What broader interests does Murdoch have in climate skepticism?
Proof not assertion please.

Proof? broader interests? Oh cmon. I'm not going to do the work for you, but these google 'subjects' will help your research.

Try: Murdoch, Koch Brothers, Fox News, Tea Party...

...for a start. You will get the picture pretty soon.

Its all about the land of the 'free'. Free to pollute. Free to hoard all the wealth. Free to interfere in democracy as long as it benefits the 'cause'.

Yes, my assertion on the assertion is an assertion. hmmm. Manufactured doubt wins every time!

BUT, here's the rub: the world of science vs law is contradictory in term of burden of proof. So there lies a problem... MSM journalism of late have chosen the former method in which to operate. So have the right of politics...(curious that they don't trust the scientific method when it comes to climate science...anyway)

So..........I, in the true spirit of the scientific method( I can use it cause my assertion not scientific), assert that Murdoch and his billionaire friends are conspiring to hoard as much money as they can, taring down as many barriers as possible (climate change policy being one of these barriers)...all in name of their warped interpretation of the American Dream...prove me wrong....

By the way, a great film: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTwqkl8BqSc, especially the last bit about climate change.

There is also a great new TV series called NEWSROOM which tackles 'proof not assertion' in TV reporting. Check it out.

Ken Swanson

"What broader interests does Murdoch have in climate skepticism?"

Defense of a passionately held World-view.

Murdoch: Capitalism is the best thing since sliced bread. It is how I managed to become so wealthy, and surely my position as one of the worlds truely wealthy individuals is a reflection of my personal self-worth as a human being. Capitalism is the createst invention in all of human history. And it can do no wrong. To suggest that this absolute paragon of a system could have any negative consequences, could ever do any real harm, could ever be anything but the most thrilling thing imaginable,is really something akin to Blasphemy.

Since capitalism could not possibly be the cause of any serious problem, those who suggest that there is a problem, and a serious one, one that actually means we might - gasp, gulp - need to restrict or change capitalism!!!! must obviously be wrong. I don't even need to really listen to such people because they are so self evidently wrong. The only way they could be right is if capitalism actually has someserious design flaws. And of course that is automatically impossible!

So the only reason why they could be saying such things is if they are - adds a steely glint to his eyes at this point - Enemies of Capitalism. And we know what we think of Commies and other people like that.

Best go hire a few Right Thinking journalists to go stomp on these lowlifes. I know I had a CV lieing around here somewhere, where was it...what was his name... Andrew someone. Nice Bob Carter told me about him....

To Brian and Glenn

Thanks for being so assertive

I think I could replace reference to Murdoch in both of your rants with the name Michael Moore or Barak Obama. No accusations of bias against either of these two zealots when they spill their bile via the compliant luv media.

Of course this is just an assertion.

"I think I could replace reference to Murdoch in both of your rants with the name Michael Moore or Barak Obama. No accusations of bias against either of these two zealots when they spill their bile via the compliant luv media."

Ken - that is a delightfully tinder-dry strawman and certain to burn festively if exposed to naked lights.

I for one would agree that Michael Moore has significant bias in his work - and Barak Obama is a politician and is therefore a partisan with stated political biases. As for accusation of bias against both - yes, by the media on both sides, and often. Even the New York Times has been savage of the hypocritical and contradictory approach taken by Moore over the years. And if you think Barak Obama has not had a right rollocking in the press then all I can imagine is that you don't actually read newspapers.

Now, I think the marshmallows need toasting in this lovely blaze...

Their point is actually very clear - particularly as they make it in unambiguous language.

"We found that these newspapers are contributing to an uninformed and inadequate public debate on the carbon price and Australian climate change policy."

There is nothing free about Murdoch speech - with Murdoch controlling over 70% of the print readership in Oz, many Australian newspaper readers only get one point of view - the anti-science view.

"they should be encouraged to stimulate debate"

That is the point of the article. The unbalanced approach does not stimulate debate it channels and stifles it. The point about free speech is utterly asinine since no one is suggesting that opposing views be silenced.

Quote.....The point about free speech is utterly asinine since no one is suggesting that opposing views be silenced.

A very good point and one that many Greens mambers who comment on here should take note of.

Coverage of carbon pricing in Australia has been, for the most part, extraordinarily poor in my observation, and this research lends credence to this view. I have rarely seen an article in the papers mentioned that addressed the reason for the carbon tax/price (climate change) nor address the consequences of doing nothing. Both the Stern Report and our own Garnaut Report clearly outline the economic costs of failing to address excessive greenhouse gas emissions.To my mind, this has been the major failing of the newspaper coverage. It could well seem to many Australians that there are no economic consequences for not addressing climate change. That is the most irresponsible part, because it is our kids and grand-kids who will read Stern and Garnaut many years from now and realise that ignorance was not our excuse.

To Mike Hansen

There is a very even playing field as far as getting the AGW message out.
In Melbourne and Sydney for example, Fairfax have one paper in each market (Age and SMH); News has one paper in each market as well. The national paper The Australian has very low circulation nationally and is offset in any case by the Financial Review.
The ABC has far greater penetration than any commercial TV groups, and in any case the commercial TV groups are pro AGW or ambivalent in any case
The ABC has a vast network of radio stations which far outweighs the commercial networks

The ratings and readership of these relative media however is vastly different. We can only speculate as to why News outsells Fairfax so comprehensively. In any case readers who seek to read both sides of the argument can easily buy both papers.

Karoly's problem is not the media it is the fact he has not made the case stand up when put under normal journalistic scrutiny. He has been unable to defend a number of his extreme positions which for many years went unchallenged by the luv media. Add Tim Flannery to the mix as an official spokesperson for AGW and the Climate Change Department and it is not surprising that public opinion has turned against Karoly and his disciples.

It is rather sickening to see that one of the world's leading climate change academics has now resorted to engaging in research projects which focus on "media bias" rather than on what he is actually paid to do. One can only conclude that it is a concerted campaign to explain to his peers and his other happy travellers why he has failed so miserably to win the argument when he supposedly has such a compelling case to make. Karoly needs to have a good hard look at his failure in this regard and consider stepping aside.

But one thing is for sure. It is not Rupert Murdoch's fault David!

Michael Brown,

" It's called free speech and needs to be defended, not criticised.'

If the media are deliberately misrepresenting an issue to further their own agenda or ideology (assuming for the sake of argument that they are), then you suggest that we should be actively supporting this, over and above criticising them for such misrepresentations and distortions and self-interest? Free speech is only of many values - there are also honesty, integrity, ethics, responsiblity.

Why is free speech superior to responsible speech? Why does a media that chooses to deny space to certain points of view qualify for the tag 'free speech' anyway? The only speech the media is interested in is its own.

John, I'ts not that I'd necessarily disagree with you - I think you make some very fair points but, given the shrieking hysteria unleashed by an economically conservative, market-focused and very modest first step towards reducing emissions and transforming energy generation (i.e. the current weak-but-better-than-useless carbon pricing mechanisms) do you seriously imagine the kinds of policies you're suggesting would have stood a snowball's chance in hell of getting legislated?

And while I'm here, Wade, is it possible to get atranslation into meaningful English of your cryptic little observation?

Yup, Alex, 'follow the money' yet again - hang on, wasn't that a prnciple journalists used to use, back when we still had some?

You can take the analysis even a level further. If you make 100k in advertising from a single client (like say ACA) - and it costs you 80k to hire a writer you know has a bias against climate science, it's a simple commercial decision.

Very little analysis on the media is conducted through a commercial lense.

Geoffrey, does a 'price' on a solid axiomatically morph into being a 'tax' when it's applied to a gas?

I presume you also refuse to travel on a 'bus' when it's really an omnibus or withdraw money from an ATM when it's really an Automatic Teller Machine.

It must take you ages to say even the simplest of things if you eschew every common abbreviation used and understood in everyday discourse.

Unless, of course, there was actually a substantive and useful point in your comment that I missed?

Have to post here to reply to James Bush's non-coment below.

Everybody is well aware of the difference and everbody is well aware of the way the abbreviation is used in common parlance...quite apart from which, what actual substantial difference is made anywhere by your comment or Geoffrey's original? Is any of the science changed? Would anything useful be achieve by insiting that everybody invariably use the full term 'carbon dioxide'.

Can you actually outline the 'deliberate misleading' you claim?

On this basis, you must be deceiving us by signing yourself as 'James Bush', when it should obviously be 'James [middle name/s] Bush born at [wherever] on [whenever]..etc.' Otherwise your comments are obviously deliberately misleading.

@Felix

Henley and Bush are not even correct on the facts. The carbon price applies to greenhouse gases including "carbon dioxide (CO2), CH4 (methane), nitrous oxide (N2O), or perfluorocarbons specified in the NGER Regulations and that are attributable to aluminium production"

https://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/Carbon-Pricing-Mechanism/About-the-Mechanism/What-emission-types-are-in-and-out/Pages/default.aspx

Further to Mike Hansen's observations, it does not encompass most CO2 emissions - nor should it. Of concern are only those that result from carbon that has previously been tucked away safely in the ground for millennia. Thus it is a "price on emissions which increase the greenhouse effect of the atmosphere beyond what would have occurred in the absence of human industry". I think we can forgive the media, the politicians and the public for abbreviating it to "carbon price".

That is quite the superior level whinge there Peter. Perhaps you might try addressing the substance of the article? "Heaps" is a remarkably subjective term and as for "most of the commentary in these fora is by individuals whose qualifications do not facilitate their understanding of what is a very difficult topic." You really did manage to Capture the character of The Australian, the Herald Sun and Andrew Bolt's blog remarkably well in that description, even though I am sure they were not your intended targets.

It has been said before, here and on some other blogs. It's a pity that the reporters did not pay much attention and dig it further to get the true colour of the carbon trading scheme at its infant state at the moment. It is good to see an account of this negligence. This investigative article will serve to clear the way for more useful findings and debates on the scheme as it is becoming a matured market.

I believe that good things only comes out of good concepts, good principles and correct theorising; and everyone can see that there is a difference between price and tax concepts.

@Chris Harper

And the authors of this article have every right to point out that

"We found that these newspapers are contributing to an uninformed and inadequate public debate on the carbon price and Australian climate change policy."

You are obviously very angry that they have expressed their opinion.

It appears that you only support that right when the opinion agrees with yours,

So this really is a copy and paste from the denialist dumpster.

Still completely science free.