21 March, 2012

Australian Environment Foundation

I strongly support the following statement:-

Holmes & Media Watch versus Dr Marohasy & AEF 

Jonathan Holmes in his Media Watch segment of March 19th attacking Dr.Jennifer Marohasy’s research into the Murray’s lower lakes, raised questions about the very name of the Australian Environment Foundation:  his piece was titled ‘What's in a name?’

Holmes purported to focus his reporting on the question of journalists’ research into those who take public positions.  But Holmes’ main implication was that AEF is pretending to be something it isn’t.  Yes, indeed - it isn’t your typical deep green, issue-driven, highly political advocacy group with an anti-business anti-employment, anti-farming focus.  You don’t have to be a youthful, long-haired, latte-sipping, inner-city dweller to care about the environment.  We aren’t, and we do.

We care particularly when governments base public policy on politics and vote pandering, not on solid research and real evidence.  You have only to look at climate policy in this country to see a glaring example of how this distorted motivation is likely to cost our communities billions of dollars and extinguish thousands of jobs, for absolutely no benefit at all to climate or environment.

Holmes dwelt at length on the origins of AEF, all of which are matters of public record, as they should be.  And what does it matter anyway?  This is a free country where freedom of speech prevails.  AEF like any other group has the right to take any position it chooses.   But the question arises:  how often has Holmes similarly researched the origins and background of deep-green groups?

The real motivation behind Holmes’ take on AEF’s positions is that he doesn’t like them.  He doesn’t like any views that question his belief (for that is what it is) in the supposed need to buy back and divert more MDB water into ‘environmental flows’, just as he dislikes any countervailing views on the still unproven hypothesis that man-made CO2-driven global warming will lead to a climate catastrophe.

As a publicly-paid broadcaster, he has a responsibility to be more even-handed on these issues and to air his prejudices less.
Post a Comment