Public Address | System (Home)

Posted at 12:19PM on 21 Apr 08. Permalink.

I have no doubt that the correction was offered by the offended party - that is standard practice. There is nothing dictating that Hot Topic had to accept it or that it run it without advice.

They could have taken down the post temporarily until they got that advice.

Seems odd they caved in to pressure when their whole post was about that subject and people not having the strength to withstand it. Perhaps they realised they had got it wrong, perhaps they did not feel it worth fighting, perhaps they were intimidated. If so, that's a shame but we should remember that lawyers are as often wrong as they are right, and they don't make the law nor do they enforce it, so their letters can be hollow.

Posted at 1:19PM on 21 Apr 08. Permalink.

Hot Topic is part funded by AUT Media, a professional publishing company, just like APN. Sounds like a contest of equals to me.

Um, not quite... I had to seriously self-censor last week's PA Radio commentary, because I came to the conclusion that my (shall we say) unfiltered opinion of Bridget Saunders and the organ she write for would have clearly broken broadcasting standards, and arguably defamed both Saunders & SST editor Cate Brett.

It might have been defensible as 'honest opinion' -- and I don't think Radio Live is short of a bob or two --, but I sure don't have the money or the energy to take that kind of risk without a damn good reason. Nor do I think Russell or the production company that makes PAR would thank me for taking them along for the ride.

Posted at 3:13PM on 21 Apr 08. Permalink.

Certain individuals have put a great deal of time and effort here and elsewhere into trying to draw attention away from the Climate Science Coalition, which is where the spotlight should remain firmly focused.

It’s important to remember the fundamental issue that provoked this saga, which has 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 conservative 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,

*and that they shown repeatedly that they will attempt to have critical reporters silenced.

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.

CSC is not only attempting to subvert media process; it's intensively lobbying local and central government in an attempt to stall climate policy.

Given their backing from the likes of the US front groups Heartland Institute and the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, we may want to examine whether we have a sovereignty issue on our hands as well.

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.

Posted at 3:35PM on 21 Apr 08. Permalink.

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.

Hey, you write pretty well and sound like you have a strong opinion on this, but backed up by real information.

You should have a column in some sort of nationally distributed magazine. People should hear about what's going on, after all.

Posted at 3:43PM on 21 Apr 08. Permalink.

Did somebody mention Gordon Campbell?

Posted at 6:10PM on 21 Apr 08. Permalink.

I was part of a group of four writers who wrote a science column for the Listener for a couple of years. Our idea, promoted to Pamela in the first instance by Marilyn Head, was to provide stories about the abundance of interesting science that is being done in New Zealand. Our hope was that the stories would show the array of different aspects of New Zealand's science community - there are some great stories out there - but also build up an appreciation of science so that there is an understanding, and critical thought about what science can and can't do. So that when we debate climate change or nanotechnology or GE or xenotransplantation or the Large Hadron Collider, there can be more light and less heat in our discussions. We eventually quit - spat the dummy truth to be told - when we were told our stories had an endorsing (of science) tone. This, from a magazine that had run a story about laughter yoga (well written though it was) under the science and health banner.

Posted at 9:49PM on 21 Apr 08. Permalink.

The NZCSC had diner with Don Brash, but some others were left out in the cold.

http://flatearthersnz.blogspot.com/

Posted at 10:00PM on 21 Apr 08. Permalink.

The NZCSC had diner with Don Brash, but some others were left out in the cold.

That's choice.

Posted at 10:04PM on 21 Apr 08. Permalink.

when we were told our stories had an endorsing (of science) tone.

*blinks*

That's it. I really do live in a post-Enlightenment epoch. Guess I better start stockpiling ammo for the next Dark Ages.

Posted at 6:55AM on 22 Apr 08. Permalink.

when we were told our stories had an endorsing (of science) tone.

I think part of the problem with this whole debate is that there is not one person - to my knowledge - employed as a science reporter by the daily mainstream media in New Zealand. Not one.

I imagine we're the only 'developed' country in that position.

Posted at 9:59AM on 22 Apr 08. Permalink.

I think part of the problem with this whole debate is that there is not one person - to my knowledge - employed as a science reporter by the daily mainstream media in New Zealand. Not one.

Precisely. The sceptics get away with publishing nonsense because there's no-one on staff to point out the errors.

I can only hope that as the real seriousness of the climate issue becomes more apparent, and climate policy becomes mainstream, then most media will be able to spot the whoppers before they hit the press.

Posted at 10:42AM on 22 Apr 08. Permalink.

It's probably not quite the right analogy but isn't the insistence on including sceptics 'for balance' in the climate debate akin to telling Guyon Espiner or Duncan Garner to include anarchists in every report about New Zealand's politics?

And furthermore, harking back to the endorsing science comment, we don't ask our press gallery reporters to debate whether or not we should actually have a parliamentary democracy - we discuss the issues going on within that system.

Do they 'endorse' parliamentary democracy by reporting on what's going on within it?

Posted at 11:03AM on 22 Apr 08. Permalink.

Kim I'ld like a bit more involvement from all cnrs of society. I think Chomsky is an Anachist - they claim him as one of theirs (Pharlap phenomenon) - so I wouldn't dismiss a political belief out of hand.

Just be aware of who they are and how many they represent.

I would far prefer a more particapatory democracy rather than our representative democracy. A constitution to tie the hands of power would be a good start too.

Posted at 11:06AM on 22 Apr 08. Permalink.

I knew anarchists was the wrong choice for the analogy as soon as I posted it. How about the Spartacus League then? I think they are obscure enough to make my point.

Posted at 4:29PM on 22 Apr 08. Permalink.

Couple of points:

One is that like many posters here I'd like to see greater scientific literacy, if thats the word, among journalists. There's an inbuilt bias away from the sciences in journalism, because most of us (myself included) are artsy types.

Its of particular concern, I guess, because our economy depends pretty much exclusively on 'life sciences'.

I don't agree though that only qualified climate scientists are entitled to be reported on the subject of climate change, (although one good side effect would be it would shut Al Gore up).

To quote somebody or other, we didn't abolish the divine right of kings in order to fall down before the divine right of experts. This is a public policy debate.

Posted at 5:01PM on 22 Apr 08. Permalink.

I think part of the problem with this whole debate is that there is not one person - to my knowledge - employed as a science reporter by the daily mainstream media in New Zealand.

Something that makes me gloomy is that TV3 trot out DOCTOR Lillian Ng (their emphasis) on health issues. I think this adds a certain richness to some issues, but I lament her interpretation of health research. I know that we do train our doctors to a certain level of epidemiological knowledge, but mostly they're learning how to make us well, not understanding the nuances of the clinical research in the background.

Posted at 5:27PM on 22 Apr 08. Permalink.

"we didn't abolish the divine right of kings in order to fall down before the divine right of experts. This is a public policy debate."

Right, but expertise informs that debate.

Climate scientists surely don't get to weigh policy outcomes, goals, etc, but their assessment of the state of affairs surely counts for more than some other random party? On what other grounds should anyone's opinion be privileged for broadcast? Big breasts and a lost dog, perhaps?

I would regard it as an advance if the news media consistently identified who was actively working and publishing in their field, who was a think tank member (whether funded by Exxon or Greenpeace) and who had business interests at stake (whether in carbon generating industries or in mitigation).

Finally, yes self-identified climate change skeptics may well have come by their opinions honestly and without financial incentives. Unfortunately, the history of things like the lung cancer-tobacco connection, with its front groups and industry-funded jiggered research, tends to make me skeptical of those skeptics, and wonder whether they aren't useful idiots.

It amazes me that journalists' cherished skepticism isn't automatically aroused after the long history of corporate bamboozlement in other fields where science is disputed.

Posted at 6:01PM on 22 Apr 08. Permalink.

Finally, yes self-identified climate change skeptics may well have come by their opinions honestly and without financial incentives. Unfortunately, the history of things like the lung cancer-tobacco connection, with its front groups and industry-funded jiggered research, tends to make me skeptical of those skeptics, and wonder whether they aren't useful idiots.

In some cases, it's the same people who were Big Tobacco people.

And you're not the only one to draw parallels between the respective lobbies' tactics.

Posted at 6:02PM on 22 Apr 08. Permalink.

Something that makes me gloomy is that TV3 trot out DOCTOR Lillian Ng (their emphasis) on health issues. I think this adds a certain richness to some issues, but I lament her interpretation of health research. I know that we do train our doctors to a certain level of epidemiological knowledge, but mostly they're learning how to make us well, not understanding the nuances of the clinical research in the background.

I think of it as something should work but really just doesn't.

Posted at 6:33PM on 22 Apr 08. Permalink.

I know that we do train our doctors to a certain level of epidemiological knowledge, but mostly they're learning how to make us well, not understanding the nuances of the clinical research in the background.

Sure, but I'd like to think professional communicators would display some level of literacy and numeracy (or basic research skills) that wouldn't lead to utter bullshit like the rash of 'anti-depressants don't work - studies show' stories that were doing the rounds a few weeks back. No insult to our host intended, but it's pretty depressing when Russell time and again seems to have put more effort into getting a fact-based grip on health stories than MSM hacks who supposedly have the resources of major media outlets at their beck and call. It's not unreasonable to expect a little effort to get it right, rather than right now when you're running a health scare story that could (literally) affect life and death decisions made by viewers.

Posted at 11:38AM on 23 Apr 08. Permalink.

I'd like to think professional communicators would display some level of literacy and numeracy (or basic research skills) that wouldn't lead to utter bullshit like the rash of 'anti-depressants don't work - studies show' stories that were doing the rounds a few weeks back.

That is an interesting example -- we printed out a copy of the original research article and left it on a table in the corridor for grazing for a few days. There are a bunch of issues that make it not the whole story (it was only some anti-depressants and only a subset of the evidence - but an extremely interesting subset because it included all the unpublished research as well as the published)... but the biggest thing was not that it didn't show that anti-depressants didn't work (it showed a very large effect), but that the placebo effect was perhaps three quarters of the the size of the drug effect. IE -- the sugar pills worked really fucking well!

Posted at 12:01PM on 23 Apr 08. Permalink.

Doubt is Their Product.

The Paranoid Style in American Science

Both links nicked from Ben Goldacre.

Posted at 12:05PM on 23 Apr 08. Permalink.

Something that makes me gloomy is that TV3 trot out DOCTOR Lillian Ng (their emphasis) on health issues. I think this adds a certain richness to some issues, but I lament her interpretation of health research.

A couple of months back, TV3 had imported some 'vaccines cause autism' story, which was actually framed around a girl who, it turned out if you listened carefully, wasn't actually autistic. They had Mike McRoberts talk to Lilian Ng afterwards, and she was... almost scathing. Certainly pissy. My respect level for her went right up.

Posted at 1:07PM on 23 Apr 08. Permalink.

They had Mike McRoberts talk to Lilian Ng afterwards, and she was... almost scathing. Certainly pissy. My respect level for her went right up.

That's fucking awesome. I'd be very happy to see more of that sort of thing.
(I think I might have seen a spoiler for that, picked up on the not actually autistic bit, and then didn't watch).

Posted at 1:41PM on 23 Apr 08. Permalink.

That's fucking awesome.

Yep, that's good.

That vaccine compensation story was reported badly nearly everywhere. The young woman compensated suffered an adverse reaction to a vaccine that left her with some symptoms that were like some of those of autism. It wasn't anything like "proof that vaccines cause autism".

Meanwhile, sadly, Obama and Clinton have joined McCain in paying lip service to pseudoscience with respect to this issue.

Posted at 2:09PM on 23 Apr 08. Permalink.

Meanwhile, sadly, Obama and Clinton have joined McCain in paying lip service to pseudoscience with respect to this issue.

Blech. I especially like the bit at the end of that link

'Of course, "calling for more research" is the cop-out that all politicians use whenever there's an issue that is contentious'(onegoodmove)

This is also the default cop-out at the end of an undergraduate student essay. Rather than attempt to synthesise, they call for more research :)