I would hope that a different decision would be made today.

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/24/vanishing-frogs-climate-and-the-front-page/

Sorry about the delay in posting your comment – it got caught in the spam filter for some reason…

I wonder if something like the Science Media Centre in the UK might not be worth looking at. If the scientific community could come up with a body for editors to refer to – or which provided advice and guidance to the media on controversial topics – then perhaps the Press Council could adopt the view that editors who ignored its advice were not following due process. An idea to boot around, perhaps? Maybe I’ll put it up as a post…

Steven Price, who wrote about the Listener-Hot Topic dispute on medialawjournal.co.nz, sent me the following link to a 2004 Press Council decision on “Michael Mann vs NZ Herald”

http://www.presscouncil.org.nz/display_ruling.asp?casenumber=962

Mann complained that the Herald gave too much space to de Freitas and would not publish a reply by Mann. The complaint was not upheld.

In other words, in reply to Dave Hansford’s line that “50% is not balance”, the Press Council takes the line that “50% is so balance”. So, if we want to prevent a political group from exploiting the media’s unwillingness to explore issues of scientific fact – ie from creating a phony scientific issue – the PC will be no help.

It seems to me that the media have explored the issue to some degree. They have explored it and decided that 50% is balance – the reaction to Hansford’s original piece being a striking example. But they have to admit that they have made a stand. They can’t argue that “the science is too complicated for us to understand, so we’ll let everybody express their view.” On other issues, eg 9/11, they’ve decided that fringe views will not get an equal hearing.

The only remaining strategy to change this situation seems to be to try and persuade the editors to adopt a more reasonable, and more explicit, policy on reporting of climate change issues. The link to the new BBC policy posted here shows that this can be done.

In the meantime I’ll write to Pamela Stirling and say I won’t be buying the Listener anymore. I’m still smarting over her comment that child abuse is a “failure of ethnicity”, anyway.

Cheers,

Robert

I posted this the other day under “More on the Listener,” but that thread has since been overtaken by events, so I’m re-posting it here.

Cindy is correct; it’s important that we stay focused on the fundamental issue arising out of this saga; it’s given us an opportunity to critically appraise the issue of the media’s handling of the climate denial industry.

If there’s to be a positive outcome, let’s hope it will be that the media finally (if belatedly) steps back from this counterproductive modus operandi and conducts instead a lucid re-analysis of its relationship with the denial industry (and by extension, US neo-con front groups).

We need to replace the denial industry in its correct position and appropriate status in climate change reporting.

That is to say; we recognise them for what they are, and duly attribute them so; political lobbyists pushing a free-market agenda. With the exception of Chris deFreitas THEY ARE NOT CLIMATE SCIENTISTS (and my understanding of Chris’ work is that it does not focus on global climate modelling).

Given that they are in fact a political entity, instead of a scientific one, let’s by all means consider and report their comments on mitigation policy, pricing instruments, even energy options (that’s something Bryan Leyland can at least claim some experience in). That is their rightful place in climate change coverage.

Let’s hope the media can – as did the BBC and the New York Times – come up with an editorial policy that does not deny readers the critical information they need to evaluate the claims by the Climate Science Coalition.

That information is;

* that these people are not qualified (again, with the possible exception of deFreitas) to call the IPCC’s findings into question,

*that they are paid by industry to stall progress on climate change policy,

The Listener’s “right of reply” piece this week denied its readers even that basic background – as does virtually all mainstream media treatment. (Incidentally, its piece – also this week – on evolution, did not go to any creationists for their comments. It seems “balance” is being employed selectively)

That firmly established, we then need to decide precisely what weight, in terms of percentage coverage, we give them. They represent a minority position, and a still smaller one at that. I think that would be an excellent place to begin.

Finally, the media must apply the same standards of accuracy, balance and credibility to these sources as they expect of their own reporters. There has been a signal failure to do this.

The media is complicit in this. We helped create this monster; we gave it oxygen, energy and exposure. We lent it a credibility it has not earned. Now it’s turned around and bitten us. It’s out of control, and we have to decide what to do about it.

Climate change is the single biggest, most important environmental threat New Zealanders face, and the media, by pandering to the denial industry, has manifestly failed to give them the quality of information they need to respond to it.

Meanwhile, we squander our most precious resource; time.

FACT: The Listener ran a column which broke a story about how the NZ climate sceptics are now being funded by an Exxon-funded US right wing think tank to fly around the world and spout their scepticism. All information in this column was fully substantiated.

FACT: The Listener, under pressure, then runs a “reply” piece by climate sceptics which was full of errors…

*note to self* must pitch an opinion piece to The Listener about how second hand smoke is good for you. Doesn’t look like I’ll need to back up the science which is excellent.

PS Kiwiblog posted over the weekend.

The blog machine is mobilising… Kiwiblog shouldn’t be far behind.

Thanks.