Media spin and Crikey

Spinning the media:

Stuart Mackenzie writes: Re. “Spinning the media“. Remind me again what yesterday’s editorial and “Spinning the media” section are about? News media not sourcing their own stories and relying on press releases for story leads and analysis? Anyone else notice the striking similarity between the copy provided to Crikey by the Australian Centre for Independent Journalism and any number of media releases from research organisations?

It appears that no Crikey journalist was involved in writing any of the stories — at least there is no by-line — and it appears that no checking of the statistics was done during the editorial process.

The red bars should not appear on charts 1 and 3. The total PR driven content is the sum of the blue and black bars. The effect of this error is that the combined length of the bars visually exaggerates the differential scores between publications by 100%. And best not to mention the erroneous total and incorrect length of one bar, or all the rounding errors, in chart 3.

Simple errors like this strike at the entire credibility of the rest of the story. How does Crikey know there are not more fundamental mistakes in content if it has done no verification work of its own?

Fewer special projects and back to the classroom for the boys and girls at ACIJ, I suggest.

And if Crikey is just going to run the PR it’s given by the ACIJ without any verification or original content, how can it  criticise the print media for doing the same thing?

Pots … kettles … mmm?

John Ruffels writes: Thank goodness for the old-fashioned media’s rival: the Internet.

Congratulations Crikey and all involved for presenting the tawdry PR scam which puts Emperor Rupert et al in front of the arras without their underdaks.

Another shabby habit long utilised by the “mainstream media” be they tabloid or television, has been the unacknowledged, and indeed, extensive use of private detectives. This too needs the rays of a strong hurricane lamp.

Current affair shows seem to rely heavily on this avenue to track down “ordinary citizens”. Interesting too, News Limited’s lawyer, Justin Quill, saying Ray Martin has no right to privacy.

Hope no-one invades any media columnists privacy: then the tune might be different from the piper.

Scientology:

Joe Boswell writes: Niall Clugston (yesterday, comments) wrote “Bernard Keane’s analysis of the Scientology debate is wrong-headed.” He then demonstrates a bizarre, inverted, looking-glass world understanding of the issues.

He says, “A Senate inquiry, on the other hand, with its power to compel witnesses, has the potential to degenerate into a witch-hunt, which would be a serious attack on freedom of religion.  It raises the spectre of Scientologists being jailed indefinitely for refusing to answer questions.”

The last sentence is non-sequitur that could be used to argue against any Senate inquiry into anything. The first part is plain nonsense. The inquiry would be examining the tax status of religious organisations. Does Mr Clugston seriously contend that tax exemptions are necessary for the practice of religion?

He continues, “Thirdly, the issue of Scientology’s tax status is at best a red herring and at worst religious persecution. Clearly higher taxation is not an appropriate response to abuse.”

Well, yes. Just like lower taxation is not an appropriate response to abuse. Why would anyone think that paying the same taxes as everyone else is a form of religious persecution?

“And the prospect of politicians punishing religions by withdrawal of tax concessions is highly undesirable.”

What punishment? Mr Clugston does not explain why these organisations receive special favourable tax treatment. What are they doing that justifies such a massive subsidy from other tax payers?

“In Scientology’s case, it is often said that it is really a profit-making business and should be taxed as such.  However, these allegations co-exist with equal and opposite allegations that it is a zany, dogmatic cult.  The critics can’t have it both ways.”

Yes they can. There is no contradiction at all in being a profit-making business and a zany, dogmatic cult. It’s a common combination.

“Lastly, a common complaint against Scientology is that it campaigns against psychiatry.  This would undoubtedly be canvassed in a Senate inquiry.  At this point it would stop being an attack on freedom of religion and become an attack on freedom of speech.”

How can answering questions to a public inquiry undermine anybody’s right to free speech?

It’s more like the opposite.

Nicknames:

Stephen Mayne writes: Re. “Housing — the real arena for federal takeover” (yesterday, item 2). Bernard Keane wrote the following yesterday:

NSW Premier Bob Carr earned the soubriquet “Malthus of Maroubra” (an inspired invention from Stephen Mayne) for his regular attacks on high immigration.

Like most Crikey nicknames, that was actually the inspired work of the cerebral Christian Kerr in his Hillary Bray days. My only claim to nickname fame is The Millionaires Factory.

Indeed, I only discovered who Thomas Robert Malthus was courtesy of Wikipedia yesterday.

Climate change:

Paul Mossman writes: Chris Hunter (yesterday, comments), in his response to Tamas Calderwood, yet again misses the point — as do all warmista’s — the point is not the temperature — it is how is that temperature measured/attained?!

The current basis for such measurement does not and could not pass any rigorous scientific proof or have any statistical latency. Why is this? Well we have circa 200 years of minimal data at best — the majority of that does not pass the strict rigorous guidelines set down for modern day observations. That’s human derived data (i.e. thermometer measurement). Satellite data we have even less!

Compare with the alleged age of the planet — which no one knows with any certainty and ranges from 10,000 years (creationists) to 2-4 billion years (evolutionists/Big Bang theorists). So in essence we range from a temperature dataset record of approx. 2% (creationist) to 0.000005% (evolutionist/Big Bang theorists). Hardly a statistically well-informed foundation!

As for CO2 readings — well even less of them. Yet suddenly, we’re all supposed to believe that end of the world is nigh? Based upon what? A statistically rogue theory that has no transparency, involves placing a tax on people but doesn’t address the so-called “source” of CO2 and yet amazingly chameleons into a “new and improved” version every time someone challenges it — i.e. no more AGW climate change, we are just global warming and climate change. Can’t prove the “man” part now (or it’s too difficult) so we’ll just use a nebulous anomalous term that really means nothing yet everything!

So, why then, do we all have to suddenly “convert” and be “born again” into this new religion?

Sunken ships:

Steven McKiernan writes: Re. The HMAS Adelaide (yesterday, comments). HMAS Perth off Albany, WA, and HMAS Swan off Dunsborough, WA, have been successful dive wrecks for the recreational dive industry here in WA. They were sunk in locations that would benefit the local tourist economy, provide a good dive experience and act as a form of artificial reef.

The prize for worst deliberately sunk dive wreck has to go to The Saxon Ranger, ex navy lawyer and now member for Rockingham in the Legislative Assembly Mark MacGowan was a strong advocate for the scuttling of the boat in the Shoalwater Islands Marine Reserve, he was also tourism Minister. The process to plan, research, and sink the boat in a marine park took one week. Shame as it was sunk in the wrong spot and is now lying 25metres, down unloved under many inches of silt, low visibility, and generally unattractive a fish aggregating device for divers to look at.

The owner of the boat wasn’t happy that it was scuttled either.

South Australian election:

Peter Barnhurt writes: Re. “SA upper house a sort of democratic lottery” (yesterday, item 15). Interesting that your Monday edition covered the media and also the forthcoming  SA election. I am assuming that most of your readers are aware of our  excruciating  non event “The Rann and Michelle affair”.

But for those  without access to our two principle state based printed media  publications, I can report that our election coverage included two pictures of the cuckold in the Sunday paper (one with a “Slick Rick” heading) and the mast headline in yesterday’s paper ( The Advertiser) blazes “Michelle … her final words today”.

I hasten to add that her final words were on our election,  and of course we were hanging on every word. Great to see such quality journalism in action.

Greg Cameron, Urban Rainwater Systems Pty Ltd, writes: When a politician declines to clarify party policy during an election campaign it is because the policy is a vote loser.  In South Australia, the leaders of the ALP, Liberals and Greens all decline to answer this question: Does a person take rain with their roof?  The answer, obviously, is yes: according to the SA government, water is ”taken” when it is captured from its natural source and taken under a person’s control.

The leaders also dodge this question: Are rights at common law in relation to the taking of rain abolished?  The answer, obviously, is no, because rain is an act of nature.  Under SA’s Natural Resources Management Act 2004 section 124(8), ”Rights at common law in relation to the taking of naturally occurring water are abolished.”

Naturally occurring water means water on or beneath the surface of the earth.  This includes water flowing over land after having fallen as rain, or ”surface water”.  Surface water, obviously, is not the source of water that occurs on a person’s roof.

Arguably 100% of Australians believe that they take rain with their roof.  The governments of New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland confirm it. There is something in SA Water –  revenue.

The NBL:

Rebecca Dunstan writes: Gee guys — you may have noticed over the weekend a little thing called the National Basketball League Championship being decided? I know Perth is a long way from civilisation as you know it, but you need to give props to the Perth Wildcats for becoming the most successful NBL team ever!

Bingle:

Bev Kilsby writes: Re. “Beecher: Bingle and the bullying media no moral crusade” (yesterday, item 18). Perhaps our friend Lara Bingle should face reality, come down to earth and not allow the media into her private life. I am not blaming the media, but Lara should have stood on her own two feet more and fought her own battles, and demons. When is this woman going to grow up?

The ABC:

Garry Muratore writes: From yesterday’s ABC website. I want my seven cents a day back:

Separated at birth:

“Skink” writes: Are you going to start a regular “separated at birth” riff? If so, have you ever noticed that Lara Bingle has a touch of the Schapelle Corby’s, especially around the eyes?