NOT long after Media Watch went to air last night with its item about sea level’s disappointing refusal to rise as quickly as recipients of climate science grants would wish, Sultan of Smug Jonathan Holmes was exchanging tweets with detractors, admirers and friends. Background Briefing’s Wendy Carlisle was very definitely in the third category.
Now visitors to this blog may recall a series of recent posts on the topic of Carlisle’s poxed work, The Lord Monckton Roadshow. These cited, and linked to, documents she presented as supporting her contentions that
(a) Fred Singer rejected the link between tobacco and cancer,
(b) polar biologists did not attribute drowned polar bears to a storm, rather than a lack of ice, and
(c) Viscount Monckton’s number for sea-level rise is wrong, but less so than Al Gore’s.
Upon examination, it became clear those same documents actually refuted her narrative’s assertions, which were the product of (a) mischief, (b) misrepresentation and (c) mis-reading.
When avid tweeter spot_the_dog brought the posts to her attention, she dealt with the matter by the simple expedient of banishing him, and his questions, from her in box. This is an example of the arrogance others who question her reporting have also tasted. How Holmes reacted to notes from Bunyipitude readers – several have written to say they alerted the media watchdog to his ABC colleague’s travesty -- remains unknown, as no public word or tweet on the topic has passed his well-paid lips.
He has, however, been a good deal more forthcoming with Carlisle, who sent him a little tweet as the sea-level item was coming to an end.
@Wendycarlisle Wendy Carlisle@jonaholmesMW @abcscience online ran the same stupid story on brady
…which prompted the following exchange:
jonaholmesMW Jonathan Holmes@Wendycarlisle at least ABC gave CSIRO a right of replyin reply:@Wendycarlisle Wendy Carlisle@jonaholmesMW yes we shld be thankful for that. But gave Brady a cred that was undeserved. Had you seen it?
There was another tweet, too, with a jocular references to “passing the bottle” and Carlisle making a mock apology for her “impertinent filthy question”. One gets the distinct impression these two are (a) bonza cobbers, (b) ardent warmists and (c) further united by a contempt for those who are not.
Perhaps Holmes has been too busy to set shared climate convictions aside and examine his ABC colleague’s handiwork, but that seems unlikely in the light of the gusto with which he picked at The Australian’s sea-level story. Meanwhile, the duo's display of public affection and mutual regard does raise the suspicion that Holmes will always prefer to look anywhere but in Carlisle’s direction for his show’s targets. And if he has trouble finding them, Carlisle will provide a few suggestions to confirm his aim.
What was it they used to say about Caesar’s wife, that she should be above reproach?
The ABC, it never ceases to amaze. Here we have a fellow paid, and paid well, to keep an eye on slackness-and-worse in the media, yet demonstrating an affectionate eagerness to take advice from someone accused of slackness-or-worse in the media. Meanwhile, the unfortunate Brady, who scored Media Watch’s disdain for being not only a sceptic but a paleontologist to boot (be warned, Tim Flannery), cops both barrels and a salvo of sneers.
It really is an organization to make the jaw drop, their ABC, and not just for putting groupthink and bias on open display. When it comes to a brazen contempt even for the appearance of doing its duty, your tax dollars have never supported its equal.
A retired paleontologist. I'm surprised they didn't slip into a Borat-style voice to pronounce "retired" as "retard"...ReplyDelete
Hey Prof good to see you in this morning's Oz Cut & Paste. I do hope you keep going after La carlisle. She's a thin-skinned ABC lefty hack and if Holmes won't take her down then you'll have 2 scalps. His for being a partisan ABC lefty hack and her for being an untouchable Pilgeresque joke.ReplyDelete
I'm with Anonymous.ReplyDelete
Give'm both barrels - Holmes is a bigger wank than Wendy dear.
Seems Holmes is not banned from Carlisle's in box.ReplyDelete
Brady needs to flog his credentials for all they're worth, but in the right way: e.g. "I'm surprised nobody takes me seriously when they've got no trouble believing Flannery, who's a paleontologist just like me."ReplyDelete
Keep up the good work. About time someone put a rocket up the smug slackers who pose as journalists at their ABC and the nonsense they peddle. Saw you mentioned in today Australian! Well done.ReplyDelete
It their ABC.ReplyDelete
Bunyip,ever wonder how Brady got to be pontificating outside his field in that article? Was he just walking past Rintoul's cubicle,and Stu liked the cut of his jib? Did The Oz specify somebody whose initials were H.B and had no publications on sea-level study? Where DID they get him?ReplyDelete
Why was Brady the first 'expert' to be quoted,despite Phil Watson being clearly introduced as the reports author,and his photo heading the article? Why did Brady get everything he said about the paper or the subject wrong?
Why would Watson' employer be moved to write to The Oz in complaint about Rintoul's handling of the story?
It might be their ABC but we are paying for it They are not news people they are like some propaganda crew on a mission RED". Well, we all have something to look forward to with Flannery wanting to control our intelligence , i'm sure that's going to work out well .The ABC is more like a zoo of idiots if you ask me except for a few faint cries for reality .ReplyDelete
"Bunyip,ever wonder how Brady got to be pontificating outside his field in that article?"ReplyDelete
Nicko, ever wonder how the Panasonic Flanno Man (Sponsored by Prius) got to not just be pontificating outside his field (what's that you say, he has a Greater Monkey Faced Bat named after him, well THAT's all right then.....) but scored $720,000+ out of our hard-earned paycheques for it?
Well,we now know where The Oz got Howard Brady,and how Brady inserted himself into discussing someone else's work without their knowledge...Oz editor Clive Mathieson has blithely stated,in a statement to Media Watch, that Brady brought the news of the paper to them,and offered his two cents.They accepted his credentials without question...ReplyDelete
Hooray,Stuey Rintoul writes the wrap around,Brady sets the interpretive focus...on which Mathieson denies any agenda,claiming they fairly represented the paper and author. Butt a full nine paragraphs are dedicated to Brady's insistence that the paper ruins the CSIRO/IPCC projections,which is not the focus of the paper at all.The paper's author is relegated to a few comments towards the end of the piece.
The OZ claims they contacted the CSIRO for comment,which a CSIRO sea-level expert denies...
The Oz claims Watson did not object,but we've ALL seen the letter to the contrary from Watson's employer,the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage.
Great days in journalism.
Anonymous,no,not curious about Flannery as he is no mystery whatsoever. And has nothing to do with the curious case here.ReplyDelete