Climate Change: Don’t believe everything you read.

No blame just the basics

Is the Earth really warming?

The 97 percent consensus

IPCC release Fifth Assessment Synthesis Report

CO² and greenhouse gases

Former NASA scientist predicts ‘dark winters’ ahead

Over the coming weeks Jamie’s Pages will be presenting a series of articles on climate change and the environment. The first of these articles looks at how the issue of climate change is covered in the Australian media.

 

We as citizens should have access to any, and all information available on climate change – from both sides of the debate.

One of the most pressing issues facing the world today, and arguably the one that will affect us most into the future, is that of climate change. Does climate change even exist, and if so, how much can be attributed to human beings and industrialisation, and of course, what must we do to arrest it before it is too late?

Although the implications of climate change may be dire in the extreme, or not exist at all, depending on which side of the debate one leans toward, we as citizens should have access to any, and all information available on the subject – from both sides of the debate.

However as much of Australia’s mass media is controlled by those whose interest’s conflict with addressing the issue, much of the coverage is either biased, inadequate, or both.

In 2013, The Australian Centre for Independent Journalism (ACIJ), released a report on the coverage of climate change in Australian media from February to April in 2011, and in the same period during 2012, and found that a third of Australian newspapers articles, either completely rejected, or cast serious doubt on the science of climate change.

Indeed, the report’s author, Professor Wendy Bacon, said at the time that, “Australia may well have the highest concentration of climate scepticism in its media in the world.”

News Corp, who own 70 percent of Australia’s print media were by far the most vociferous in their scepticism, with their biggest three publications – the Daily Telegraph, Herald Sun, and Australian leading the charge. The Herald Sun was particularly biased in its coverage, with a staggering 97 percent of commentary dismissing the issue of climate change completely.

Just as concerning was that only 11 percent of articles published on climate change actually referenced peer-reviewed climate science, and that 25 percent of all articles that made significant mention of climate science were less than 150 words long.

To make an educated appraisal of whether climate change is real or not, at least some of the science behind the issue must be explored, yet how can that be legitimately accomplished given so much biased and inadequate information is being published by our mass media.

The Media Entertainment & Arts Alliance Journalists’ Code of Ethics states in its first point that journalists should, “report and interpret honestly, strive for accuracy, fairness and disclosure of all essential facts, and not to suppress relevant available facts, or give distorting emphasis.”

Much of the coverage associated with climate change ignores this point, and as such, fails in its primary obligation to its readers.

Associate Professor of Journalism at UTS and ACIJ director Tom Morton stated at the time of the report’s that the results were “truly alarming”, and that, “The report clearly demonstrates that important and influential sections of the Australian media are failing in their responsibility to provide their audience with information they need to make informed choices on a matter of vital public interest.”

Although the ACIJ report looked at the coverage of climate change in two separate periods as recently as 2011 and 2012, much has changed in the Australian political landscape since its’ 2013 release.

Tony Abbott – a renowned climate change sceptic – has recently ‘celebrated’ his first anniversary in office.

During the two periods the investigation was being conducted, a Labour Government led by Julia Gillard was in power, and a carbon tax was in place. Now 12 months after the report’s release, a Liberal Government, led by Tony Abbott – a renowned climate change sceptic – has recently ‘celebrated’ its first anniversary in office. One of Mr Abbotts, primary election promises was to abolish that carbon tax, which he has now done.

So has this change in the political climate, made any difference to the way in which climate change is covered by the Australian media?

Looking at a range of articles on climate change published in Australian media since the ACIJ report was released late in 2013, it would appear not. While News Corp news articles on new climate change developments are reasonably balanced, the vast majority of articles are still opinion pieces, almost all sceptical, if not totally disdainful of climate change science, with very little, if any evidence backing them up.

Conversely, while Fairfax publications may offer more insight, and cite more sources in their articles, they too fail to a degree as far as a balanced coverage is concerned. There are occasions when they do not report on new developments that may give weight to the argument that climate change does not exist. Or that even if it does, we, and industrialisation are not responsible. News Corp publications on the other hand, will pounce on such a development, even giving it extensive coverage.

An example of this is an article that appeared in the Weekend Australian on August 23rd of 2014. In the article, Jennifer Marohasy – a biology researcher from Queensland – accuses the Bureau of Meteorology (BoM), of, “manipulating temperature records to fit a predetermined view of global warming.”

Researcher Jennifer Marohasy has claimed the Bureau of Meteorology’s adjusted temperature

The accusation comes after Marohasy spent two years researching “temperature records noted in historic logs that date back through the Federation drought of the late 19th century.” While the Bureau disputed the allegation, it did admit to ‘homogenising’ temperature records, a practice which it says, is commonly used internationally.

Although Marohasy is a self-confirmed climate change sceptic, her findings have been published in peer-reviewed climate science literature, yet there was no mention of her findings in major Fairfax publications.

Conversely News Corp covered it extensively, with the Australian publishing another three articles on the subject, on top of the initial one. Three written by the paper’s Environment Editor Graham Lloyd, and one opinion piece written by James Delingpole.

News Corp columnist Andrew Bolt, who is a well-known climate change sceptic, also wrote an article on Marohasy’s findings, which was published in both the Herald Sun and Daily Telegraph. Bolt is by far the most prolific News Corp columnist on climate change, writing literally hundreds of articles espousing his disdain of climate change, and attacking anyone with an opinion different from his own.

Since December of 2013, Bolt has written over 60 opinion pieces on climate change – all of them dismissive, and uses any evidence, real, flimsy or totally whimsical in an attempt to prove his point.

In an article titled ‘Godzilla the monster outwits the global warmists’, published in the Herald Sun in May, he attempted to connect the then recently released Godzilla film, with the argument against global warming. Reader comments posted below the article confirmed how ridiculous his argument was. A commenter named Andrew writing, “Next he will be talking about the next zombie movie being about conservative voters!”

GODZILLA to the rescue! The monster has broken free to stomp all over the global warming alarmism of director Gareth Edwards. So says News Corp columnist Andrew Bolt.

While Andrew Bolt may be the most prolific writer of opinion pieces for News Corp debunking climate change, Tim Blair, Miranda Devine and Piers Ackerman also publish many columns on the subject in the Daily Telegraph and Herald Sun, as well as on their own blogs – all of them dismissive.

This sceptical viewpoint is not confined to News Corp’s tabloids, as their masthead paper, the Australian is also sceptical of climate change in the majority of its opinion pieces. Many are written by the previously mentioned James Delingpole, a British journalist and author, who also happens to be another renowned climate change sceptic, and who Andrew Bolt refers to as, ‘Britain’s mighty James Delingpole’.

Although the Australian also publishes a number of balanced articles on the subject, they have been accused of bias on the issue from various quarters for some time.

In 2010 Julie Posetti, who currently teaches journalism at the University of Wollongong, attacked the paper’s stance on climate change on social media during a panel discussion on climate change being held at UTS.

Criticism also came after a report released by an Australian Institute think tank, that found that, “during a three-month period, The Australian published opinion pieces or editorials as follows: nine for the government’s position and one against; 10 against Kyoto and one for; and 10 against the consensus view of the science.”

In response The Australian’s lawyers sent a letter to Posetti, demanding she retract the statements, and Environmental Editor Graham Lloyd, wrote an article referring to, and refuting the allegations of bias. Stating that contrary to a long standing belief held about the newspaper’s editorial position on climate change, “The Australian supports global action on climate change based on the science.”

The 2013 ACIJ report does back up Lloyd’s claims to some degree, with the study finding the Australian published 24 percent (the most of any publication), of all articles concerning climate change in the two three month periods looked at.

The Australian’s Environmental Editor Graham Lloyd, says that contrary to a long standing belief held about the newspaper’s editorial position on climate change, “The Australian supports global action on climate change based on the science.”

However the report also named The Australian as one of the three worst offenders when it came to negative commentary about the subject.

A look at articles published since the ACIJ was released shows that while The Australian does have many articles in favour of climate change, they are usually AAP articles, and none are written by Lloyd.

He tends to write on issues that are sceptical, such as those written on the theories of Jennifer Marohasy, and the majority of commentary published in The Australian is still negative.

By far the most balanced coverage coming under the News Corp umbrella is News.com.au. While there are still negative commentators on the subject, there are also many articles using science, either for or against, as the basis of the piece. One particular article titled, ‘10 simple points about climate change’, stood out, as it was one of the few articles on climate change that looked at the issue as a whole, and written simplistically, with a touch of humour, yet not dumbed down.

There are not enough of articles covering climate change written in this way that are easily accessible to the average Australian. The only way an educated decision can be made about climate change is through knowledge of the issue, and the science behind the decision, either for or against. It is up to journalists to unbiasedly convey scientific theories brought forward on the subject to the general public in a way that can be easily understood.

How many of us actually know what climate change and global warming is, and what causes it? When did scientists first discover it, and what is the global consensus amongst scientists on the subject?

Given the importance of the issue, these are questions we should all know, yet many of us do not, and instead base our arguments on opinion, rather than fact.

As previously mentioned Fairfax publications, such as The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age, have a far more balanced coverage of climate change than their News Corp counterparts. Their articles are generally longer, and cite scientific sources more often. Fairfax also have far less negative commentary on the issue. The same can also be said of climate change coverage from other media outlets, such as The Guardian, Crikey and The Conversation. All provide balanced and informative articles on climate change.

However as News Corp holds a 70 percent market share of print media in Australia, most Australians get their news from News Corp tabloids, and as has been shown, these particular publications fail in their duty to, “report and interpret honestly, strive for accuracy, fairness and disclosure of all essential facts, and not to suppress relevant available facts, or give distorting emphasis.”

This, says Professor Bacon, “should be a matter of great concern to the Australian public, governments, the scientific community and journalists.”

 

The next article in this series will look at what climate change actually is, whether it occurs naturally, how it occurs and what the possible consequences may be.

No blame just the basics

Is the Earth really warming?

The 97 percent consensus

Gina Rinehart: The motivation behind the media raids

Although analysts were surprised when Gina Rinehart first invested in Ten and Fairfax, a look back through her history shows that her entry into mass media  was inevitable.

Georgina Rinehart is the only child of deceased Western Australian mining magnate Lang Hancock, and although in eastern states the Hancock name is synonymous with mining; the Hancock family are still one of the oldest and wealthiest land owners in Western Australia.

His forebears arrived in Perth in 1830, five years after the city was established, and were the first white settlers of the Pilbara region.

In 1952, Hancock discovered one of the world’s richest iron ore deposits in the Pilbara region. At the time of the discovery, Commonwealth legislation had an embargo in place preventing the export of iron ore; while state legislation forbade staking iron ore claims. Hancock kept the discovery between himself and business partner Peter Wright, for the next ten years.

Over the next decade Hancock used all of the power and influence at his disposal to overturn the legislation that was preventing him from profiting from his discovery. In 1961 he succeeded, and laid claim to the rich iron ore deposits which he later named ‘Hope Downs’; and which provided the Hancock Prospecting Group with an estimated $1.5 billion  last financial year.

Lang Hancock was adamant in his belief that mining is “the fundamental basis on which all modern civilisations rest,” and hated bureaucracy and big government. He believed all they did was “consume wealth, not create it, and that the larger the government was, the more wealth it consumed”.

He wanted to “limit the power of government to an absolute minimum,” and although he disliked and distrusted the media, considering the majority of them either “socialists” or “communists”, Hancock obviously recognised the media’s power to sway public opinion, for one of the ways he recommended limiting government power was “by obtaining control of the media and then educating the public”.

He also believed that “control of the press could be obtained by several of the big mining groups banding together with a view to taking over one or more of the present giant newspaper chains which control the TV and radio channels, and converting them to the path of ‘free enterprise’.”

Lang Hancock began preparing Gina to take over the Hancock Prospecting Group from a young age, and she was just a child when she started travelling the world with her father, attending business meetings, and talking with industry leaders and heads of state.

Lang Hancock and daughter Gina

Ron Manners, a friend of the Hancock family remembers how, ”he was grooming her as a chosen successor so he put a lot of energy into that. Gina came on all his trips to the Pilbara.”

On ABC’s Four Corners long-time friend and one time advisor of Rinehart’, former NSW minister Michael Yabsley stated, “There was never any doubt that she was the heir apparent. The closeness of the relationship between Gina and her father was clearly demonstrated.”

Adele Ferguson also claims that the young “Gina’s love for her father often crossed into hero worship,” and that “he was, in her eyes at least, a truly visionary business leader who laid the groundwork for national prosperity,”

Hancock also fostered in Gina many of his own far right beliefs. Adele Ferguson believing she “imbibed her father’s right-wing dogma, and views the world through the same monochromatic prism with which he viewed it. There are no shades of grey.”

Michael Yabsley also believes Rinehart inherited her father’s very black-and-white view of the world.

Rinehart was expected to be politically savvy, and Hancock impressed upon her the importance of knowing the names and backgrounds of business leaders and politicians, and as was mentioned in the previous paragraph, to further her education in this area she was introduced to industry leaders and heads of state from an early age.

In 1979 Rinehart showed that she was very much her father’s daughter with the conception and establishment of the ‘Wake Up Australia’ campaign, which included chartering a Boeing 747 from Qantas and flying 300 businessmen, associates and journalists over three states to promote mining and the philosophies of Lang Hancock and where  she “espoused her father’s political views to the point of lip-synching”.

Rinehart also inherited her father’s dislike and distrust of the media. However, unlike her father, who tried to win over members of the press by making himself available to them, Rinehart has shunned them almost completely. The only exception being when she has had complete editorial control over the content in question.

Malcolm Farr believes the reason for this can be traced back to the ‘Wake up Australia’ flight where she “had to contend with a posse of piss-taking east coast journalists whose running gag was that the plane could only fly in a right-wing direction”.

When asked if Rinehart held the same views as her father in regards to journalists being “socialist or communist”, long-time friend, John McRobert answered that “she hasn’t found many journos who aren’t.”

Gina Rinehart is also extremely protective of her privacy, and requires all those closest to her to sign confidentiality agreements. Adele Ferguson and Debi Marshall have both written unauthorised biographies on Rinehart, and claim finding people associated with her that would actually talk to them about anything significant, was extremely difficult.

 In an article on Rinehart, Nick Bryant spoke to a onetime associate who said, “She considers even nice things defamatory”.

The reluctance of those associated with Rinehart to speak about her is very understandable considering her litigious nature. Throughout her adult life she has repeatedly shown that in any dispute she will pursue any and all legal avenues open to her to achieve an outcome that favours her; even if it means taking such action against her own family.

Hope Downs provided Hancock Prospecting Group with an estimated $1.5 billion last financial year.

 When Hancock had Rinehart removed as a Director of Hancock Prospecting due to a rift between the two over their respective spouses, she instigated legal proceedings against him which lasted for five years.

In 1992 Hancock died, and Rinehart blamed Porteous, and for the next seven years fought to have a coronial inquiry. WA Attorney General Peter Foss later said “I was approached by various Ministers and other people of influence, who had been obviously approached by her to ask me why it was I hadn’t made the order that she sought. I don’t think Gina has a reputation for giving up lightly.”

The inquiry was fraught with controversy, and it was found that Rinehart had paid witnesses, and that the evidence she had used to have the inquest reopened was actually false. Rinehart stated at the time she did not know the evidence was false, and that the witnesses were only paid because they demanded it, and would not testify otherwise. Jim McGinty criticised the inquest as being a waste of public resources, and stated at the time that “money shouldn’t buy access to justice.”

Gina Rinehart is currently involved in numerous legal proceedings, including a suit brought against her by three of her children in regard to control of the family trust. She is also pursuing legal action against a journalist who uncovered details of the trust case, wanting the name of the source of his information. She is also suing the estate of her late father’s lawyer over $20 million dollars worth of worthless shares in case that has been going for 17 years, and is being sued herself by the family of her father’s partner, Peter Wright.

Gina Rinehart speaks at a rally against the ‘mining super tax’ in 2010

In 2010 when the Rudd Government wanted to bring in a mining super tax, Rinehart’s self-interest overcame her need for privacy, and she joined other mining magnates such as Twiggy Forrester in a media driven publicity campaign condemning the tax.

On one occasion Kevin Rudd was giving a speech at a Perth hotel, and Forrest and Rinehart set up a flatbed truck on the street outside, shouting such memorable slogans as “axe the tax”.

This campaign proved to Rinehart how powerful the media was, for within two weeks of the impromptu rally, Rudd was gone, and new PM Julia Gillard introduced a much watered down version of the ‘mining tax’. However it was still a tax, and Rinehart wanted it scrapped completely.

She had also come to the conclusion that she would not be able to work with the current Labour Government, and would have to come up with another strategy to have this legislation overturned.

In November 2010 Gina Rinehart surprised many business analysts when The Hancock Prospecting Group acquired a 10% stake in the Ten Television Network. As Rinehart had always been intensely protective of her privacy, and rarely given interviews to the media in the past, to enter an industry that was so public in its nature appeared to be completely out of character

However, Rinehart’s entry into mainstream media was hardly surprising, and not at all out of character; particularly when the views and philosophies she shared with her late father are taken into consideration. Darren Davidson believes Rinehart’s attendance at an event in Sydney celebrating Allan Jones’s 25 years in radio earlier in November may have instigated her entry into the media. “Rinehart watched politicians deliver tributes to Jones and witnessed at first hand the complex political influence and power wielded by the east coast media set”.

Although it may well have been the catalyst to her investment into the Ten Network, it was hardly the major motivating factor. This is shown by a media release issued by Hancock Prospecting Group, regarding their entry into the media industry which contained the following statement. “Our company group is interested in making an investment towards the media business given its importance to the nation’s future. We have chosen the Ten Network as that investment.”

As has been mentioned previously, Lang Hancock suggested this as a means to minimise government control, and was the next logical step for Rinehart to take following the introduction of the ‘mining super tax’, and the ensuing public relations battle between the big mining companies and the Federal Government.

Gina Rinehart is on a mission says Andrew Bolt

Close friend and one of the few journalists she approves of Andrew Bolt wrote at the time, “Rinehart is on a mission. Channel 10 is just the vehicle.”

Within weeks of the acquisition of shares in Ten, Rinehart spent $50 million on a two percent share in Fairfax Media. In January the following year she increased this to four percent, and by June of 2012 she was the major shareholder at Fairfax, controlling over 18% of the media company at a cost of $186 million.

If there were any doubts about Rinehart’s motives in entering the media industry after the Ten investment, they were erased when she raided Fairfax, as the media giant had been losing money for years.

James Thomson stated “it now seems unlikely that the main motivation for buying into Ten Network was to make money”.

Associate Professor David McKnight from UNSW agreed. “Rinehart’s investment in Fairfax is not aimed at a financial return. There are a hundred other, healthier companies where this is possible, if that was genuinely her aim.”

As Rinehart’s share of Fairfax grew, so did the concern of those within the industry, particularly when it was revealed that she refused to sign the board’s ‘charter of editorial independence’.

She also made it clear she wanted more than one seat on the board, and the power to hire and fire editors. When this was rejected by the board, she threatened to sell much of her stake in the company, which would spark a massive drop in the share price allowing her repurchase her shares at a much lower cost.

 After selling off many of her shares the board accepted her close associate Jack Cowin, who shares many of Rinehart’s views, including her total disbelief in climate change.

It is interesting to note that the National Australia Bank, who have a seven billion dollar investment in Rinehart’s Roy Hill Mine, also are a major shareholder of Fairfax.

As of yet there have been no reported incidents of Rinehart interfering with the editorial independence of Fairfax, however the same cannot be said of Channel 10.

At her first board meeting at Ten it is reported that at some stage during the meeting she told Lachlan Murdoch that ‘The Simpsons’ should be taken off air as it “was unsuitable for families”. The report did not presume to know if Rinehart was aware that Murdoch’s father owned the show through his Fox Network, and that it is one of the most successful television shows in hiostory; or whether she just did not care.

On 27^th June 2012 on Ten’s ‘Breakfast’ program during the social media segment of the show, Dan Ilic mentioned the ‘Sydney Mining Herald’ video that his ‘Rational Fear’ comedy team had released on You tube.

After an uncomfortable pause host Andrew Rochford is heard to say, “Hey Dan I told you not to mention that, well done, congratulations”.

The video is a parody of the workings of The Sydney Morning Herald after Gina Rinehart gained such a large stake in Fairfax. In an interview with Pedestrian TV, Ilic explained he was warned not to mention the video for “obvious reasons”, and that he could only presume it was because the video was either “too high-brow for the segment or it makes fun of a major shareholder of the network.”

Rinehart was also the catalyst behind the extremely right wing ‘Bolt Report’ which airs on Sundays on Ten; and despite continued poor ratings and the concerns of some members of the board, she continues to doggedly support the show.

In its first year it averaged just 123,000 viewers, and in the first ratings period of July 2012 was only the 54^th most watched show on the Sunday, with the largest audience of 47, 000 viewers coming from Melbourne, Bolt’s city of residence.

Bolt is well known for his extreme right wing views, and is very critical of the current Labour Government. He is an ardent supporter of Rinehart’s.

What then, will the ramifications be if Gina Rinehart has editorial control of mass media in Australia?

The media is a powerful tool and throughout history, there are examples of how the power that the media – or medium of the time – holds, can influence the beliefs and behaviour of citizens.

In Ancient Egypt Ramesses II used hieroglyphics to promote himself as God and king, with scant regard for the truth.

Throughout the middle-ages The Roman Catholic Church monopolised the written word throughout Western Europe. Many argue that because of this monopolisation of literature – the medium of the time – the church is responsible for holding back the social and technological advancement of mankind for centuries.

In the United States in 1938 in a radio play of ‘War of the Worlds’, Orson Wells adapted the story to sound like live news broadcasts about an invasion from Mars. “Thousands of people, believing they were under attack by Martians, flooded newspaper offices and radio and police stations with calls, asking how to flee their city or how they should protect themselves from “gas raids.”

The media still has the power to sway public opinion.

More recently in 1992, the day before the British election – in which all opinion polls pointed at Labour’s Neil Kinnock easily defeating the incumbent Prime-minister  John Major – The Sun ran the following front page headline, “If Kinnock wins today will the last person to leave Britain please turn out the lights.” Major retained the prime-ministership and the following day The Sun claimed on its front page “It’s the Sun wot won it.”

Some may argue that in this age of media convergence, falling newspaper sales, and a media savvy public that the press no longer holds the power it once had to sway public opinion.

Paul Barry disagrees, “Despite savage falls in paid print sales, I don’t buy this argument that newspapers (and their hugely successful websites) have no power anymore.”

Professor Stephen Tanner of the University of Wollongong also believes that Australia still “has a powerful media,” and John Lloyd goes even further and suggests “The media is now among the first powers in the world. Its power is the greater for being disguised, including from itself.”

It could be argued that Australia’s current media ownership laws will prevent Gina Rinehart from acquiring too many media outlets, and thus a monopolisation of the industry.

Martin Hirst says “Rinehart’s estimated wealth is staggering . . . but there are many hurdles to jump before she can claim the throne as Australia’s princess of print.”

This is currently true; it is the present Labour government that Rinehart is at odds with, and therefore in their best interests to limit Rinehart’s influence where-ever possible.

However if Labour loses the next federal election, and Tony Abbott becomes Australia’s Prime-minister things may change.

Abbott has already assured good friend Andrew Bolt that the legislation (Racial Discrimination Act) that led to Bolt being charged under the act earlier this year would be amended should he gain power, and he is a well-known supporter of Rinehart.

In May of 2012 Julia Gillard referred to him as “Gina Rinehart’s butler,” and earlier this year Abbott himself said ”Good on Gina for being prepared to invest in journalism at a difficult time, ‘It’s not a bad thing – it’s a good thing.”

But is it?

As has been shown, she has not invested in these outlets for monetary gain, nor for altruistic reasons, such as upholding the ideals of the fourth estate; but solely for the power of the media to influence public opinion.

Rinehart is on a journey started by her father over 33 years ago, and like her father before her, she will not allow anyone or anything to stand in her way.

Roy Hill mine will be the crown jewel of the Rinehart empire.