‘Wilfully and ineptly misrepresented’: The Australian calls out The New York Times and Guardian Australia over criticism of its bushfire coverage
News Corp Australia masthead, The Weekend Australian, has published a heated response to commentary regarding its coverage of the bushfire crisis.
The column, which appeared in the paper’s Inquirer section on Saturday and had an author credit of ‘Editorial’, pointed the finger at The New York Times and the Guardian Australia for ‘wilfully and ineptly misrepresent[ing]’ The Australian’s coverage as climate change denial.
Our editorial on Australia’s bushfire crisis, climate change and the dishonest, desperate and distorted coverage by The New York Times and The Guardian of our first-class journalism, in The Weekend Australian today: https://t.co/JNdEujDHDI
— Christopher Dore (@wrongdorey) January 11, 2020
News Corp doesn’t deny that there is climate change.
But News Corp are sceptical on the full extent of impact brought about by climate change.
That is not denying climate change.
It is merely trying to understand climate change better.
Merely trying to understand climate change better? Silence is denial, particularly when you hold the readership that News does.
We are at a time when we need FAST action, swift understanding. News are dragging their feet, and this is a form of denial, when we are at a time of desperate action needed.
Everyone goes about saying we need immediate action.
What actions do we need to take?
No, not the wild fantasies of going carbon neutral in 5 years etc. Even so, how are we going to actually bring them about?
Please outline tangible, and realistic step-by-steps.
1. Investing in nature-based solutions
Forests, soil, coastlines and the ocean provide a natural solution to carbon capture. They are one of the few technically available options to deliver net negative greenhouse emissions at scale, and at lower costs and faster speeds than other carbon reduction options.
By one credible estimate, 37% of the GHG emissions reductions needed by 2030 could be delivered by natural climate solutions at less than $100 per tonne, with a third of those at less than $10 per tonne. Delivering natural climate solutions at scale could also deliver multiple high-value co-benefits, including biodiversity conservation, sustainable community livelihoods, and management of water and other scarce resources.
The ocean absorbs 90% of the heat we generate and captures more than a quarter of the carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere every year. Restoring coastal habitats and coral reefs increases absorption of carbon dioxide, reduces the risk of flooding and safeguards a reliable supply of food for millions of people from the seas.
These natural resources give us the oxygen we breathe, the food we eat and provide jobs and livelihoods.
2. Pricing carbon
Climate change is a known failure of the economic system. Pricing it provides a straightforward adjustment to address this. It is no surprise that one of the winners of the Nobel prize in economics, Professor William Nordhaus, was an early advocate of a carbon tax and wrote part of the US Clean Air Act, putting a price tag on the effects of climate change.
Carbon pricing mechanisms have been growing steadily over the last ten years. In April 2018, the Carbon Pricing Leadership Coalition reported that 45 national and 25 subnational jurisdictions are putting a price on carbon, covering an estimated 20% of global emissions already. Based on government plans for emissions reductions, around 56% of emissions are covered by plans to put carbon pricing mechanisms in place. Most smart companies that operate in jurisdictions with carbon pricing mechanisms are already factoring in the future cost of carbon to support their strategic and investment decisions.
Most significantly, China launched its national carbon trading scheme in 2017. Once this is fully up and running, it will be the largest carbon market in the world.
As the price of carbon increases, so does the cost effectiveness of low-carbon solutions. Accelerating this economic lever is critical to driving money to the right places.
Have you read?
What does reimagining our energy system look like?
3. Utilizing the full potential of 4IR technologies
The opportunity for the Fourth Industrial Revolution to be the first industrial revolution that creates a net positive benefit for the environment is immense, though difficult to quantify. Tools that enable trade in environmental attributes, including low-cost and effective sensors that can provide local data on a range of environmental issues; more accurate geospatial data; artificial intelligence that can better analyse vast quantities of information; and new applications such as blockchain that help increase the transparency and credibility of new transactions, all play a role in creating a ‘planet positive’ industrial shift.
There are tangible examples of how this is playing out in real terms. Doug Macauley is a marine scientist and member of the Friends of Ocean Action, and he’s using big data and new technology to take on some of the ocean’s biggest challenges.
Entrepreneur Juan Carlos Castilla Rubio is building a bank of the whole world’s genetic codes. He hopes it will save nature, including huge carbon sinks such as the Amazon rainforest. His project, the Earth Bank of Codes, is working with the World Economic Forum to create the partnerships necessary to collect the genetic sequence of the natural world. The idea is that countries and indigenous communities make money from the resulting scientific breakthroughs, rather than by selling or destroying natural resources such as tropical forests.
Fourth Industrial Revolution innovations such as these hold great potential for improving the management and governance of the global environment, and delivering the systems change required to create clean, resource-secure and inclusive economies.
4. Transitioning to a circular economy
The global “take-make-dispose” economy is generating waste and pollution that unnecessarily strains natural resources. Switching to a circular economy, particularly in the steel, plastics, aluminium and cement sectors, could have a huge benefit for the climate. Emissions in Europe could be reduced by 50% by 2050 if a more circular approach was taken in heavy industry sectors, one study estimates.
A circular economy offers an alternative, regenerative approach to production and consumption, whereby products and materials are redesigned, recovered and reused to reduce environmental impacts.
Business and governments see the benefits. Last month, businesses, international donors, national and local governments, community groups and world-class experts came together to translate commitments into action by fast-tracking circular economy solutions in coastal countries battling plastic waste.
5. Accelerating low carbon energy for all
The exponential growth of renewable energy technologies has been a result of effective policy measures that have helped bring down costs. However, despite the rapid uptake of such policies, fossil fuels remain the dominant source of energy globally. Further policy incentives are needed to scale up technologies such as energy storage, smart transmission and distribution systems, and decentralized energy systems in regions of the world where centralized, national grid infrastructure no longer makes sense.
There is a wealth of knowledge about what it will take to implement a considered and equitable energy transition. The key is for government leaders to work with companies to drive the policies and incentives needed across the demand side markets, such as power, transport and heavy industry, and with supply side players such as clean energy producers.
All these areas of focus are extremely effective, but they require political leadership and public and private collaboration, if they are to deliver carbon neutrality by 2050. In the face of scientific facts that can no longer be ignored, bold leadership is needed to fast-track to carbon neutrality.
Scientists have literally been telling anyone who’ll listen exactly how to bring this about for 30 years, and now it’s too late to act, conservatives are like “WHAT ARE WE SUPPOSED TO DO??”
Gee, that’s a reassuring set of semantics you are relyign on there.
The has been a CLEAR attempt by the organisation to couterfactually overplay the narrative that the fires were started by arsonsists, which is very obviously part of a denialist agenda.
Their publications – particularly any op-eds have very clearly been trying to give succour to Morrisson’s hopelessness and minimise the compromised nature of his position in relation to his own climate denialism and improsonment to the far right of his party on the issue.
The Australian, is and always has been a neoconservative agenda driven publication. Losing money hand over fist and only still publishing because it’s always been Rupert’s vanity project, and a subsidy he has been willing to pay in order to peddle influence and rent seeking on News Corp’s behalf at the highest levels of government.
They don’t deserve succour from any quarter. That editorial is laughable. If you want to discuss who is in denial, re-read the editorial …
What a crock of sh*t. If you wanted to understand climate change better you’d talk to scientists – real ones and not the conspiracy theorists on Rupie’s payroll.
It employs outright & implicit denial, distraction, both-sideism, belittling, data cherrypicking or (eg. in the case of arson) misrepresentation of data & character assassination….to suggest otherwise is laughable
Here is an example of climate change denial “Repeat after me: carbon dioxide is good for us” The Australian 7/8/2018
“Climate policy is underpinned by two fallacies. The first is that human emissions of carbon dioxide drive global warming”
https://twitter.com/MJIBrown/status/1215817297933156352
Take your pick of expert replies to Plimer’s articles in The Australian
https://climatefeedback.org/?s=plimer
The Australian should be renamed The Gaslight. On every issue they choose to prosecute they flay people, use selective approaches, often apply barrage tactics and go on and on with such repetition that one can only imagine the boredom at the Holt Street editing desks. When reality bites them, as it has with these fires, they ignore the facts then play the critic: as in this case they attempt to assert that their ridiculous and utterly stupid campaign on climate is not in fact a campaign. I am starting to think Succession is a documentary.
Yeah, I guess you might think this if you look at News Corps reporting this week in total isolation, absent the context of decades of outright climate change denial, smear campaigns against any person attempting to make science-based policy, and completely obvious fossil-fuel/LNP lobbying. It’s like you people think our memories started two days ago.
What a load of rubbish – News doing a major backpedal because they have to!
Also your attempt at clever wording isn’t fooling anyone.
Yes News, we know that you aren’t generally denying climate change or stating that it isn’t a contributing factors to the current emergency.
But what you are (continually) doing is DOWNPLAYING its significance while trying to throw the spotlight on other factors (e.g – arson). Anyone with half a brain can see that.
Amen! Took the words right out of my mouth.
I must have missed that bit. It was probably lost in all the denialism propaganda!
Everyone sees exactly what News Corp is doing and has done all along. It maintains a fig leaf of stories at which it points to say, “Look over here! We don’t deny climate change” but anyone reading its editorials and even nuanced choice of words sees plainly it’s dog-whistling to the anti-science nutters and maintaining deniability to stall action.
To quadruple-down as it’s doing now with all the butthurt because it’s finally being called out for its reprehensible behaviour is fusion-powered gaslighting of the world.
In this case, words are actions and, rather than screaming at its critics, it would be better if News editors did their jobs and reported facts— something they’ve long been unable to do on very many topics that run counter to their boss’s interests.
‘Willfully and ineptly mistepresented’ just sounds like the Australian’s reporting of the fires. Let’s see if they can gaslight their way out of it by claiming everyone else is at fault.
I’m Australia. I am embarrassed, glad and relieved that even bigger international publications like The Guardian and The New York Times are calling out News for what they are and what they’ve been doing. Time is running out newscorp. And I’m watching from the sidelines with glee.
Exactly this!
Legitimate, respected news organisations are calling them what they are. Can not wait for them to die off.
Oh, I am holding my sides with laughter. The Australian, which peddles blatant lies and is little more than a newsletter for the Federal Government spin, has the audacity to call out other media for doing the job of analytical and truthful reporting. The hypocrisy is outstanding – and consistent with everything else The Australian does.
Forget the hysteria. There is absolutely nothing Australia can do to stop climate change. We are the 54th size populated country in the world. Without China and India reducing their emissions nothing will change. The Guardian and the NY Times love a political football and they are giving the bush fires a major boot up field. Pity that most rational people will continue to stand between the goal posts and prevent a left wing goal.
That’s like saying, ‘So many people die each year from accidents and disease, I might just as well slaughter that annoying neighbour since it would add nothing in real terms to the overall death rate.’
How can we have any moral standing or leverage with the more populous nations if we don’t tidy up our own backyard?
And you know our coal exports are a signal contributor to carbon emissions, right?
Did a person who cares about the world we live in as opposed to big business do something to make you hate “lefties”?
Can a single murderer complain about a bunch of homicides because they murdered more than them?
No they can’t without being hypocritical, even if they were only the 54th worst murderer complaining about the top 10 worst.
We are polluters like the rest of the polluters and to not be hypocritical we need to lead first before complaining.
Did you swallow the whole murdoch playbook whole or did you bother to chew on it a bit. Don’t bother answering – it’s pretty clear already.
Let’s play this game!!!
2nd largest exporter of thermal coal in the world
4th in world for total coal production*
9th largest consumer of coal in the world*
14th largest economy
61st out of 61 countries ranked in Climate Policy**
* https://www.power-technology.com/features/top-five-coal-producing-countries-world/
** https://newclimate.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/CCPI-2020-Results_Web_Version.pdf
Go watch Sky News and complain about the younger generation and lefties, and leave the important stuff to adults, Pete.
Pete, you sound like you’re about 60, white and live in Sydney’s Eastern Suburbs.
You have lived more than half your life – think about your kids / grandkids.
This has nothing to do with left or right wing, its about sustainability and providing a better future.
Enjoy your copy of The Australian, as it wont be around in the next few years!
Yeah, we supply 30% of the world’s coal but “there’s absolutely nothing Australia can do!!!”
No one is buying what you and the rest of your denialist mates are selling.
I would suggest anyone who believes the Australian go & copy their front page of their paper & see how much they try & influence the Australian people.
Not screaming ‘climate emergency’ from the top of your lungs every day isn’t climate change denial. And discussing or disagreeing about what measures to take to address climate change isn’t denial either.
No, but misrepresenting arson figures and supporting unfounded claims that the Greens are at fault to downplay the impact of climate on these fires, is!
I think those that overplay the impact of climate change need as much scrutiny as those who downplay it. How much of a factor was it in the fires? 10%, 20%, 50%? Who knows, but certainly it’s good to have voices discussing all the contributors to the disaster, not just the one that is presented opportunistically to those who have been shouting ‘climate emergency’ to the point we don’t listen anymore.
As always, the answer to this issue lies somewhere in the sensible middle – yes, we should do something, but no we shouldn’t dismantle our society while we’re at it.
….So lets be sensible and dismantle the hell out of News!!!!!!!!
Yeah thanks for your valuable input, Boomer.
News corp is a de facto political party as it campaigns against Labor and The Greens 365 days a year, in all of its outlets. Rupert Murdoch employs those who have a similar mindset to him and push a right-wing conservative agenda which distorts the political discourse in this country. The same is true int eh United States and UK. News Corp and Rupert Murdoch are a disgrace and the sooner people don’t buy their garbage, the better.
This is a fairly disappointing, analysis-free regurgitation of the media release as editorial. Let’s hear some editorial from Mumbrella about this reasonably watershed moment in terms of a media outlet that was established and has always functioned as a mouthpiece and megaphone for the most conservative voices in this country finally being popularly called to account for doing partisan advocacy instead of journalism. In the next article, please …
Hi Adam,
I wrote a couple of thousand words about the backlash against News Corp, and the increasing scrutiny on its role and responsibilities in this crisis. It went out in our Saturday email. I am happy to forward it to you if you’d like our take on the situation. Feel free to contact me: vivienne@mumbrella.com.au (although today is my last day in the office for a couple of weeks).
We also debated and analysed it in last week’s podcast.
We will do our best to bring you more updates and analysis when possible.
Thanks,
Vivienne – Mumbrella
While undoubtedly … um … “selective” in its choice of comments to block and shadowban, MUMBRELLA does deserve plaudits for highlighting a very real issue in the media landscape.
The issue may not be new. THE AUSTRALIAN has never bothered to be a broadsheet of repute. Just the broadsheet of Rupert.
And reporting it may jar the sensibilities of a predictable subset of the community, but that does not make it unworthy of coverage.
Similarly, the influence of personal ideology on marketing / media techniques etc may not be new (I’m hesitant to use the word “politicised”, but it does seem to be getting increasingly shameless, ugly, and divisive.
Battle-lines are being drawn sharper than ever. Which may be inevitable and even necessary, but still disheartening to observe.
How soon before Marketers are openly screened on their political allegiances as part of the pitching / recruitment process ?
But would anyone really complain – or validate a discrimination suit against someone – if a candidate was dropped for conservative beliefs, such as climate denial.
If you want to talk battlelines vs marketing – isn’t being open and accepting (left traits) the only way a marketer can truly be?
News Corp does not deny climate change. News Corp DOES deny human caused climate change. Massive difference. With the later coal gets off scot free.
A pathetic attempt at gaslighting on a major scale. The hundreds of articles, rabid opinion pieces and deliberate omissions, all delivering to an anti-climate change message are there for everyone to see.
This sounds a lot like a petulant bully who has been called out, blaming everyone but themselves for their own actions.
Show some strength for once, fire the hysterical climate deniers that you employ across your newspapers and TV stations, and start to act like grown ups.
[This comment has been edited in line with Mumbrella’s community guidelines]
“Second, we host debates reflecting the political division that exists in Australia about how to address climate change without destroying our economy,”
1) The signalling here gives the game away… the inference that action on climate change is harmful to the economy is not so subtle confirmation of the Aus maintaining their no-action accounting exercise position. The choice of the word “destroying” is deliberate and in lockstep with the coalition position. “yeah we believe in climate change, but come on.. we can’t have a carbon tax or have policies that cost the tax payer in any way, or compromise a surplus, or….”
2) I encourage News to implement some of this so called unbiased, accurate reporting and run a story on the current and future impact of climate change on the economy – rather than their standard scare mongering about action on climate “destroying” the economy.
A quick list of topics from the current bushfire crisis would include: surplus? gone, personal costs born by taxpayers of having to rebuild, commercial impact to primary producers – some will never recover, knock on of lack of supply resulting in increased pricing of goods and services for consumers, material long term impact on tourism operators at all levels of the supply chain – including a devaluing of Brand Australia. And so the list continues… and just from the last few months events…
Dear News: you can run but you can’t hide (forever)…
Quite shocking that News Ltd top staff appear not to have been reading their own papers for the last few years.
Zoe, please do not give any more oxygen to any of this Murdoch shit.
Hear hear. Everyone knows The Australian and the other Newscorp papers don’t deny the climate is changing. *wink* They’ve always supported responsible science journalism. *wink*