News of the World fallout et al:

Barry Donovan writes: Re. “Ranking the 16 News Corp directors for independence as regime change looms” (yesterday, item 1). As Rupert and James Murdoch defend their media empire in London, it would be interesting to hear them explaining the comment made by former News International chief executive Rebekah Brooks in her resignation note when she said: “At News International we pride ourselves on setting the news agenda for the right reasons. Today we are leading the news for the wrong ones”.

The revealing line is not that News’ many commentators — and there are enough of them — help set a newspaper agenda but that, according to Brooks, the empire insists on setting the “news” agenda as well.

In other words, all the news that’s fit to print, as long as it fits in with the Murdoch political agenda, whether it’s in the UK, New York and Washington, or Australia. Does dropping the News of the World change any of that approach?

Steve Walz writes: While some have commented on the integrity of Lachlan Murdoch’s attack on news and sport at Channel 10 and the subsequent benefit for the 25% Murdoch-owned and 100% Murdoch-controlled Foxtel, how clever was Lachlan to effectively leave the News monster behind, take the $100 million from dad and do his own thing with his family and business interests in Sydney?

I don’t know him and don’t really care for the Murdochs generally on account of the behaviour of the patriarch, but good on Lachlan for largely forging his own way (his News directorship notwithstanding).

I wonder if the SOS might go out to him if dad chucks it all in and younger brother is at Her Majesty’s pleasure for a while?

Greenpeace:

Justin Templer writes: Re. “Greenpeace and the agri-politics of GM wheat” (yesterday, item 9). So Greenpeace attacks a government facility in Canberra, a GM food trial, and the resulting debate revolves around the rights and wrongs of GM food trials rather than the simple fact that Greenpeace destroyed a taxpayer-funded facility.

ACT Greens MLA Shane Rattenbury told the press that breaking the law “has been necessary to highlight what we’ve considered at the time to be a greater issue than perhaps a simple trespass” — he does not mention the presumably incidental destruction of property.

Following this logic, presumably it’s acceptable for the many people who believe the Greens to be a bunch of dangerous left-wing radicals to highlight this “greater issue” by punching a Green on the nose?

Taxpayers:

John Hunwick writes: Re. “Once again, taxpayers pick up the tab to advertise to themselves” (yesterday, item 11). Charles Richardson is wrong: “more serious is the way that we are losing the whole notion of a party sector separate from government.” This is just not true.

The government is faced with an opposition that is taking no notice of the science. In fact, its leader is virtually saying “elect me or I will wreck the place!”. Under such conditions someone (with the money) needs to stand up regardless of the blurring between “party” and “the government”.

Here we are on a collision course with nature on a scale never before faced by humanity. If the media did its job (Crikey shows how it should be done) then there would be no need for the advertising.

In the meantime, some of us think that sitting around and debating any “blurring” has no great significance.

The Institute of Public Affairs:

Telstra spinner Rod Bruem writes: Re. “Hey IPA, asking you to out your donor list isn’t censorship” (yesterday, item 13). Re Guy Rundle’s piece on the evil IPA and its mysterious corporate donors, rather than just pick on the IPA, how about asking all think tanks to disclose their funding sources?

Surely the most evil are those that forever live off taxpayer largesse and forever spout pro-government and socialist causes.

Rundle again shows how seriously out of touch he is in claiming the “nanny state” argument hasn’t struck a chord with a huge number of Australians who are fed up with the long arm of government interfering in their lives and constantly taking more.

Peter Rosier writes: Don’t disagree with Guy about the IPA and the rather strange views it has about how we should be best cared for (no nanny state unless the IPA and its ilk are the nanny). But Guy, get up to date: since January 1, the old Trade Practices Act  1975 became the Competition and Consumer Act 2010.

Carbon tax and climate change:

Adam Rope writes: Re. “Richard Farmer’s chunky bits” (yesterday, item 10). In his report yesterday, Richard Farmer pointed to an article in Der Spiegel about melting ice and rising sea levels, and that scientists were apparently unable to “reach a consensus on what will happen to sea levels if the ice keeps melting.” He then concluded that “Things like that do make you wonder about claims that the science is settled!”

No, Richard, science is never settled, and to quote Dara O’Briain, “otherwise it would stop”. However, the scientists quoted in the article aren’t arguing about whether climate change is taking place, as that consensus — based upon multiple lines of evidence — has been reached. They are now discussing the degree of sea level rise around the world, because of the melting of the ice sheets — due to climate change — and the probable effects such change will have upon the planet.

So the scientific argument has moved on from “is it happening?”, to “what are the predicted consequences?”. And that argument will no doubt continue for some time in scientific circles until a further agreement, again based upon sound scientific principles, has been reached.

Ted Tovell writes: I do not see anything at all written about specifically how the money from a climate change tax will be spent, nor any guarantees that the tax money will be spent specifically and exclusively on clean-energy initiatives. This is a problem so large for me that I will not budge until I see it addressed in the proposed legislation. I can just see a huge new tax going into the general pot to be used for who-knows-what?

That is totally unacceptable to me, regardless of how badly my grandchildren might have to live; a lack of accountability for proposed monies is a bad tax and will not do the job.  If they (politicians) aren’t compelled to spend every cent of that proposed money exclusively on clean-energy applications, and I don’t mean cronyism or advertising either, then I am not the least bit interested in it.  Curiously, I have not read a single word about HOW the money would be spent.

Only that we should pony up for a big new tax and I suppose we should just trust the politicos, right?  Naturally they will always have our best interests at heart (read the tinge of thinly veiled sarcasm).