This looks like big trouble in the Warministas ABC diocese to this humble correspondent, with the guardians of the one true faith putting up a spirited argument against any mention of the anti-AGW heresy within the walls of our dear Auntie:
Maurice Newman
Describing himself as an agnostic on climate change, Mr Newman said climate change was an example “of group-think where contrary views have not been tolerated, and where those who express them have been labelled and mocked”.
He warned ABC staffers that he would not tolerate anyone suppressing information, citing the fact that a BBC science correspondent knew for a month before the scandal broke of damaging emails at the University of East Anglia in Britain highlighting the politicised nature of climate science but did not report them.
Mr Newman said the Guardian newspaper had noted that the moment climatology is sheltered from dispute, its force begins to wane.
“Which raises an important question for a media organisation,” Mr Newman said in the speech obtained by The Australian. “Who, if anyone, decides what to shelter from dispute? And when?
“Should there be a view that the ABC was sheltering particular beliefs from scrutiny, or failing to question a consensus, I would consider it to be a dangerous perception that could lead to the public’s trust in us being undermined.”
Sources said the speech drew an immediate rebuke from the ABC’s Media Watch presenter Jonathan Holmes, who rose to his feet and said he was angered by Mr Newman’s remarks.
Sources said Holmes had told Mr Newman he was wrong to assert that sceptics were silenced on the ABC. Holmes declined to comment when contacted by The Australian.
ABC science journalist Bernie Hobbs also spoke, supporting Holmes’s view and saying the ABC could not give undue weight to the sceptics and thereby push a sceptics’ agenda.
Ah this is what happens when you get true believers at the helm of our national broadcaster who think that instead of reporting the developments in science think that they should control the direction of the debate to propagate their own beliefs rather than just keep the public informed as their charter requires.
Cheers Comrades
I have however noticed, even at the ABC that the media now reports on skeptical views a lot more than they did 1-2 years ago.
I think the penny has finally dropped: there is a legitimate debate to be had here, and let’s listen to all sides.
Yes Leon you are right over all that there has been some effort to be even handed but in the science unit it is another story entirely, Robin Williams is particularly bad and an example of the problem
“Group-think where contrary views have not been tolerated, and where those who express them have been labelled and mocked”.
I thought that blog had died.
Not quite Socky it is abit like the Norwegian blue though………….
This isn’t the first time that Auntie has been caught peddling one sided arguments. Years ago, they got into strife for going too far the other way, i.e. unending criticism of sitting governments. Auntie is in a no win situation here. They are striving, and have done for years, to give the impression, that, even though owned, and funded, by government money, they are not a propaganda puppet. It’s a tough balance to achieve.
We need to watch, with open minds, and evaluate whatever they (and for that matter, every other media bombardment), is balanced, and substantiated.
After spending the last week o/s, it is nice to come back and turn on to some genuine debate though. One sided or not !
I was thinking that you must have been away Len San !
Note how the reporting journalists at The Australian drop in this unsubstantiated comment to ‘slime’ Newman:
“Sources said while Mr Newman claimed publicly he was agnostic on the issue, he was a passionate climate-change denialist in private. ”
The implication being that, if Newman is a sceptic himself, this equates to some sort of sordid private behaviour – ‘denialism’ – and invalidates his comments ! Which of course to the warmenistas is a sordid, immoral and , in their ideal world, soon-to-be illegal outlook.
On this basis, if Newman next does another interview, we can assume he will cop some Laurie Oakes-style attack-dog questions like:
‘Does he believe in evolution’;
‘Does he believe the sun revolves around the earth’, and
‘”has he stopped beating his wife and molesting his grandkids’ ??
And this is the same ‘”Australian” that Tim Lambert thinks is making war on climate science ?!
Myrddin Seren
Oh and you forgot the old favorite :
Does he believe that the earth is flat ?
Yes i had seen that part of the piece but such things are done so often that It went through to the keeper…….
Anyone else do a bit of a double take when they first came across that article?