The Sydney Morning Herald has recently published what can only be described as a wild-eyed conspiracy theory about the global warming debate by journalist Paddy Manning. According to Manning, various industry groups like oil, coal, and energy are controlling the news, using their considerable financial resources to warp and distort public debate.
News Limited is seen as the greatest offender, despite Rupert Murdoch’s “spectacular about-face” on the issue. Manning says,
“nothing you read on climate change in The Australian can be taken at face value. Its coverage of the issue is effectively sponsored by the resources industry.”
Huh? Rupert Murdoch, one of the richest men in the world, owner of one the largest media conglomerates in history, is supplementing his income with pocket money by publishing propaganda for lobbyists? This is a big call and it doesn’t pass the credibility test at face value. There had better be some compelling evidence to back it up, so let’s read on…
Confirmation came this week when The Australian had the gall to trumpet a media award given by the oil and gas lobby group, APPEA, to editor-in-chief Chris Mitchell
Got that? a journalist at the Australian recieves an award from an industry group, so this means that the newspaper is secretly publishing advertising material and propaganda falsely masquerading as independent reporting and commentary. There is the possibility, of course, that the reporter was just doing their job and did not ask for or expect such an award. But here comes the gotcha moment.
APPEA chief executive Belinda Robinson said that over the past 12 months The Australian’s ‘in-depth coverage of a range of public policy issues affecting Australia’s upstream oil and gas industry has been of a consistently high standard’
“A disgraceful admission” says Manning. And later reveals that oil and gas industry reports have been rebranded as “Business and Environment” and then “Climate Series”.
Gotcha again! Those industry lackeys have no shame!
But let’s take a long, slow breath and think about this another way.
From a save-the-world perspective, it’s certainly true that reporting on retreating glaciers, drowning polar bears and the impending catastrophe that’s a mere 50 to 100 years away is the critical task of any reporter. But from a more detached perspective focusing on politics, policy, economics and industry, the key issue is what policies are being implemented or mooted and how they impact on industry. The energy industry is directly impacted by government policy and indeed by public opinion. It is in their interest that public debate does not neglect them or that it does not demonise them.
Manning draws a straight line between industry playing a role in the debate (directly and indirectly such as through awards) and corruption of the debate. This position gives no credence to industry voices as legitimate participants in public debate, and holds industry to a higher standard than other vested interests such as environmental groups. In fact, Manning notes with approval activist website reaclimate’s “most consistently wrong media outlet” award.
The article concludes with this comment on a quote from Eric Beecher of Crikey:
Earlier this year, Beecher wrote: “Despite The Australian’s often strident right-leaning editorial and ownership bias … it does not publish political commentary and analysis viewed exclusively through a single lens.”
Well, that’s not true on climate change. And the joke is on the rest of us.
In other words, the article is accusing The Australian of publishing climate change articles through a “single lens” of scepticism. But the Australian published global-warming believer Michael Ashley’s attack on Ian Plimer’s book.
Ding! So the Australian does have multiple viewpoints on the issue. Regardless of the editorial policy, it’s not publishing through a single lens. The joke is that a mainstream newspaper could publish such a blatant fiction about a rival publication.