The Australian: Twitterati have got our climate change stance wrong
The Australian has dedicated a full page feature to defending its stance on climate change, arguing that its position has been consistently misrepresented, particularly by those using social media to prosecute a “culture wars” campaign against it.
The Weekend Australian article by Graham Lloyd examined the newspaper’s coverage of the issue over the last five years, arguing that it has reflected a full variety of views although its own editorial line has always acknowledged the existence of climate change.
Stating The Australian’s position, it says: “This newspaper supports global action on climate change based on the science.”
The News Ltd paper has been at the centre of debate since academic Julie Posetti reported on Twitter comments about its policy made by former member of staff Asa Walhquist at a conference late last month.
Editor-in-chief Chris Mitchell has claimed that the comments were libelous. The paper has suggested she should visit its newsroom saying: “Posetti has been invited to visit The Australian’s offices to get first-hand experience of the industry she has been tweeting about.”
The invitation may be a reference to the fact that although Posetti worked for the ABC for 13 years, from 1990 to 2003, she does not have any significant newspaper experience. She teaches radio and TV journalism at the University of Canberra. She is also the Australian editorial director of Media 140, which organises conferences around Twitter and social media. She moved into journalism academia seven years ago.
Posetti is currently undertaking a PHD in the “Twitterisation of journalism”.
In an accompanying editorial headlined “Truth is Twitter’s first casualty”, the paper argued that the greens have a “stranglehold on much of the media and, increasingly new social media such as Twitter.” It added: “The hothouse environment of Twitter has become a breeding ground for falsehoods that quickly become received wisdom with repeated telling.”
Forget the science (or lack of it), from a purely marketing point of view The Australian is on the right track. The Age has been an unquestioning mouthpiece for the climate changers for at least five years and all it has done is make the paper preachy and drive readers away.
If I’m buying display space, where do i want my ad? I would suggest the answer is a paper with a demographic that more or less mirrors the latest election results. The Age on the other hand (and to a lesser extent the SMH) appears to believe that pitching itself to no more than 20% of the population is an astute strategy.
(see Mark Day’s column in The Australian’s media section today about the movement to “save” The Age)
User ID not verified.
Hilarious. I’m sure I remember a time when it was the press that was always the target of misrepresentation claims – looks like the shoe’s on the other foot now.
User ID not verified.
Personally I’ve stopped buying the Australian because in my opinion they seem to spend more pushing their own barrows rather than respecting our ability to make up our own minds based on what good journalists report.
It’s sad that our national broadsheet appears to me to have become such a narrowsheet.
Just my opinion. Don’t sue me.
User ID not verified.
No wonder it was nicknamed the Government Gazette towards the latter part of the Howard years.
User ID not verified.
@1 Even Oz fans don’t believe a word they print!
To spell it out, the Oz runs a full page saying it accepts climate science, and the first comment says they are right not to.
User ID not verified.
It’s like the old dinosaur thrashing about in the mud pit roaring and bellowing and whimpering as it sinks deeper and deeper.
Not long to go now .. . .
User ID not verified.
Just a minor correction, the academic you mention is Julie Posetti, not Julia.
Thanks
User ID not verified.
Thanks Elly. Deep down I did know that… (now amended)
Cheers,
Tim – Mumbrella
No worries, please forgive the pedantry!
User ID not verified.