google-site-verification: googlefe22bfd737719451.html Skip to main content
#
 
my account
site map
contact
cart
Saturday, December 29 2012

Is the ABC a taxpayer funded national broadcaster or a tax payer funded ALP propaganda machine?

 

You be the JUDGE.

 

Below you will find correspondence to and fro between the Lord Monckton Foundation and ABC Corporate_Affairs3. This correspondence initially listed specific information and evidence withheld from viewers by the ABC across numerous NEWS, Current Affairs and Documentary programs and asked questions of journalistic standards and integrity and a concern over a perceived lack of 'balance' in terms of party political and in terms of presenting empirical science versus models.

 

The most recent reply by the Lord Monckton Foundation responds to Anna Uszko of Audience and Consumer Affairs, presumably a division of the ABC Corporate_Affairs3, giving her a specific case as requested.

 

By way of background see below a link to Jo Nova's blog recording the full story of how they were interviewed for the ABC, 'I can change your mind' documentary on Global Warming. Jo and David, after years of experiencing hostile rants and of being misquoted or having their words manipulated beyond recognition, had their own cameraman film the ABC film crew at work including all the discussions on and off camera. This full transcript of this back-up un-cut copy and of the ABC edited copy can be compared for the record. The full Video UNEDITED and UN-CUT of the entire time the ABC crew was there also gives a full and comprehensive understanding of what the ABC received by way of evidence from Jo and David and what the ABC delivered in the program.

 

No fair-minded person could possibly believe the ABC presented the empirical evidence as provided by Jo and David; in fact quite the reverse. It is clearly demonstrated that by omission and distortion, the ABC destroyed the arguments and the evidence presented, to such an extent that a viewer would be drawn to the conclusion that Jo & David (and by implication all sceptics) have a baseless argument and are a slightly paranoid fringe group dependent upon donations from vested carbon energy interests to maintain their world destroying views.

 

You can be the judge. See Jo Nova'a Blog here.

 

It will be interesting to see how Anna Uszko of the ABC responds. In the court of public opinion, the withholding of evidence is at the very least, unprofessional conduct.

Will she obfiscate or respond directly and properly to the specific allegations?


From: Chris Dawson [mailto:chrisdawson@lordmoncktonfoundation.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 26 December 2012 5:22 PM
To: 'ABC Corporate_Affairs3'
Subject: RE: Email to the ABC of 11 December 2012 (ABC reference C51117-12)


 

Dear Anna Uszko,

 

Thank you for your reply.

 

You have asked for a specific case. There are too many to include all of them here!

 

However, for simplicity and as an example of a case in point I hereby lodge the following specific instance of poor journalistic standards and robust biased presentation and support for one side of a case in a program specifically billed as one where ‘you can weigh the evidence and make up your own mind’.

 

I refer here of course to the one-hour documentary, “I Can Change Your Mind”, which was I believe, broadcast on the ABC 21 on 26 April 2012.

 

The program was presented as providing an opportunity for both sides of the Climate Change debate to be heard and for the viewer to be able to weigh arguments and evidence through the proxies of Anna Rose and Nick Minchin, each attempting to change the other’s (and the viewers’) mind.

 

Although there are many examples of bias and more importantly, of omission via editing out of key and fundamental evidence presented by the ABC “I Can Change Your Mind” documentary team, for simplicity, I will confine myself here to one specific and key example.

 

This purposeful omission would have been understood by the ABC “I Can Change Your Mind” documentary team to be fundamental, if viewers were to be given the opportunity to understand the ‘skeptic’ side of the argument. Similarly, it would not escape the attention of any intelligent and fair minded ABC “I Can Change Your Mind” documentary team member, the absence of this evidence they would have understood, would leave the skeptic evidence presented, appearing less than satisfactory and seeming to lack substance.

 

The specific and key example is from the segment of the Program where Joanne Nova and Dr David Evans are interviewed in their kitchen where they discussed in detail four key pieces of evidence each one of which on its own, potentially falsifies the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming ‘model only based’ hypothesis. It is a central tenet for most sceptics that the scientific method, where the collection of empirical evidence is a process of discovery relying upon observations and experiment, is science. Jo and David clearly presented four pieces of empirical evidence in the form of four independent sets of data demonstrating:

 

1.      The UN IPCC models overestimated air temperatures from 1990,

2.      The UN IPCC models overestimated ocean warming since when we started measuring it through Argo program properly in 2003,

3.      The UN IPCC models predict a pattern of atmospheric warming — responsible for most of the warming in the models — that is entirely missing from copious weather balloon measurements, and

4.      The UN IPCC models predict outgoing radiation increases with surface rising surface temperature when satellite measurements show the opposite.

 

The fact that these four specific pieces of evidence that are central for an understanding of the ‘sceptical’, we would say scientific, view, and the fact that the average global temperature has ceased to rise these past sixteen years now (contrary to the projections of these same UN IPCC models) were actively concealed or edited beyond recognition by the ABC “I Can Change Your Mind” documentary team, played out biased in favour of the clearly debunked Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming ‘model only based’ hypothesis.

 

This distortion of specific important evidence is wilful blindness at best and biased propaganda at worst by the ABC “I Can Change Your Mind” documentary team, and does no credit to the profession of journalism and the committal of which warrants sanction, apology and a balance achieved through proper presentation of the evidence and the case the ‘sceptics’ have against the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming ‘model only based’ hypothesis at some immediate juncture.

 

I trust this is specific enough for your processes and urge you to properly consider this complaint as your response may be tested either in a court of law or public opinion.

 

A Publically Funded broadcaster ($1.3 billion) has a duty to the tax payer to supply unbiased, balanced and fair reporting, and in the case of science reporting, the presentation of the empirical science, not models, as evidence.

 

Regards

 

Chris

 

From: ABC Corporate_Affairs3 [mailto:Corporate_Affairs3.ABC@abc.net.au]
Sent: Wednesday, 19 December 2012 2:42 PM
To: 'chrisdawson@lordmoncktonfoundation.com'
Subject: RE: Email to the ABC of 11 December 2012 (ABC reference C51117-12)

 

Thank you for your email of 11 December 2012.

 

We understand that you are concerned that ABC journalistic standards, research and questions, are not representing the views and interests of the Australian people in a balanced way on the issue of climate change.

 

In accordance with the ABC's complaint handling procedures, your correspondence has been referred to Audience & Consumer Affairs, a unit which is separate to and independent of program making areas within the ABC. The role of Audience & Consumer Affairs is to investigate complaints alleging that ABC content has breached the ABC's editorial standards.

For your reference a link to the ABC Editorial Policies follows:

http://abc.net.au/corp/pubs/documents/20110408/EditorialPOL2011.pdf

 

There is no separate section of the ABC Editorial Policies which deals specifically with balance, as balance is considered to be a component of impartiality as set out in section 4 of the ABC’s Editorial Policies, the link for which is provided above. Importantly impartiality does not require that every perspective receives equal time, nor that every facet of every argument is presented but that diversity is achieved over time. Where balance is referred to, it is in respect to ‘a balance that follows the weight of evidence.’ With this principle in mind, the weight of ABC coverage on climate change rests with the broad scientific consensus on this issue. Coverage of other views, such as those of climate scientists who question this core thinking, is aired when it is relevant and appropriate to do so.

 

As it is the remit of Audience and Consumer Affairs to consider complaints concerning ABC content which has breached the ABC's editorial standards, we are unable to provide a substantive response to complaints of a general nature. If you would like to proceed with a formal complaint we require specific examples of ABC content which illustrate your concerns, including: network/service, time/date of broadcast/publication, program/article name, along with reference to the particular standards you believe were breached. We would be happy to consider your concerns, and please feel free to respond by return email.

 

For your information the ABC Code of Practice is also available here: http://www.abc.net.au/corp/pubs/documents/codeofpractice2011.pdf

 

In any event, please be assured that the ABC values your comments, which have been noted and conveyed to ABC management for their information

.

Thank you again for taking the time to write to the ABC. 

Yours sincerely,

Anna Uszko

Audience and Consumer Affairs

----

From:

Chris Dawson

Sent:

11 December 2012

Response requested:

True


 

Contact type:

Complaint

Subject:

General quality

Service:

 

Heard or viewed on:

Unspecified / Other

Program:

 

Date/time:

 

Webpage:

 

Comments:


Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

The information contained in this email and any attachment is confidential and may contain legally privileged or copyright material. It is intended only for the use of the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you are not permitted to disseminate, distribute or copy this email or any attachments. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this email from your system. The ABC does not represent or warrant that this transmission is secure or virus free. Before opening any attachment you should check for viruses. The ABC's liability is limited to resupplying any email and attachments.


These are the three points I make as background to my complaint. These complaints and this evidence has been presented to various flagship programs to no avail. The three most powerful points we have as examples are: 1) there has been no global warming for 16 years (HadCrut datasets 3 & 4 [UN IPCC Bible); 2) it would be 50 times more cost-effective to spend not a single red cent today and to adapt to the imagined adverse consequences of imagined global warming the day after tomorrow; 3) the small clique of scientists behind the scare are known to be dodgy, thanks to Climategate, and we now need an independent scientific enquiry, this time including sceptics, to look at everything from the beginning.

With all the empirical scientific evidence suggesting a rapid increase in CO2 emissions and atmospheric concentrations and with the scientific evidence suggesting no warming at all for 16 years, 'Houston, don't we have a problem?'. Australia's paper to the Doha conference is dopey! Why no questions from Australian ABC journalists reflecting concerns of Australia's national interest? It is dopey in the extreme for the ABC to not question this government over 50 billion per annum in today's Australian dollars committed to foreign grants to the UN and to petty third world dictators approved by the UN (Funds to be transferred by this government as per Treasury models. We at the Lord Monkton Foundation will just plug away rationally, and record temperatures failing to rise as predicted, until the usual suspects slowly deprioritize, as Canada, Japan, Russia, China and India have already done. This complaint is specifically formulated thus: The ABC, as the provider of quality tax payer funded broadcasting is failing to: a) fairly and openly represent the interests and views of the Australian people in a balanced way. b) provide a quality journalistic approach in accordance with standard journalistic practice in terms of research (prior to an interview) and questions (during an interview). Please respond to these charges. Chris Dawson CEO Lord Monckton Foundation 0409 805 425

 

 

 

 

 


 
Posted by: Chris Dawson AT 06:58 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Comments:

Post comment
Name
 *
Email Address

Message
(max 750 characters)
*
* Required Fields
Note: All comments are subject to approval. Your comment will not appear until it has been approved.

 Blog, News and Latest Activities 
 

Disclaimer for the Lord Monckton Foundation website:

Material on this site:

Photos and material on this site are used for educational and research purposes and are sourced from media outlets and the internet. If you are the copyright owner of any material used on this site and you object to its use, and such use falls outside the fair use provisions in ss. 40 - 42 of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), please email chrisdawson@lordmoncktonfoundation.com, and it will be removed. It is understood that in most countries, copyright automatically resides with the taker of the photograph or art work, unless rights are formally assigned to another.

Site Mailing List 
"The Lord Monckton Foundation shall conduct research, publish papers, educate students and the public and take every measure that may be necessary to restore the primacy and use of reason in science and public policy worldwide, especially insofar as they may bear upon the rights of the people fairly and fully to be informed, openly and freely to debate, and secretly by ballot to decide who shall govern them, what laws they shall live by and what imposts they shall endure."

The Lord Monckton Foundation

ABN 51 154 843 213 Registered Address: PO Box 371 Balwyn North VIC, Australia 3104

Ph: 03 9878 3333 - Int’l: (+61) 3 9878 3333 - Mobile: 0409 805 425

Postal Address: PO Box 14, Nunawading LPO, Nunawading VIC Australia 3131

Email: info@lordmoncktonfoundation.com


See our Privacy, Confidential Information and Data Security Policy (here)

 

Site Powered By
    Turnkey Website Solutions
    Online web site design