog that I don’t wish any e-mails from you..
Still both you and the GP webbie have e-mailed me four times together after the statement that I don’t appreciate and don’t want any of your patronising e-mails”
So, what have we here – someone who despite being told not to send emails, continues to do so – lets see, that makes you and the Webbie :
a: Spammers sending unsolicited emails
b. Or as you so aptly call it “A stalker” ( your words )
C. Bullies trying to pressurise someone whose opnions you disagree with basically
( lamna nasus ) ” I will also take this opportunity to remind you that it is illegal under EEC law for you, Ann Novek to release any personal / private information about me, ————————–
or my pseudonym Lamna nasus into the public domain without my permission”
LOL … you just released it into the public domain yourself …
(Lamna nasus) ”
further I specifically forbid your to do so or to pass any such information to a third party.
I reserve the right to publish any emails (or parts thereof) I have sent to you, since they remain my intellectual and legal property further I expressly prohibit you from publishing any emails (or parts thereof) I have sent to you since they remain my intellectual and legal property, further I expressly prohibit you from passing any emails (or parts thereof) I have sent you to a third party for the purposes of publishing or any other purpose whatsoever.”
Once again, you have just published them openly in the public domain … So lets look at the implications of that shall we?
You are publishing private emails, the content of which you claim shows that there was nothing malicious ..at the same time, you try and gag anne with some psuedo-legal mumbo jumbo in order to intimidate her and stop her from making public ALL of the content of ALL of your emails to her..
Could you possibly be trying to hide something from the readers here? Could you? interesting …
Intellectual property or not, if ( for example ) I had recieved these emails from you, I would be completely within my rights to discuss portions of these emails and or to summarise them publicly – I would suggest to anne not to bother but of course, she has that choice or option if she so wishes …
I would also suggest to anne to contact the ISP´s of both you and the webbie sending unsolicited emails and make a spam complaint and if the unsolicited emails continue, to institute legal action against harrassment. She can also block emails from both of you by contacting her own ISP.
Incidentally, I also suggest you read the terms and conditions of participating on Jennifers website
Regarding ” Jen already has an email explaing why “, Forgive me if I wait until Jen confirms thatand if she feels these reasons are justified
Regarding this comment from you :
“Impressive display for Ann though, if you keep it up perhaps she might even tell you stuff about Greenpeace which is of course the only reasion you and David are pretending to be her friends; personally I don’t think she is going to fall for it.”
Spare me the melodrama please, whilst I disagree with many of the policies of the NGO she supports, I also agree with some of their policies, as I have stated elsewhere on this blog.
I do not need any information from anne or anyone else in order to criticise any NGO such as GP – and would not want any from her either. Besides, GP provide more than enough gaffes by themselves without help from anyone else ;O) GP´s current “Green your Apple ” campaign being a current example …
I do find it telling that both you and the un-named Webbie feel the need to try and pressurise anne – why do you both feel the need to do this?
(Anne ) “Still both you and the GP webbie have e-mailed me four times together after the statement that I don’t appreciate and don’t want any of your patronising e-mails…”
I suggest you respect her wishes –
The last email I have from Ann was a totally innocuous one discussing something on the GP webbies blog, dated 14th July 2006.
Since then and completely unconfrontational exchanges of information in public on two threads on this blog, nothing.
So I actually have absolutely no idea what Ann is talking about or why in a post dated 9th October she suddenly decided to start a rerun of ancient history concerning a matter she told me was settled to her satisfaction back in May 2006 and clearly indicated as such by the innocuous email from her to me on the 14th July.
The statement on this thread ‘Lamna I really didn’t appreciate those e-mails and I do hope you read this post… ‘ does not state Ann does not want to receive e-mails, clearly refers to the original emails in January 2006 and is dated the 10th of October.
So George spare us the melodrama and stop pretending to be Ann’s legal advisor, a role for which you are extremely poorly suited because the statement ‘I don’t appreciate and don’t want any of your patronising e-mails…’ is dated 18th October which means Ann has received no emails since it was made!
I strongly advise Ann to re-read the email she sent me on the 23rd of May.
As you have “forbidden” anne to discuss any of the content of these emails – I do not see any point in any further discussion.
Readers will make their own conclusions ..
Nice try George,
I have forbidden Ann from discussing my emails, not her own and I strongly recommend you ask her for a precise of the one from 23rd May, because she is mistaken.
Ann NEVER sent me an email containing the statement ‘I don’t appreciate and don’t want any of your patronising e-mails…’ and the issue was resolved to her satisfaction on the 23rd of May.
I honestly have absolutely no idea what sparked off her desire to revisit this issue.
I’m sorry George, this has got very messy but it really is as simple as that. Remember the Cree1 quote earlier?
Now is when readers find out if you can admit you
were mistaken. I am going to be as intrigued as everyone else in view of your championing of integrity earlier.
My final comment on the subject in this thread ..
You have forbidden anne to discuss any of your emails – so we have your “side ” to the subject.
We do not have anne´s ” side ” do we? and we will not get to hear anne´s “side ” either will we.. ?
I will quite freely admit If I am mistaken at any point – but until I hear anne´s “side” as regards to the content of your emails I cannot admit to diddly squat – and of course, you have forbidden her ( and I quote you here )
” further I expressly prohibit you from passing any emails (or parts thereof) I have sent you to a third party for the purposes of publishing or any other purpose whatsoever.”
Going by anne´s previous comments until you effectively “gagged” her, she felt threatened by the emails – that is obvious. It seems that she continues to feel threated – this is also obvious by her lack of further comment ( or by her “gag”)
”
Now is when readers find out if you can admit you
were mistaken. I am going to be as intrigued as everyone else in view of your championing of integrity earlier.”
Once I have all of the information – I will decide if I was mistaken or not – the information I have read here so far leads me to believe I am not mistaken – and I certainly would apologise If you or anne gave me the the full information that you have, in effect, forbidden her to do …and that information supported your claims ..
So in your own words… Nice try…
( but no coconut )
Feel free to reply in any way you wish .. I will not be making any further comment on the subject unless I recieve any more information..
So Ann does not wish to supply you with her emails which contrary to your suggestion she is in no way ‘gagged’ from revealing? Not much of a surprise there.
You have even misquoted me without bothering to disguise the fact to back your laughably disingenuous ‘argument’! –
” further I expressly prohibit you from passing any emails (or parts thereof) I HAVE SENT YOU to a third party for the purposes of publishing or any other purpose whatsoever”
I think you just gave the readers all the information they need to form an opinion, Mr Integrity.
Questioning my integrity are we Pat?
I note anne´s post in the Icelandic whaling thread …and I see from the same thread that Anne has now left Greenpeace, which in my opinion, is GP´s great loss –
and of course, Anne cannot pass on any information about her emails to you if they are replying to information contained in your emails to her can she ?… your “gag” saw to that …
No, the readers of this blog are by and large quite sosphisticated, I´d be surprised if they did not see through your attempts to intimidate..
Care to discuss Icelandic and Norwegian whaling? I´ll be monitoring that thread …
Questioning my integrity are we Pat?
Yes and continually trying to suggest Ann’s intellectual property is in any way affected by my comments rather than asking Ann for her fictional email kinda clinches things,
Geez you can’t even stick to your own ‘no further comment unless you recieve new information’ declaration.
You and Ann will make great buddies, be happy.