Legislative Council Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1) 52 1 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Matters of Interest MATTERS OF INTEREST Climate Change CLIMATE CHANGE The Hon. J.M. GAZZOLA Legislative Council The Hon. J.M. GAZZOLA (15:23): It is of concern reading of the death threats being made against scientists when they are going about their legitimate work. The Executive Director of the Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies (FASTS), the nation's peak scientific body, Anna-Maria Arabia, noted the hysteria being raised by, in her words, 'the misinformation campaign being largely run by climate change deniers'. I am concerned not only by this but also by the nature and the level of debate of some commentators on climate change and related issues like the carbon tax in mainstream media in Australia. There is a view in the public arena that climate change is a fabrication and that government action is yet another attempt to increase its power and authority. Why any government would want to embrace such a politically taxing and unpalatable issue few of its detractors ask. There is no legitimate scientific doubt that we, our children and their children to come are facing one of the biggest issues that we have ever come up against, that of global warming, and the subsequent effects that are coming in its wake. The comments by visitor Michael Grubb, Senior Research Associate at Cambridge University's Faculty of Economics, as well as being a Chair and member of various advisory committees with the British government, are pertinent. He said, and speaking in general: After a recent visit to Australia discussing international development on climate change, I think three things stand out in the national debate: the extent to which virulent rhetoric is pushing out reasoned analysis, the belief that doing nothing is an option without serious cost, and the apparent loss of Australia's confidence in itself...the physics...is a scientific fact, not a political football. Critics and journalists point out that the federal government is seen to be failing, or has failed to adequately sell the message, yet the media—well, some sections of the dominant press and radio—often fail to get beyond the fatuous and the manipulative. As a major player in the dissemination of news and views, the media has an important responsibility. The media reply is that its job is to present a broad range of views and perspectives, but do big issues and informed readership not require intelligent and sensible reporting as equally important? Some critics have talked of the demise of journalistic standards, for example, John Scales, a past editor of The Advertiser, in his Indaily interview on the demise of old journalism. According to Scales, things were not always like this: the consequences for us, the appeal to populism, the creation of opinion over fact and argument, the dominance of style over substance, the political outcome, the reduction of intelligent debate to the trivial, and the elevation of the trivial to the profound, public cynicism, and disinterest in important issues. Obviously, not all media and press reports lack balance, but the question of credibility in mainstream media is apparent and worrying. As Scales points out, the job nowadays is not so much about reporting and reflecting public opinion, but creating public opinion—and there is a difference. If this trend is correct, it appears that corporate ego, the fight for survival and sales may push mainstream media competition further and further to the sensational and creative. Readers are quite familiar with those approaches. One example, and subsequently a subtle distortion of debate, was discussed by Media Watch's analysis of The Australian's report on the Australian Coal Association's analysis of carbon taxing. A front page carried 'Explosive economic modelling'—its words—on projected extensive job losses in the coal industry in New South Wales, which was followed the next day, after a war of words and policy with TheAge, by a report in The Australian from Citibank rebutting these extravagant claims on projected losses. The Australian, to this point, could claim that in the unfolding battle of words and views it had been fair and responsible. The Media Watch point of sensible reporting and sensible judgement is that the suspect 'explosive' news came on the front page, while the rebuttal was buried far from the front page, in the business section. Relevance and balance, in this case, defers to sales and strategies. Let me finish with the final word from Michael Grubb on our need to make informed decisions in the face of manipulation: 'Just don't do so with earphones plying false stories and a blindfold to the consequences.'