Pete, been actually racing and trying not to follow the banterings of Lonesome Bob so much any more.
I did just spend an hour trying to sort through the above. Perplexed a bit. First question - did you read or at least scan the 400 page report the woman in the blog article you cited to is so alarmed about? It can be found here:
http://www.dbcde.gov.au/__data/asse...y-into-the-Media-and-Media-Regulation-web.pdf
I think. If that is not it, let me know.
I think a serious discussion should be left until (a) you read the report and (b) you help me with some of the more basic aspects of the right of free speech and the press in Australia.
As you know, the US is different from most other common law countries regarding freedom of speech and the press. There are many things in Australia, and NZ, and the UK and Canada that are superior to what we have here. On the other hand, one thing I think we got right is the near absolute right to free speech. Almost all political speech, even if based on factual errors or just flat out wrong is protected.
One other difference is that our "public" broadcasting is much smaller here in than in the UK (and it sounds like Australia as well). PBS is not nearly the size of and does not reach the audience reached by the mass media in the US. Thus, public broadcasting plays a much larger role in the UK, etc. than here.
So, all of that said, what is going on here?
As I read it, that article starts out with a ringing endorsement of the idea of free press and the need for one in a democracy. It appears to juxtapose that against the concurrent idea that a public broadcasting company must be careful with the facts so as not to disinform.
This appears to be the point of the article: that there must be some standards for objectivity in public broadcasting/reporting in Australia to ensure accuracy. That's a tough task. Obviously a tricky one, to avoid situations like you hint at where legitimate, or minority, criticism is squelched by some "objectivist censor" with the government.
That said, nothing in that article appears directed at "climate realists". It's generic and the idea is to ensure that public broadcasting meets certain minimal qualitive standards in its broadcasting.
Noble goal but a tough one.
In the US, I would say something like this would have a hard time passing muster under the First Amendment so we typically -- typically -- do not have these issues. I would also say that something like this, while well meaning, can be a slippery slope.
But I totally lose the blogger when she ties this solely to "climate realism" or any real attempt in the here and now to censor. This article is merely suggesting that there be objective facts supporting what is reported on the ABC.
Or maybe I am missing something.
And all of that said, I am still waiting for you to pop up on one of Bob's threads and ask him to tone it down and be more civil in his posting. I am at a loss as to why you and Veek are incapable of doing that.
