|
December 7, 2009
The Guardian has teamed up with more 50 papers worldwide to run the same front-page leader article calling for action at the climate summit in Copenhagen, which begins tomorrow. Guess what? The Guardian reports that:
Two Australian papers, the Age and the Sydney Morning Herald, pulled out at a late stage after the election of climate change sceptic Tony Abbott as leader of the opposition Liberal party recast the country's debate on green issues.
So much for political courage. True to form the Australian raves on about Copenhagen's shift to a low-carbon society meaning that Australia must radically reduce its own domestic energy use; an attack on the right to our existing standard of living, and Australians cutting their energy use to Depression levels.
The Fairfax press's lack of courage is in marked contrast to that of Malcolm Turnbull---his willingness to stand up and fight on cutting greenhouse emissions and emissions trading.
Australia's mainstream broadsheet newspapers are in flight from the following statement:
The science is complex but the facts are clear. The world needs to take steps to limit temperature rises to 2C, an aim that will require global emissions to peak and begin falling within the next 5-10 years. A bigger rise of 3-4C — the smallest increase we can prudently expect to follow inaction — would parch continents, turning farmland into desert. Half of all species could become extinct, untold millions of people would be displaced, whole nations drowned by the sea...At the deal's heart must be a settlement between the rich world and the developing world covering how the burden of fighting climate change will be divided...The transformation will be costly, but many times less than the bill for bailing out global finance — and far less costly than the consequences of doing nothing.
What is there to be fearful of, or threatened by, that statement of mainstream views at Copenhagen? In turning away the Fairfax press have dumped their watchdog for democracy role as the fourth estate and embraced infotainment.
At a time when Australia, which has some of the cheapest power in the world, is also the largest per capita carbon pollution emitter in the world, the Fairfax press refuses to engage with this issue. They've ducked for cover on Australia needing to finally do something about our reliance on coal for electricity, especially brown coal.
Fairfax are interpreting Abbott as blocking any substantive moves to achieve sharp reductions in emissions, and in doing so they ignore the following insight from the common editorial, which says that:
the shift to a low-carbon society holds out the prospect of more opportunity than sacrifice. Already some countries have recognized that embracing the transformation can bring growth, jobs and better quality lives. The flow of capital tells its own story: last year for the first time more was invested in renewable forms of energy than producing electricity from fossil fuels.
In refusing to enghage Fairfax, like The Australian, are turning their backs on this future in favour of Australia keeping on producing electricity from fossil fuels.
Into the vacuum of the online democratic public sphere strides the ABC presenting us with the The Drum --more informed diversity in critical online commentary that engages with the ideas, issues and concerns of the day. The Australian, as to be expected, is critical of this platform for what Jonathan Green is calling thought-provoking analysis:
This is not news, this is not opinion, this is thoughtful and thought-provoking analysis. We'll be taking the issues and ideas that count and digging a little deeper into and around them. Looking for a real sense of understanding.
This considered analysis by ABC journalists and experts is contrasted with the opinions of the voices on the ABC's Unleashed, which is now part of The Drum stable. Where does commentary sit? What is the difference between analysis, commentary and opinion?
Green is unclear what the purpose of the thoughtful analysis (quality journalism?) in this online space is, or how it relates to the other online voices in the public sphere? Mark Scott's "townhall concept" is not mentioned, the word democracy is notable for its absence and the emergence of user generated content on the blogs is ignored. What we are given is a defence of good journalism with nothing about the importance of good professional journalism; or the justification of this new role of the ABC is the new digital mediascape.
Is it telling the truth when the powerful commercial media are interested in profit, cutting costs, advertisements and their content, driven by commercial pressure is largely a recycling material from the wire agency and the publicity industry. Consequently, the commercial media present deception, distortion and falsehood rather than the truth.
|
Boland's criticisms are telling. The general drift is that the ABC goes all lefty and opinionated when the ALP is in power. Apparently ABC journos took to Twitter as a result of the last election.
Rubbish. Titter has only come into its own in political reporting in the past year.
There was no similar criticism of the Punch people on Twitter.
What was the point of the commentary on Insiders? Was it supposed to be arguing that the panel is stacked?