The decline in relevance of these papers is directly related to their surrender to advocacy journalism. They no longer attempt to appeal to the broad population of the cities they serve but increasingly reflect the narrow interests of those who would shut down any argument that does not accord with their prejudices. To their journalists and editors, life is a battle between right thinkers and wrong thinkers in which they, naturally, are on the side of the angels. A newspaper which aspires to play a constructive role in civic society cannot afford such conceit, or such contempt for its readers.
Answer is here.
- Log in to post comments
I rofl'd at this when I saw it at Pure Poison. It's simply beyond parody :-)
My favourite selection:
How did the editor keep a straight face as he sent it to print?
Erk!
This reminds me of (what other people told me) the "Truth"^fn1 newspaper used to do: have an inside joke play out in a story of theirs, presented to the mugs - sorry, esteemed readers - as though it is the truth. The "Truth" eventually died a readership numbers demise, but not before such headlines as "Weeing Nuns Give Us Babies", and "Kylie Is An Alien" (IIRC). The parallels are uncanny.
fn1: "Truth" was a newspaper in Australia known for the equivalent of a page 3, and mainly for its sporting guide, principally the horses. Husbands used to explain their fixation with the "Truth" newspaper as due to the racing guide (not the pinups or the salacious stories).
An interesting perspective on climate denial in oz
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2011/jun/15/climate-change-s…
I can't think of ANY newspaper that could claim to such standards of honesty. Look at their history of lying and censoring to promote catastrophic global warming.
These 7 questions seem to go to the heart of the warming scare since if any of them cannot be answered in a way that supports alarmism then there is no case to answer. Indeed if # 3,4,5,6 & 7 cannot be answered honestly and supportively the case that deliberate fraud is taking place and everybody knowledgeable on the alarmist side knows it seems proven. For some reason Mr Mann has declined to answer them privately (as indeed has every other warming alarmist asked, scientist, politician or journalist):
1 - Do you accept Professor Jones' acknowledgement that there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995?
2 - Do you accept that the rise in CO2 has improved crop growth by around 10% & that the consequent influence on world hunger is more beneficial than any currently detectable destructive action of alleged global warming?
3 - Do you accept that the Hockey Stick, as originally presented by Mann and the IPCC contained calculations that were inconsistent with good science and that Mann's refusal to make calculations and algorithms available for checking were inconsistent with scientific principle?
4 - Do you accept that many claims from people and organisations on the alarmist side, from Al Gore's claim that South Sea islands had already been abandoned due to rising sea levels and Pachauri's claim that any dispute that the Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2025 was "voodoo" were untrue and insupportable even at the time.
5 - Do you accept that there are a number of geoengineering solutions which arithmetically can be shown would work (including stratospheric dust, the geritol solution or even just replacing CO2 burning with nuclear power) which would work at a small fraction of the cost of the war against fire, or in the case of nuclear, at negative cost?
6 - Do you accept that the refusal of alarmists to denounce fraud or telling of obvious untruths. on their side, or even its active support or covering up, detracts from the credibility of the entire movement?
7 - Of the alleged "consensus" - can you name 2 scientists, out of the roughly 60%, worldwide who are not paid by the state, who support catastrophic warming & if not can you explain how something can be a consensus when no member of a subset of 60% of the alleged consenting, consent?
I regret to say that the trend on "scienceblogs" has, so far been towards personal attacks and censorship. Anyone with a knowledge of science will know that these are not included within the principles of science (though, except for they are founding principles of fascism) and incompatible to any claim to respect science.
I await seeing if any accurate and supportive answer, or indeed 7, is possible.
Fiona Katauskas also skewers Denialism over at New Matilda.
Meanwhile, is anyone concerned that Monckton will be giving a presentation (on the theme of 'How to be a Loony Lord', presumably) at the AMEC convention? Which is being partly sponsored by CSIRO and Geoscience Australia. Why are taxpayer dollars being used to support denialism?
Read that whole Oz editorial linked from the Crikey article it's ... well, reflective of The Oz' editor's level of self-awareness.
Two thumbs up from me for both Carbon Cate Blanchett and Dastardly Dame Elisabeth Murdoch! Greenie extremists both.
The Australian seems to be going out of its way to publish disparaging articles on alternative energy. Solar is a burden on taxpayers, too inefficient etc., while wind has health impacts and despoils the landscape. I don't have a problem with objective investigation of either solar or wind. However, I do find it ironic that the same scrutiny is not applied to the coal and coal seam gas industries.
On another note did The Australian publish any significant material, opinion or otherwise, on the death threats to climate scientists?
You know, I buy the national tabloid on Saturday, so I can do the puzzle page, and read Philip Adams and the very interesting summary of health research. I skim the headlines for a laugh.
OMG! I just read the article!
Is the editor taking his Galileo complex too far?
Don't forget that The Australian is the very same newspaper which published an editorial a couple of years back claiming that internal heat from the Earth's core was one main driver of surface temperatures.
There is no limit to the amount of "dumb" which The Australian is willing to print.
Acacia, whereas coal is known for being subsidy free and healthful - not to mention the way property values shoot up when a coal fired plant opens next door.
> Why are taxpayer dollars being used to support denialism?
As opposed to the $12 million of taxpayer dollars being used to shill a token carbon tax?
We respect the intelligence of our readers
Translation: We think our readers are pretty dumb but flattery works wonders.
this newspaper takes seriously our duty to provide news coverage on policy debates that covers all significant information, views and perspectives.
Translation: We fulfil our duty to fill our readers' minds with so much junk, lies and misrepresentations that when they read the truth they won't see it for what it is.
We respect the intelligence of our readers and have confidence in their ability to make up their own minds.
Translation: We are hopeful that readers will 'make up their mind' to our favoured position of no action on climate, despite our token occasional editorials supporting a carbon price.
We operate on the understanding that you expect us to provide as much relevant information as possible, enabling you to be well-informed. It is our unwritten compact.
Translation: Yes, we know we fill the paper with irrelevant nonsense packaged as 'information' and so this is a tad inconsistent, but who reads editorials anyway? We said the compact was unwritten, didn't we - that's to let our editors off the hook and can claim never to have read it.
>As opposed to the $12 million of taxpayer dollars being used to shill a token carbon tax?
Yes, precisely opposed. One is government policy. The other is a fringe lunatic whose batty theories have long since been discredited (unless you're a conspiratorial old man in which case his many theories about communists using global warming install a one world government are the height of common sense).
This is standard in the USA, and probably a universal standard - the right will always accuse the left of doing what the right does (and does far more). I'd strengthen it to say that *anytime8 the right accuses the left of doing something, it's because the right is already doing 10x as much, or intends to do so as soon as possible.
re: 15
The 3 standard right wing strategies:
1) Accuse your opponent of doing what you're doing.
2) Attack your opponent's strength from your weakness.
3) Be worse than anyone can imagine.
Newt Gingrich and Karl Rove between them industrialized the decline of American democracy. But, hey, Australia, decline is a fungible good. We've got more than we need. We'll share.
Many commentators on this blog make fun of the people at The Australian.
They dismiss that paper as if it has little influence on people.
It is the only newspaper that goes throughout Australia and certainly has had a big influence on older people. News Limited is the only stable that publishes state wide in Queensland and I would bet that more Queenslanders are climate sceptics than in any other state partly because of the Murdock influence.
Instead of dismissing The Australian, people with facts should be swamping that newspaper with letters.
It gets better. Today's letter page is led by letters of praise for the editorial and how it's like totally right about why Fairfax sucks and stuff (in old white male conservative privilege speak, of course but the equivalent emotional depth of teenage fangirls squeeing over the latest Twilight movie).
AND they follow up with an opinion piece by Greg Melleuish that starts with all Greens are Nazis. How badly have you Godwinned yourself if you START with all Greens are Nazis? And, apparently, all right thinking people (ie those that are non-Green, non-Nazi, non-vegetarians) think being cruel to animals is a good thing. At least, I think that was his point. His logic is not my earth logic.
How can The Australian not notice how far they have descended into self-parody?
Surely they are talking about the National Post in Canada ;) Read this steaming pile of fresh elephant dung by the denialist Lorne Gunter.
Doc - have tried for both letters and comments. Even very short,very straightforward corrections to incorrect facts don't get published. They will let comments about how the carbon tax is a plot by the Jews through on their comments, however.
After that,mockery was the only option left.
Instead of dismissing The Australian, people with facts should be swamping that newspaper with letters.
Assuming they are interested in facts and fairness.
Good luck.
The Australian makes no errors of fact and has a perfect ideological position, so publication of letters of correction or alternative viewpoint would be pointless.
Rupert's mum: "'E's not the messiah! E's a very naughty boy!"
The decline of newspapers may not be such a bad thing after all.
"I would bet that more Queenslanders are climate sceptics"
Since they're not skeptical about the proposition that AGW doesn't exist, they aren't actually skeptics.
A skeptic is skeptical of their own ideas, hence open to changing their mind.
Guess which newspaper editor could write the following after claiming the paper has accepted man-made climate change as fact.