WE all know that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) is the main source of news and information for many Australians. The ABC is funded and owned by the government, but the ABC is apparently editorially independent as a consequence of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983.
So, who is the ABC accountable to? Certainly not to you or me.
The ABC, for all practical purposes, is exempt from the normal scrutiny that can be applied to government-funded institutions and departments. In particular the ABC’s programming material is exempt from Freedom of Information Requests [1].
So, the ABC can deploy its staff to spend hours and hours phoning people about me, asking the most intimate and bizarre questions and volunteering information to the same people that has no basis in fact. What can I do about it? Absolutely nothing.
Last week the ABC phoned around to get snips of fact about me that it could intertwine with lies with a plan for a national broadcast Monday night on its Media Watch program. I tried to head-that-off with full and frank answers to the many questions they asked me [2]. Indeed I provided them with a lot of information that was none of their business.
But not content with all of that, this week ABC journalists and researchers continue with the same activity; they continue to phone about. And from the feedback I have received from those the ABC has phoned: they continue to peddle misinformation about me, and misinformation about the natural history of the Murray River.
These activities are undertaken at tax payer expense, but there is no way I can find out who specifically they are phoning, or what specifically they are telling people. [3]
Questions need to be asked in the Australian Parliament about this exemption and about the ABCs continual harassment of me for daring to suggest that it is in the national interest for the Murray River’s estuary to be restored – for the 7.6 kilometres of concrete sea dyke to be removed from the bottom of the Murray Darling basin. [4]
*********
[1] ABC FOI – You can’t open the chamber of secrets
http://abcnewswatch.blogspot.com.au/2010/02/abc-foi-you-cant-open-chamber-of.html
“For those considering an FOI request to the ABC for program related material, such as internal correspondence that might provide an insight into the way errors get into the ABC's editorial process, beware of a clause in the FOI act that lists the ABC as an exempt agency with respect to documents "in relation to its program material and datacasting content" (Part II of schedule 2)…
“ABC cite ABC v University of Technology Sydney in relationship to this and from the ruling it seems the only way to open the vault is for the FOI ACT to be amended to allow access to ABC documents.”
[2] Media Watch Under Scrutiny
https://climatelab.com.au/2012/03/media-watch-under-scrutiny-2/
[3] Most government organisations are covered by a set of generally applicable exemptions many of which require a balancing of public interest. The ABC, however, could assign 10 people to research me and my activities and there would be nothing I could do about it or find out about it.
[4] Podcast available at the Sydney Institute http://www.thesydneyinstitute.com.au/speaker/jennifer-marohasy/
Malcolm Muggeridge did have some strange ideas.
He was contemptuous of fellow countrymen the Beatles. In a 1968 article in Esquire magazine, he called them "four vacant youths... dummy figures with tousled heads (and) no talent."
That famous British thinker and public figure Malcolm Muggeridge once told our equally well-known Aussie ABC Journalist James (?) (forgot again...!!)
that.."The Media are basically destructive..." Our man quickly asked.. "Present company excepted..."? ....but was curtly told, "If the cap fits, wear it...!!"
I cannot help but agree, however my limited experience in this area has shown me that if the interviewee can rise to the occasion and be seen as capable of debunking and refuting the slanders and untruths thrown at them during the interview, then even the most distressing on-air grilling can be turned into a positive experience.
It seems to me that the media person is affording an opportunity for the interviewee to make a thunderingly good case against all accusations which can be thrown at him/her.
While this may not appear obvious at first, the interviewed person should be ready and schooled to jump at this chance as a large audience can sometimes be reached in this way, and innumerable valuable points may be unexpectedly scored off their unwary protagonist.
If Jennifer (Give 'em hell, Jen.!) and so many others can keep this in mind, positive debating points will be earned and possibly hearts and minds will be won.
But as James Delingpole says, these debates and their protagonists are being left in the wake of more serious business as Carbon Taxes, Wealth Initiatives and Sustainability Issues overwhelm those who cannot see the wave of politico-economic change, sweeping over and past them, day by day. Carbon Debating is a backwater of today; interesting but too late.
Jennifer,
That is an interesting situation irt paypal.
PS I've been told paypal wants evidence of charity status though I understand that is not a lawful demand.
Hunter,
I grabbed the money when they notified me there was a problem/I needed to answer lots of questions. During a moratorium. Now the account, with no money in it, is frozen.
Marc, congrats on your oped in the Australian about the complaints process at the ABC here:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/press-and-abc-polar-opposites-in-complaints-arena/story-e6frgd0x-1226298595034
I can confirm this; when the Steig paper on Antarctic warming came out in 2009 the ABC naturally gave it prominent attention but gave none to the rebuttals of this dreadful paper or subsequent revelations that Steig was one of the reviewers of the paper by O'Donnell et al which rebutted his paper a run at all:
http://climateaudit.org/2011/02/13/steig-and-the-knuckleheaded-reviewers/
When a complaint was made the argument from the ABCwhich came back after some months was that the peer review system was the benchmark which they adhered to. It really is a circular argument which is corrupt to its core. It is not just the ABC which needs a good flushing but the peer review system as well.
I have a PayPal donate button on my site Jennifer and I'm not a charity. I don't receive much from it but some of my international clients prefer to pay me directly via it instead of wire transfer.
Hey Jen what about using a tip jar like Jo Nova has - check hers out - I know it works
Australian Climate Madness has a 'big oil' tip jar with a 'donate' button http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/