ABCTV -does it follow or lead?

7:30 report on Lord M tour
Typically The ABc were so busy finding fault with the oppositions campaign that they failed to make a dent in the really big question
Why all the interest in Lord M ?

is it That we don't trust polys ? that we don't trust the ABC?
That ABC/ left still have a cringe mentality when it comes to taking seriuosly our own experts .( after all the biggest credibility crunch on ETS was over the way the left fell for some american politician and businessman .

The young bucks from the talk the talk tax shelters were right in what they said but they didn't answer 1 decent question ( conspiracy theories are for the birds ?)Paid to talk the talk cummon! - : Lord M answered quite a few ( well done ABC).

The answer is complex, but one thing is for sure - the ABC is not giving its audience something to think about, so they have to get out of their chairs to find someone who does !

7:30 report ; More hype than light

Matt Peacocks attempt to tell us his own story using experts of his own choice is not good enough . What i saw on the first night was all over the place running simple monistic scaremongering stuff across a wide range of "should be dealt with singly issues " . I Don't watch 7;30 report much ; will watch it less .

What thinking person still watches the ABC ?

It used to be that only quick fix commercial news reports came from polys and people happy to stand infront of camera and complain ; It used to be that only quick fix commercial news reporters used more emotion than fact in their reports.
It used to be that OBJECTIVE reports of persons on how to help were used to DRIVE an effective response .
Is THE ABC is so moribund that it does everything the way others do it
I won't be watching the ABC on Haiti because there is more emotion and personal stuff than any thinking and caring person can stomach. I'm not informed , I'm dragged around like a wet hanky - such caring is crap

I 've listened to ABC Tv reports of the Haiti disaster and thought - i don't know WHO to give money to - Where was the report of damage , the aerial survey ,the outline of the governments and others plans .Agency reports

ITs worse : when have we ever seen a decent documentary on the ABC ?
SBS clearly lead in objective cuurent affairs - their news is better , and they simply let people talk .

ABCTV have no HOT DOCS ( their excellent series on universal health care tonight)- - only COLD and predictable CHAIRMAN types who expect everyone to move on when they think its important to do so .

Perhaps those in charge think the ABC audience is as cynical and selfcentred as so many now seem to be.

Either way the ABC potential for niche management is fast eroding .

ABCTV had a role to play in failure - if only it knew what role

Copenhagen non event - ABCTV will clearly be remembered for being part of the problem - not part of the solution.

On the eve of the greatest moral imperative of the century, the ABC puts a proud blogger up against a highly qualified scientist who lists references on very page of his very big book. 2 nights in a row.
Andrew Revkin doesn't undertstand about deduction, so he is happy to stick pedantically to mere facts ;
No wonder Austrailans are increasingly skeptical of ABCTV -At least a few of them are educated in these matters and can see this is not debate, this is pressure hot air .
Lea Sales tonight asks the dumb question without realising how dumb it is - "Nations have had plenty of time to make sure they would come somewhere near a consensus - why haven't they ?" . The hot air that has driven this debate has run out of hot air.
Obama's speech on the subject was just a lot of hot air and he better hope thinking people don't recognise it as such !
What about us _ Putting on their weekly report from the worried has only increased the doubt about the ABC 's sanity and equity.
The expensive stalemate - the Copenhagen non event - ABCTV will clearly be remembered for being part of the problem - not part of the solution.

Scientists can handle debate; Clearly ABCTV cannot

How does our public broadcaster get away with allowing journos and polys to run the discussions on current affairs ( 7:30 report and latelinetonight ) . Let alone the science ones !!!

Tonight we learn nothing but that those who run these shows are mainly interested in point scoring- not the issues of truth that go beyond the games of those speculators and nonscientists who get to join them to agree to get stuck in some clause of misplaced concreteness that's currently their favourite .
Pity they didn't watch the grumpy old men where the old team were so right about the modern disease of reporters in "me control mode"
Take tonights program on Lateline . Instead of establishing that we can/can't actually measure the temp changes in the atmosphere and interpret their significance ( both are critical to the validity of the numbers) the english journo gets to push the only point he understands -the measurement system .
That Plimer appears to disagree with the authors basic conclusion is common and fair because he's not talking so much about the measure, but the numbers it produces - their interpretation and significance .
Scientists watching can handle debate
Clearly the ABc cannot .ABCTV wouldn't keep letting nonscientists report when the issue in the public mind in december 2009 is clearly " what do scientists really say " ABCTV just don't want to let it happen .
And What a finish too tonight ( after lateline) - signs of desperation. Since when did the church get such authority and respect on scientific matters. Following closely on offering the same status to journos and american polys. The clever country ? no

Ever changing agendas- the proponents are simply unbelievable .

RE lateline with Tony Jones : The man from NASA undermines the super trade talks . The man from NASA is not playing the game, or is he ?.

So now Copenhagen is not trying to do what's needed. If Politics is about compromise, it is also in this case about being totally ineffective - let alone totally incredible .

Like Rudd, these quick fiz merchants and fearmongers are prepared to compromise on what would have cost us the earth, to fix up what they said was fixing the earth . Totally incredible-that's what they are!

How can this be? Tony Jones and our polys take themeselves too seriously - after all, what do they know? . A big picture scientist up the front on Lateline would probably not answer Jones standard repeat question ; "will you please say yes or No " - he would probably take so much time to answer the question that it would be "time to move on "- how convenient, how convenient a truth is the way we talk about the truth ?

Well , we've moved on alright, and current affairs on the ABC have run out of time running the same old same old reactionary agendas .

Did James from NASA deal effectively with any of the questions? ; lets just say without being greek, that he ducked and dived in the same way a man looking to defend misplaced concreteness would be expected to do.
As a scientist I didn't learn a thing, but that NASA are employing scientists , like they do here, to defend the blinkered views they have of how the world works .

The fact that NASA and CSIRO can't be trusted to give us more than what comes from the school of mere description, ( including the now infamous schools of wild speculation and monitoring ) shows just how sorry the state of objective science is in both places in some areas.

To say anymore would be to miss the point of these very words !

Reading the tea leaves

Leigh Sales seemed reluctant to accept tonight that politics can be more than bluff and bluster. Does it come from being in church too often, or is the possibility of some truth telling just too much of a shock.


Fortunately the democratic spokesperson was a little less interested in the tealeaves and like the other guests , made the real position of representatives a lot clearer. The combination of hype ,spin and substance is, like hot air, not subject to experimental observation.


Very interesting that both sides of politics on the ETS are using words like "credibility and effectiveness".
---The ETS could fail simply because the case has not been put very well .
---Has the ABC helped or hindered the debate over an ETS?

---Will the ABC be blamed by both sides of politics for the crisis of confidence that is now widespread.
---Too many tea leaves and not enough quiet and "effective" ( to use Malcolms word) teaching on a subject that takes more than a mere tax grab and a best intention to be effective?