The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Crossing the line from academia to activism > Comments

Crossing the line from academia to activism : Comments

By Mark Poynter, published 9/4/2010

Politically-motivated forest activism is undermining the credibility of our scientists and academic institutions.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. Page 7
  9. All
Ah, I see.

I guess if you're one of those working in unrelated disciplines such as philosophy, sociology, accounting and economics, you don't really have a broad understanding of the issues.

Except if you're Bjørn Lomborg of course, then you're a "respected international commentator on the environment".
Posted by Bugsy, Monday, 12 April 2010 8:49:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mark's assertion that the topic is just about academics stepping over the line is clearly absurd. If it wasn't the forestry industry do you think he'd bother to step up to the plate. It's all about trying to preserve this tarnished industry image - poynter's merely one of the foot soldiers. As an earlier post mentioned - if they are on the industries side all well and good. - so poynter's slant is blatant hyprocrisy - Free speech for the holders of power - shut up the dissenters. Universities should be a bastion of dissent, not holding up the status quo and the old guard that poynter faithfully alligns himself to. Sadly universities are feeling the pressure, and indeed have lost plenty of power to express the alternative to the prevailing views.
As to the notion of bias - Poynter uses it as a putdown. It's an opinion, one that is coming from our learned institutions. How much bias exists elsewhere in the world? The fact that they come from public institution is irrelevent. We need more dissent to stand up to the bullyboys, and there baseball diplomacies. As to your assertion that they crossed a line, it's a well crypto-fascist, finger pointing, fear excavating tactic.

Meanwhile where the real battles are, in the forest, life is being eviserated, burnt, slashed, poisened and all those other very accurate words that the industry likes to call "emotional". no, this is the cold eye of perception, which the industry prefers to pretend isn't happening, and anyway who gives a ##@#?

So dont say the forests are off-topic, it's the topic of the minute and the industry is worried. they should be. it's a basket case, and anyone with any sense ralizes this.
Posted by ki==m, Tuesday, 13 April 2010 9:51:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Cinders” (Alan Ashbarry, Timber Communities Australia, I presume) wrongly claims (10 April), “The local Southern Cross television news last night featured Tom Baxter as a Governance Lecturer, to interpret the current constitutional actions of the Tasmanian Governor. Did they know that his field was Corporate Governance ....”

That Southern Cross TV news report clearly described me as a 'Corporate Governance' lecturer, both by a printed caption and the journalist's voiceover introducing my comment. I gave the journalist my business card and stressed 'Corporate Governance' lecturer, which Southern Cross accurately used. I recorded the news report and have checked it.

My comment did not (as cinders says) “interpret the current constitutional actions of the Tasmanian Governor”. Rather, in response to the journalist’s question about multi-party governing arrangements in other Australian jurisdictions, I summarised a presentation by Professor Jenny Stewart which I attended at UTAS: see reports at http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2010/03/26/2857653.htm and http://www.themercury.com.au/article/2010/03/26/136211_tasmania-news.html
Corporate governance is not limited to companies, as cinders claims. Anyway, I’m able to comment on wider governance issues.

Cinders' suggestion that Southern Cross should have somehow linked their news report back to the unrelated open letter is bizarre. They were entitled to contact me requesting an interview and I was entitled to answer their questions as I did.

Cinders claims that Southern Cross using a few seconds of my comment at the end of its news report “undermines the value of the news service and the University’s reputation”. Rubbish. Compare this to Southern Cross broadcasting Forestry Tasmania’s PR program ‘Going Bush’ weekly 5-5:30pm, shortly before its 6pm news. The Tasmanian Ombudsman ruled that FT (a government business enterprise) must disclose under the Freedom of Information Act costings of this PR TV program (costs ultimately carried by the public purse). Instead, FT is spending more public money appealing to the Supreme Court against the Ombudsman’s decision, see:
http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php?/article/forestry-tasmania-goes-bush-...-and-hides-the-cost/ and http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php?/article/forestry-tasmania-challenges-ombudsmans-order-to-disclose-going-bush-costs/

Time does not permit me to check the veracity of cinders’ other claims, but these were factually wrong and missed the wood for the trees.

Tom Baxter, Lecturer, School of Accounting & Corporate Governance, University of Tasmania
Posted by Tom Baxter, Saturday, 24 April 2010 1:12:34 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
P.S. I don’t normally respond to reader comments. But Mark Poynter appears to rely on two such comments as authoritative sources when he writes:

‘The publication of the “open letter” also sparked various descriptions of the University of Tasmania’s School of Geography and Environmental Studies. This included a reference to it as being “characterised by a certain ideological cast” and as “a hot-bed of radicalism”. ...’

Poynter appears to be citing reader comments #15 and 16 at http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php?/weblog/article/unhealthy-relationship-open-letter-to-politicians/ Apparently he sees such comments as authoritative sources to republish. He selectively does not refer to the surrounding reader comments, #14 (by a biologist specialising in forest ecology), 17, 18, 19. They are worth reading.

Roland Browne has a general reply to this piece by Poynter at http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10316 published 23/4/2010. That includes links to the open letter (including its 18 footnotes), and The Mercury chief reporter’s report of the letter.

Tom Baxter, Lecturer, School of Accounting & Corporate Governance, University of Tasmania
Posted by Tom Baxter, Saturday, 24 April 2010 1:18:36 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. Page 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy