As noted by fractious in last Friday’s open thread, the Australian Press Council has dismissed a complaint about Miranda Devine’s “Green ideas must take blame for deaths” column that the SMH published back in February. The APC adjudication is available online; the SMH has published an edited version of it. The column was covered by Media Watch and condemned as “hate-mongering” soon after it was published. UPDATE: I should have also noted that Greg Barns examined Devine’s column in relation to the laws about incitement to violence.
The Press Council had this to say about Devine’s column:
In this case, the lead paragraphs of the article were dogmatic and confrontational. Ms Devine asserted that “It wasn’t climate change” and “It wasn’t arsonists” which killed “as many as 300 people”; rather, it was the “power of green ideology” in preventing fuel hazard reduction measures that allowed the build up of ground fuel that powered the disastrous fires. At a time of high emotion and a national outpouring of sorrow the laying of blame at the door of a particular group, in this case “greenies”, was incautious and would be offensive to many readers. It’s also possible that her claimed facts would turn out to be wrong.
But they then went on to draw this conclusion:
Nonetheless, in the context of The Herald’s extensive coverage of the Victorian fires in both news reports and commentary, and the newspaper’s actions in redressing concerns with the Devine article, the Council finds that the publication of the article did not breach its principles.
So, the position of the Press Council appears to be that a column they acknowledge as dogmatic, confrontational and offensive to many readers is acceptable – provided that the same newspaper publishes other reports and commentary on the same topic that aren’t so provocative, and allows readers to complain (in meetings or via letters to the editor) about the column in question.
I’d be interested in hearing what people think about that line of reasoning. Does the existence of better and/or contrary content balance out the publication of an appalling and offensive (not to mention questionable on the facts) opinion item?
NB: I managed to insert an extra “can” in the post title – fixed now.
21 Comments
UPDATE: I should have also noted that Greg Barns examined Devine’s column in relation to the laws about incitement to violence.
i’m glad this issue got posted here.
I think it’s a bizzarre conclusion by the press council. effectively what they’re saying is the newspaper as a whole should be viewed in the context of inciting hatred rather than any subliminal text within individual articles. I don’t agree with the finding and think it sets a very poor precedent.
A persons personal hatred of something seemingly put into a straw man then attacked.
Does she know green ideology was held by each and all of the decision makers and if so in what degree, or that such beliefs if held actually had anything to do with the decision making process or, that green ideology is at all against fuel reduction and so forth. Her argument is of course nonsense and seems like just an attempt at attacking something she must hate with biggest smear around, somebody died because of it.
It was a wonder ‘green ideology’ wasn’t replaced with Bob Brown but then the stupidity of the argument would become too apparent.
Then again didn’t a Fairfax paper spend a lot of time impling Ms Liew was something evil, because she was Chinese.
Self regulation by these people is a joke.
the other issue is where do you draw the line? if hate-mongering by one individual columnist can be balanced out by the overall tone of the paper, what about racist or sexist commentary? Can they be balanced out by the paper running a few feel-good stories about ‘assimilated’ muslims for eg?
The obvious conclusion here is that being incautious and offensive to many readers does not breach its (the Herald’s) principles. Speaks volumes really.
That should be “does not breach its (the Press councils) principles” but applies equally to both it seems.
The Press Council has proved itself to be worse than entirely useless on many occasions. What are they, ’self-regulation’ or something?
Whoops…Miranda get off! I happen to agree with her analysis (having a brother in the Regional fire service. He hates the restrictions on burning off’s). the biggest opponents? City dwelling hippies (the only way to describe them).
By the way, there is no hate here in this article…keep it in perspective people!
baldrick @ 8: way to miss the entire point of the post! I’ve noticed both you and pedro seem to suffer from this affliction, quite to the detriment of any subsequent comments you make.
what you think of devine’s article or even your brother’s viewpoint about urban dwellers is not the issue here. The issue is whether the Press Council can acknowledge her article is offensive, dogmatic and potentially factually innaccurrate yet take no action because her newspaper supposedly ran articles and reporting that ‘balanced’ out devine’s offensive garbage.
Do you have anything at all to say about that line of reasoning? if not it is probably best to stay silent and read the comments of those who do – posting foolish and irrelevant comments just to be contrary is a tactic usually favoured by ignorant trolls.
“Does the existence of better and/or contrary content balance out the publication of an appalling and offensive (not to mention questionable on the facts) opinion item?”
Technically, yes – although there has to be a limit or it would get a bit shouty, I’d suspect.
So is this interview incitement to violence ?
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2611906.htm
From Lateline last night:
“TONY JONES: Let me ask you on another issue altogether. New laws are now being used to penalise protesters who stop or impede production at coal-fired power plants and smelters and so on. Do you think those protesters should be protected in some way?
TIM FLANNERY: Absolutely. I find this completely outrageous to see state governments who are doing next to nothing to secure the future of younger people in Australia, penalising those who care with absolutely punitive measures now, making them pay for their protests. It is just extraordinary and I find it just utterly immoral and despicable.
TONY JONES: We’ve just seen NASA scientist Jim Hanson, I think you know him pretty well, arrested along with an actress outside a coal-fired power station in Virginia, something he describes as a “death factory”. Have you considered yourself that kind of direction action?
TIM FLANNERY: Look, I have. I think we’ve all got a job to do, and my job has over the last couple of years has been working with business and the more progressive end of the business spectrum. I have considered those sort of actions, but there’s probably a lot of young people who’ve got a lot more at stake than I have who are gonna get angrier over time and who are gonna demand action, and they’re probably the ones who are gonna carry the day in that area
The intro given to Flannery by Jones:
“TONY JONES, PRESENTER: Joining us now in the studio is Professor Tim Flannery, well-known environmental expert, a former Australian of the Year and also chairman of the Copenhagen Climate Council.”
Since when is a Paleontologist an expert on the environment ?
Putting aside the obvious bias that Jones shows towards guests with whom he agrees, compare this interview with that he did with Plimer — I’d suggest that the words spoken here are definitely encouraging people to take direct action against coal fired plants.
It is a foolish person that apportions blame for a situation like the Black Saturday fires purely on the dictates of their own prejudices. I would suggest the various reasons for the disaster will come out of the Royal Commission in due time; but it’s worth noting, Baldrick, that the fires started on private land and propagated most quickly over land that was not subject to any restrictions. If you have the nous, go on Google Earth and follow the fire’s track from Kilmore to Kinglake and Murrundindi. Very very little forest in the hinterlands between these sites. But it would be unpatriotic to blame the farmers and pine-plantation owners, so Devine and Bolt go for their own weak-minded tub-thumping. Hardly a surprise that the Press Council piddle themselves rather than do anything sensible about them.
GavinM @11, please see confessions @9.
So is this interview incitement to violence ?
no.
Oops, I probably should have posted that comment in the open thread – I was actually meaning it to be a genuine question, not trolling to distract from this argument…
First time I’ve ever been called a troll though, thanks Zoot
I’m not so sure confessions, they seem to be encouraging people to take direct action against power stations to me, and that equals incitement in my definition. Especially given that in the past such direct action has resulted in shutting down parts of a plant whilst protestors have had to be physically removed, and when protestors refuse to voluntarily leave a premises, violence, wether initiated by police or by the protestors nearly always follows.
GavinM: consider what devine writes about greenies, not arsonists to blame for the bushfires; her statement that greenies, not arsonists should be hanging from lamp posts. All Flannery has said is in response to Jones question about whether he’s considered direct action, ie protesting outside a coal-fired power station to which he basically says no, but acknowledges that younger people with more at stake probably would. JOnes question does not ask about sabotage or attacking inanimate objects. Devine talks about hanging people from lampposts.
a big difference.
Call this irrelevant if you want, but having lived not that far from Hazelwood for a while, I’m wondering how you would threaten a coal-fired power station with violence, without having access to a military armoured division.
Facetiousness aside, I have to admit that was a VERY soft interview with Flannery last night. Regular love-in it was.
Hello Bertus,
I was referring to the protestors that have chained themselves to the machinery at numerous power stations both here and overseas and the subsequent actions that have been taken to remove them.
Also, there is the matter of the death threat that was received by the CEO of Hazelwood — I’d say that’s a fairly violent action too.
confessions, acknowledging the lunacy of Devine’s article — it’s only the degree of violence being incited that concerns you ?
And ‘direct action’ against a specified target is usually more than standing around outside the gates holding banners and chanting slogans — as I said above, protestors have placed themselves and workers in danger by chaining themselves to machinery and forcing plants to close down until they were removed…Who knows what the next stunt might be — we’ve now seen a death threat, so what’s next ?
GavinM: whether or not you ascribe acts of sabotage to ‘direct action’ is irrelevent: Tony JOnes specifically describes the protest action of Jim Hanson and the “actress” and refers to it as direct action, asking flannery if he himself would ever engage in it. It is pretty clear to me that neither are advocating sabotage or destruction of property, whereas devine OTOH openly states that “greenies, not arsonist should be hanging from lamp posts.” And yes, inciting violence towards individual people matters much more to me than sabotage of inanimate objects even where the protesters put their own lives at risk.
Just on that, where were the outcries from the pro-lifers when Devine published her nasty little piece?
“So, the position of the Press Council appears to be that a column they acknowledge as dogmatic, confrontational and offensive to many readers is acceptable”
I don’t have a problem with that, if that’s all it is.
“And yes, inciting violence towards individual people matters much more to me than sabotage of inanimate objects even where the protesters put their own lives at risk.”
The problem with that confessions is that they aren’t just putting their own lives at risk, they are also potentially putting the lives of workers at risk too.
When someone like a Tim Flannery, says words like “I have considered those sort of actions, but there’s probably a lot of young people who’ve got a lot more at stake than I have who are gonna get angrier over time and who are gonna demand action, and they’re probably the ones who are gonna carry the day in that area…”, and calling for them not to be prosecuted for their actions, it is likely to act as a green light to extremists who believe the end justifies the means in achieving their aims, thats why we get incidents such as the death threat received by the boss at Hazelwood.
“Just on that, where were the outcries from the pro-lifers when Devine published her nasty little piece?”
I’m not a pro-lifer, but I missed the Devine piece — I don’t suppose you have a link ?