You’ve probably read this elsewhere already, but it’s simply too good not to share it here for the benefit of those who may not have seen it.
This brilliant piece of work by Beliaik says absolutely everything about the current state of the ABC – which our taxes will fund to the tune of $1.06 billion in 2017-18 (see page 6-31).
I’ve decided to re-post the whole lot to do it justice. If you’re time poor and want the summarised version, feel free to zero in on the bolded parts below or head on down to Andrew Bolt’s blog:
Beliaik’s FOI request
FOI Contact Officer, Corporate Affairs, Australian Broadcasting Corporation
Written FOI request and ‘sufficient information’
This written request is an application for the purposes of the FOI Act.
The document I seek is a list of links to articles related to “global-warming”, “climate-change”, “CO2” and “coral bleaching” that represent the sceptical view of those respective debates – as presented by the ABC on all its platforms.
I have listened, viewed and searched for years and I’ve not found any sceptical articles on the ABC’s platforms. There are plenty of articles that represent the alarmist view of these debates, but no sceptical ones. (Sceptical and alarmist for the purpose of this application are defined below.)
I will be satisfied with a list of the last twelve months sceptical articles – unless there are none in the last twelve months. In that event I will be satisfied with a list of the last ten years of sceptical articles.
Your search is likely to be more effective than mine. If after a reasonable amount of searching you can find no ABC articles representing sceptical views that have been published in the last ten years then please just say so.
Form of the document/s
I have no way of knowing the form of the document/s. It could be one or more schedules or data-base search runs or program lists or staff instructions or minutes of meetings or emails between staff – only you could reasonably know.
It could even be emails between members of the ABC Corporate Affairs unit and others in relation to my non-FOI request for such a list two weeks ago. That would be a good place to start – check and see if anyone did work up a list but just hasn’t been given the nod to send it to me yet.
Definition of Sceptical and Alarmist for the purpose of this application
Articles on “global-warming”, “climate-change”, “CO2”, and “coral bleaching” can be sorted into Sceptical or Alarmist views by comparing their message themes with these general definitions;
Global warming – Sceptical view
The present gentle global warming is natural and similar to the Minoan Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period (about 3000,2000 and 1000 years ago respectively). This warming is entirely beneficial to all life on Earth.
Global warming – Alarmist view
The present alarming global warming is unnatural and in no way similar to the Minoan, Roman or Medieval Warm Periods. This warming represents a serious threat to all life on Earth at some point in the future.
Climate change – Sceptical view
The climate has always changed and is changing now. Changes are primarily driven by solar cycles, orbital variations, planetary albedo, ocean currents and the laws of thermodynamics.
Climate change – Alarmist view
The climate has changed naturally in the past but it is changing now in a way it shouldn’t be. These changes are directly attributable to humanity’s use of fossil fuels.
CO2 – Sceptical view
The planet was nearing a low-CO2 extinction event and humanity’s use of fossil fuels returns much-needed sequestered carbon dioxide to the biosphere and is generally beneficial. The benefits of carbon dioxide far outweigh any negatives put forward by its detractors. The additional warming effect of humanity’s CO2 emissions is largely insignificant.
CO2 – Alarmist view
The planet has a natural CO2 steady-state that is far lower than present levels and the human contribution to raising them is highly damaging. The costs of carbon dioxide far outweigh any positives put forward by its supporters. The additional warming effects of humanity’s CO2 emissions are highly likely to result in catastrophic consequences for the climate.
Coral bleaching – Sceptical view
Coral bleaching is caused by a range of natural cycles working separately or together in a way not yet fully understood by the science community. Reef ecosystems in general are quite poorly understood by the science community. Bleaching appears to have no connection to humans mining or burning coal. Ocean temperatures are not significantly influenced by atmospheric CO2 levels. Great Barrier Reef coral ecosystems generally appear to be in robust good health.
Coral bleaching – Alarmist view
Coral bleaching is caused by humans and is well understood by the science community. Reef ecosystems in general are very well understood by the science community. Bleaching is caused by humans mining and burning coal and releasing other CO2 emissions into the atmosphere. The oceans are warming up due to increasing atmospheric CO2 levels and that is harmful to coral. Great Barrier Reef coral ecosystems generally appear to be in catastrophically-declining health.
Signature and address
The ABC’s response
OK, now here’s TheirABC’s official response dated 15/05/2017….
FOI REQUEST – REFERENCE NUMBER 2017-011
I refer to your request for access to documents under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (the FOI Act) in your email of 20 April 2017. Specifically, you have sought access to the following:
“A document with a list of links to articles related to ‘global warming’, ‘climate change’, ‘CO2’ and ‘coral bleaching’ that represent the sceptical view of those respective debates—as presented by the ABC on all its platforms from 21 April 2016 to 20 April 2017.
If there are no articles from the last 12 months, [you] will be satisfied with a list of the last 10 years of sceptical articles.”
I note that in our acknowledgement letter to you on 4 May 2017, we stated that for the purposes of FOI we would assume that by “articles” you were not only referring to written pieces, but to broadcast news and current affairs content on ABC television, radio and online services.
I am authorised by the Managing Director under section 23 of the FOI Act to make decisions in respect of requests made under that Act. Following is my decision in relation to your request.
Locating and identifying documents
I have taken reasonable steps to identify and locate all relevant documents. My search for these documents involved contacting the following relevant people, who in turn consulted with relevant managers and staff within their respective teams:
• Director News
• Manager Editorial Policies, News.
I requested that searches be conducted of all hard and soft copy records for documents which fall within the scope of your request. As a result of those searches, no documents were identified.
Under section 24A of the FOI Act, the ABC may refuse a request for access if all reasonable steps have been taken to find a document and the ABC is satisfied that the document does not exist. In the present case, I consider that all reasonable steps have been taken to locate relevant documents. I am further satisfied that the requested documents do not exist and therefore access to them is refused pursuant to section 24A of the FOI Act.
If you are dissatisfied with this decision you can apply for Internal or Information Commissioner (IC) Review. You do not have to apply for Internal Review before seeking IC Review. Information about your review rights is attached.
4 thoughts on “ABC Admits Bias”
Doesn’t the ABC’s response indicate that no one has put together a
Ist of skeptical articles so that document doesn’t exist? They’re not saying there are no skeptical articles, just that there isn’t a list of them.
That would seem to me to be the bureaucratic, nit picking way of answering the actual question, which is exactly what you would expect.
To me, it’s obvious that he wants the ABC to do a search and generate such a list – something he is entitled to as a member of the public which pays this bloated junk heap $1.06 billion a year. The ABC has full records of all its programming and media and can easily find the requested information.
That aside, if the ABC was going to render the question nugatory via an overly literal interpretation, then it should have at least invited Beliaik to re-draft the request first.
Hi Marcus, I think you are probably correct, but I can’t escape the worry that maybe the thinking is, “this is just some right wing nut job… let’s see where this goes. If it gets a wider public airing we’ll say we answered the question, but now that we understand you want us to produce the list, we’ll go ahead and see if we can find the resources to put it together.”
The saddest thing is that we’re both probably right!