• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Newlimited Censoring Climate News (Owner of Fox)

a_unique_person

Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
Joined
Jul 19, 2002
Messages
50,375
Location
Waiting for the pod bay door to open.
http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/11/26...t-climate-change-at-the-oz-one-journos-story/

A former senior News Limited journalist has described trying to write about human-induced climate change at The Australian newspaper as “torture” and has blamed the editor-in-chief for limiting coverage on the topic because he has “taken a political view”.
Asa Wahlquist mounted an off-the-cuff defence of environmental reporting on a panel at yesterday’s journalism educators conference in Sydney, explaining the difficulties of having stories published about climate change because of the attitude of and pressure from senior editors at the paper.
Her comments were quickly reported on Twitter, prompting editor-in-chief Chris Mitchell to threaten legal action against the author of the tweets and anyone else who published the “lie”.
As we go to press, a report in The Australian confirms that Mitchell will sue Julie Posetti for defamation. The paper reports that Posetti could not be reached for comment.
Mitchell told Crikey this morning that “any reading of The Oz’s editorials on climate change would make it clear that for several years the paper has accepted man-made climate change as fact”.
“It has supported market mechanisms to reduce carbon output for the best part of a decade,” he said. “What people do not like is that I publish people such as Bjorn Lomborg. I will continue to do so, but would suggest my environment writer, Graham Lloyd, who is a passionate environmentalist, gets a very good run in the paper.”
Wahlquist, the long-time science and rural affairs writer for The Australian, accused Mitchell of controlling coverage of climate change because he believes those who subscribe to the “eco-fascist line” that humans have induced climate change are “aiming to destroy everything he loves and values”.


Not only is he censoring journalists, he is going to sue an ex employee who says he is.
 
http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/11/26...t-climate-change-at-the-oz-one-journos-story/




Not only is he censoring journalists, he is going to sue an ex employee who says he is.

Actually, he claims that the record clearly demonstrates that he does not censor this particular journalist.

Also, since when are allegations taken as fact without evidence? Shouldn't you at least review the published record, before assuming that the editor does anything other than edit, which is their job?

Maybe the reporter just found it "torture" to write stories that met the journalistic standards of the paper they were writing for. At this point, with the information you've provided, that conclusion is at least as plausible as your assumption that the editor censors journalists. Maybe they just edit journalists?

Or do you simply assume that anybody writing about climate change must automatically write coherent, well-researched articles, so that any exercise of editorial authority on such articles could only be described as "censorship"?

In summary, how do you know the difference between "editing" and "censoring", and how do you know which was going on in this case?
 
Last edited:
Indeed. His filing of the lawsuit would seem to be a pretty good indicator that he believes he's clearly been fair. Although it is also possible he knows he's in the wrong and is attempting to intimidated this writer.

Basically it's an interesting charge, but what is the evidence?
 
Not only is he censoring journalists, he is going to sue an ex employee who says he is.

Mitchell rejects the allegation and Wahlquist has also denied it, saying she has never spoken to Mitchell about climate change.

You must have missed this bit too.
 
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/11/29/3079695.htm

Audio of last week's conference at the centre of a defamation row involving The Australian and a Twitter user proves that much of the information tweeted was actually said.
The audio, obtained by the ABC, captures former Australian newspaper journalist Asa Wahlquist speaking about the trials of reporting on climate change while working at the News Limited-owned paper.
Her comments, in which she describes her experience at The Australian as "excruciating", were retweeted by journalism academic Julie Posetti.
The Australian's editor-in-chief Chris Mitchell has denied the allegations and threatened to sue Ms Posetti for defamation, saying that he believes new media should not be exempt from the "normal laws of the land".
In the audio, recorded by freelance journalism researcher Jolyon Sykes at the journalism conference in Sydney, Wahlquist can be heard saying that she had worked at The Australian for 14 years as a rural journalist.
"Climate change, of course, was a part of what I covered. It was absolutely excruciating. It was torture. There's no other way to put it," she said.
This comment seems to match a tweet made by Ms Posetti which read: "'It was absolutely excruciating. It was torture': Asa Wahlquist on fleeing The Australian after being stymied in covering #climate".
In the audio, Wahlquist then went on to describe Mitchell as taking a "political view" on climate change.


I wonder if he still plans to sue?
 
I reckon he is pretty safe if we can believe this.....

It seems to me that Wahlquist is the one in trouble here, not Mitchell.

In an article published on The Australian website on Friday, Mitchell rejects the allegations and said that Wahlquist also denied making the comments.

"Asa may or may not have said what the tweeter alleges. She denies to me that she did. But either way, the allegations are a lie and Asa has admitted as much," he said.

"There is not protection from the law in repeating accurately allegations falsely made. Asa works from home and I have neither seen her nor spoken to her in years, as anyone on the paper would attest."

Mitchell said he contacted Wahlquist after the tweets were made and he sent her an email saying he had "never spoken" to her about any of her stories.

"Indeed, I have not spoken to you in at least eight years. And I have never stood over people writing stories in 19 years as an editor," he said.

Do you have the audio?
 
Where do you think I got my quotes from? :)
Not only did I look at it - unlike you - I read the thing. :p

The premise of the OP is wrong wrong wrong.

Newslimited (Mitchell) has censored nothing. A t worst his former reporter had lied for effect and/or has been taken out of context.

Do you have the audio?
 
Last edited:
OK, I tend to be something of an AUP follower. Usually I can see some point to what he posts and I enjoy his insights.

Alas, there doesn't seem to be much of a point here except that some reporter thought she'd puff herself up a bit by claiming what a struggle it is for her to bravely report on the truth of global warming in the face of her evil editor when there was no struggle and her editor wasn't evil and somebody captured some audio of the bogus self aggrandizement.

So she lied a little, something that's frowned on for reporters especially when they're lying about the people they work for. So what should the paper do? Suing her from an American perspective seemed a little silly. I realize that we are the land of the stupid law suit, but generally lying about your employer might get you fired but even in the US I don't think you'd get sued for this. If I owned the paper, I'd suspend her for a month, ask for an apology and tell her not to do it again. So far the owner of the paper hasn't asked for my help on this, but you might give him my email address AUP, just in case he's looking for some advice.
 
If anything, she should be ashamed of herself as this seems like just more ammunition for the "fraud" detractors.
 
There is audio of the conference.

Yes there is. And the audio confirms that the lady made certain claims.

Previously, somebody had tweeted that the lady made certain claims. But a tweet is hardly solid evidence. Now we actually have audio of the lady making those claims. That's pretty solid evidence that she made those claims.

I'm not sure why you think this audio is important. You already believed she made the claims, back when the only evidence that she'd done so was a few tweets alleging it. You didn't need audio to believe she made the claims, any more than you need audio to believe her claims are accurate.

So now you have audio evidence of claims you believed were made even without audio evidence. Where does that get you?

And now that there is audio evidence that she really did make those claims, I predict that the defamation lawsuit, which is based on the premise that she really did make those claims, will be on even stronger footing than before.
 
And now that there is audio evidence that she really did make those claims, I predict that the defamation lawsuit, which is based on the premise that she really did make those claims, will be on even stronger footing than before.

No chance. To sue the reporter saying she wasn’t allowed to report freely the editor would need to prove she had no basis for saying it. All she has to do is say that’s how she felt and it becomes the editors responsibility to prove otherwise. Had he been suing a third party, they probably couldn’t fall back on saying “it’s their opinion the reporter said...” because what was/wasn’t said isn’t a matter of opinion.

In any case defamation is really hard to prove even when it’s occurred, and in this case we have no evidence at all to suggest it has. All the editor would end up doing is making himself look bad by further publicizing his reporters views on him.
 
Indeed. His filing of the lawsuit would seem to be a pretty good indicator that he believes he's clearly been fair. Although it is also possible he knows he's in the wrong and is attempting to intimidated this writer.

How wonderfully naive. Filing a lawsuit just means he thinks he has something to gain. Quite possibly it just means he thinks he can win or that by not filing the suit his paper will suffer damage (and by the time the suit is resolved no one will care anymore). (Or heck, maybe he just is pissed and wants the person to suffer...what's the rule on court and legal fees in Australia for cases like this? Anyone know?)

Suing someone definitely does NOT mean that you think you are right.
 
No chance. To sue the reporter saying she wasn’t allowed to report freely the editor would need to prove she had no basis for saying it. All she has to do is say that’s how she felt and it becomes the editors responsibility to prove otherwise. Had he been suing a third party, they probably couldn’t fall back on saying “it’s their opinion the reporter said...” because what was/wasn’t said isn’t a matter of opinion.

In any case defamation is really hard to prove even when it’s occurred, and in this case we have no evidence at all to suggest it has. All the editor would end up doing is making himself look bad by further publicizing his reporters views on him.

You lost me. Surely a lawsuit based on the premise that she said certain things can only be strengthened by audio records of her saying those things.

Besides, how does your argument address AUP's claim, which is apparently that if she really did say it, she must be telling the truth?
 
You lost me. Surely a lawsuit based on the premise that she said certain things can only be strengthened by audio records of her saying those things.

trivially so

She is perfectly entitled to her opinions and views on the events she was involved in and she is entitled to relay that to others. To prove defamation the editor would need to show she a deliberately lie, which tough.

Besides, how does your argument address AUP's claim, which is apparently that if she really did say it, she must be telling the truth?

That's a lot more logically sound the assuming she is not telling the truth. After all, she knows what she experienced, you do not.
 
trivially so

She is perfectly entitled to her opinions and views on the events she was involved in and she is entitled to relay that to others. To prove defamation the editor would need to show she a deliberately lie, which tough.



That's a lot more logically sound the assuming she is not telling the truth. After all, she knows what she experienced, you do not.

I agree with everything you've said. I just think you're missing the point that AUP is trying to make about this audio evidence, and my counterpoint.
 
The editor of a newspaper wants to sue someone who merely transcribed to twitter what was being said at a conference about the press. Those transcriptions were accurate, and not invented. It is very strange.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/12/chris_mitchellgate_mitchells_d.php

Mitchell responded: "I am amazed to see Richard finally stand up for a journalistic right. For decades he has supported every half-baked lawyerly argument against journalistic professional privilege. Now he supports the right of a Tweeter to tell blatant lies easily proven as such. Only at the (Sydney Morning) Herald, the spiritual home of all twits."

The tweeter did not tell lies, she just accurately related the statements made by Walquist. Yet it is not Walquist he has threatened to sue.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom