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 > The rise of blogging, mainstream media, and Victoria’s river red gum forests > Comments

The rise of blogging, mainstream media, and Victoria’s river red gum forests : Comments

By Mark Poynter, published 14/8/2008

Online blogs play an important role in providing a forum for those misrepresented by the mainstream media that at least enables their case to put on the public record.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All
Congratulations on raising these issues. Country people have always been aware of media omission of factors important to the rural community and media manipulation of urban voters. As a contributor and reader to this Online blog I'm appreciative of the opportunity to read features that reveal the 'other side' of media stories. Blogs are the public forum of the future as people seek after information. I am about to launch my own blog on issues of importance to me. This will only achieve a readership if it is pertinent.
Posted by Country girl, Thursday, 14 August 2008 11:55:22 AM
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
I think it is fascinating that you can get away with saying that this campaign is all about "city green fundamentalists" (as one of the more absurd commentators put it) and "locals".

It is as if Yorta Yorta haven't been involved in this campaign at all, this particular silence on the part of the RRGEA, makes your article reek of propaganda rather than anything of substance. (Congratulation though on finding some Indigenous people who disagree with the recommendations, this must have felt like a real coup).

Your back-handed comment that co-management recommendations are "widely viewed as compensation for the Yorta Yorta whose claim for Native Title over the Barmah Forest was defeated in the High Court" is also rather curious. It is as if you are saying that compensation is a form of willy-nilly political correctness, rather than an important step towards restitution (an argument I doubt I will see you make about the inevitable compensation to graziers/loggers, etc). Or perhaps you are saying that because Yorta Yorta chose to go down the road of Native Title they have forfeited any right to claim their land (denying the long history of active assertions to that land)?

Or maybe you have full faith in the decision of the High Court that reaffirmed the fantasy of terra nullius, and that you now are denying all together the existence of Yorta Yorta?

Not surprisingly, the same groups who banded together in a united front against Yorta Yorta in the negotiations for Native Title case, have come together again with the same aspirations. This time conveniently actively disengaging with the concept that LOCAL Indigenous peoples have been at the forefront of the campaign for a National Park.

Here’s to the Victorian government handing back the Barmah forest, and leasing it back with no-strings-attached rental arrangement.

And do excuse me for being a little bit, um, “cynical” of your position when it seems like you have been hired to be a part of the RRGEA green-wash propaganda machine.
Posted by roadsideservice, Friday, 15 August 2008 11:37:39 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
Mark Poynter and his Institute of Public Affairs fake green group are amazing. I recorded the Stateline story he refers to as being bias, and the loggers got more airpaly than the greenies. His concern appear to be that his dodgy 'alternative' report, put together over a few months, with no public consultation recieved no coverage. Having read it, it is hardly surprising. It simply advocates the status quo. Well done logging bozos.
Posted by nickos, Friday, 15 August 2008 3:00:56 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, Thanks for this report. Its a pity that the ABC did not devote the same airplay to the community report as that they gave recently to an "independent" scientific report by the ANU and funded by the Wilderness Society.

I found out from the Internet rather than our own ABC that timber dependent communities along the Murray have been left stunned and frustrated by the release of the Victorian Environment Assessment Councils (VEAC) River Redgum Forest Investigation.

The general feeling seems to be that the final recommendations are nothing short of arrogant and highlight VEAC’s lack of understanding for rural communities. It seems the ABC Stateline program has the same disease.

Whilst the ABC showed a sawmiller stating the region’s unique timber industry will have a whopping 80% cut to the sustainable yield as a result of approximately 90,000ha of state forest being converted to National Parks. The impact on community appears to be barely mentioned.

The economic contribution and the jobs dependent on the industry appears to have been under valued by VEAC who have ignored the industry in past studies.

Didn't VEAC's predecessor use a professional PR firm to target the media over the Box Ironbark lock up, perhaps the media have been 'managed' again?
Posted by cinders, Friday, 15 August 2008 3:40:18 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
Nor did the program mention, or has the industry for that matter, that there needs to be at least a 30% cut and possibly upto a 60% cut in the size of the current 'industry' in Red Gum forests. DSE figure show this. New parks or no new parks, the industry is screwed.
Posted by nickos, Friday, 15 August 2008 4:17:25 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
To 'roadsideservice'
I do not claim to have any great knowledge of the indigenous situation or the history of the Yorta Yorta NT. My expertise lies elsewhere and this aspect of the debate was mentioned only in passing in one sentence (I think)in an article that was really focussed on media bias.

However, if you lived in the area as you seem to be implying, you would be aware through the local media, that three indigenous groups have at different times expressed concern and/or opposition to VEAC's indigenous proposals - the Bangerang, the Latji Latji, and Wamba Wamba. A major difficulty seems to be long standing disputes over just which group/s are traditional custodians of which land/s.

You may well be correct about the Yorta Yorta's long-standing desire for a Barmah NP. However, this is a bit different to putting virtually all the forests from the Ovens River to Swan Hill in five NPs which is essentially what VEAC has recommended.

I can't stop you being "a little bit, um, cynical, of my position" because I did work for the RRGEA. But really now, how else do you think I know so much about the issues to be able to write the article? This was one of the central themes of the article - the disturbing reality that this cynicism effectively dismisses the views of those who know the most because they live and work in the area, in favour of those (perhaps like yourself?) who are big on passion and emosion in support of a nice idea, but may know diddly-squat(and mostly don't care) about how it will actually affect land management, the environment, and the community that has to actually live with the changes.
Posted by MWPOYNTER, Friday, 15 August 2008 8:42:59 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
To "nickos"
I'm not sure where you get the Institute of Public Affairs from - the Rivers and Red Gum Environment Alliance is a conglomerate of 25 community groups (including four municipilities)that does not include the IPA.

It is I think unprecendented in the history of these land management disputes for a conglomerate of community groups to come up with a 150 page alternative plan outside the formal public submission process. That it was put together in a few months mostly by voluntary effort is a great credit. Comparing it with the VEAC process which involved 10 - 12 full time staff and several $million over more than three years is pretty non-sensical.

I would agree that the ABC Stateline program was not unbalanced in terms of time for particular spokespersons, but as I said in the article, its deception was in its omission of key information not to mention the VNPA spokesman being allowed to call the timber spokesperson deceptive - I wonder how he knew to say that in support of the reporter's view?

As for the DSE figures showing the need to reduce the timber harvest by 30%, why then is VEAC advocating an 80% reduction to the harvest? If you have indeed read the RRGEA Plan, as you claim, you will realise that VEAC's use of those figures is quite shaky - particularly the fact that they declined to take account of the improved growth and productivity of the forest resulting from the better water management they are striving for.

I am bemused why you and so many 'greens'focus on logging when it only occurs within a 15 - 20% portion of the public lands investigated by VEAC - but I guess that has been an enduring weakness of Australian environmental activism - a blinkered failure to see the wood for the trees (pardon the pun).
Posted by MWPOYNTER, Friday, 15 August 2008 9:23:15 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
"I'm not sure where you get the Institute of Public Affairs from" Says Mark.

Well, for the uninitiated, which apparently includes Mark, The IPA set up the greenwash group, Australian Environment Foundation (AEF), whose last 2 conferences have been sponsored by logging and agri-chemical interests. The AEF is behind the Rivers And Red Gum Environmental Alliance, with their Executive director Max Rheese, who is also the head of the AEF. Jennifer Marohassey,who is involved closely in IPA launched the Red Gum Alliance 'Alternative plan' a few weeks ago. For all the dirt , go to http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Rivers_and_Red_Gum_Environment_Alliance

Which parts of this aren't you sure about Mark?
Posted by nickos, Sunday, 17 August 2008 12:43:56 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
Nickos

You are only further confirming what my article was largely about - that the media focus on self-interest (which is usually at the behest of activist groups) overshadows proper public debate about the issues including the social, economic and environmental implications of proposed environmental policy changes such as in the case of Victoria's river red gum forests. I presume this occurs because environmental groups are largely bereft of scientific knowledge and so concentrate on emotional messages and diverting attention.

Reiterating what I said in my early post, the IPA is not a member of the Rivers & Red Gum Alliance. The Australian Environment Foundation is a member of the Alliance as you have pointed out.

Interestingly, your 'dirt' about the AEF on the SourceWatch website, is largely information that is freely available on the AEF website in the interests of transparency. Also, the AEF provided SourceWatch organiser Bob Burton, free and unfettered access to their first conference and he also used this to create the Source Watch entry you have linked to.

I am not a member of the AEF, but have attended their 2 conferences and am supportive of their stance on forestry matters which is my area of expertise. The AEF was formed at a 2004 forum at Ballarat hosted by the IPA and a number of other groups concerned by the increasing tendency for government environmental policy to be determined on emotion and populism, at the expense of evidence-based considerations. You refer to this as 'greenwash' because it questions the key plank of environmental activism which is simply based on idealism (ie. lets 'save' the forests) free from any understanding about the real state of the forests or how they are currently managed.

The AEF operates independently of the IPA - that is, its gets no funding or logistic support. Of course, there will be links between these groups through members who support both, but is this any different to say the Victorian National Parks Association and the Australian Conservation Foundation, or the Wildereness Society? Perhaps you could enlighten us.
Posted by MWPOYNTER, Monday, 18 August 2008 11:51:17 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
Mark re. your earlier comment about it being nonsensical to compare your report to the VEAC one. I agree too. So why are you comparing them. The VEAC report was an extensive piece of work conducted over many years with many views sought and included in the process.

How many non-RRGEA/AEF people did you talk to in the preparation of yours?

The beauty of the VEAC process is its independency. Whilst this may not deliver an outcome preferred by forestry advocates such as your self, it does cut through the spin and deliver independent recommendations. That a particularly industry perspective has not been promoted by an independent report actually highlights its independent nature. This should be seen as a good thing.

I really can't understand you advocacy for logging a river and its wetlands that are in crisis.
Posted by nickos, Tuesday, 19 August 2008 2:16:44 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
Nickos

Comparing the VEAC and RRGEA plans - agree that the processes can't be compared - one had access to plentiful money and resources while the other was done on a shoestring budget - but the recommendations are certainly there to be compared.

VEAC sought many views - can't disagree, but their are questions about the veracity of obtaining views from distant places where people were asked to put a price on improving conservation without being told the full story about the current management of the forest. I think 42% of these had never been to the forests. On the other hand, you would find many locals who believe their views have been virtually ignored.

VEAC independent? - yes, in an arms-length sense, but the justifications used for some recommendations certainly suggest the building of a case to support a preferred outcome. A great example, is comparison of the hypothetical value of 'willingness-to-pay-for-conservation' against the actual value of existing industries. Unsurprisingly, this devalues the worth of those industries even though there are no actual payments made for conservation.

Advocacy of logging a stressed environment? - you know as well as I do that most of the forests will never be logged under the current mix of public land tenures (without the VEAC recommendations). Also, it is a lack of water, not logging that is the cause of the stress. Parts of these forests have been selectively harvested and regenerated for 150 years, logging is hardly the bogey, you paint it to be. Forests are dynamic entities that are always declining and renewing (not static, fragile museum exhibits), thinning them is actually helping to alleviate their current stress.
Posted by MWPOYNTER, Tuesday, 19 August 2008 10:37:47 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All

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