'Australian Story' is an amazingly boring program. The stories are usually about some nobody with nothing interesting about him or her with an introduction by a total bore who claims to know about the subjects and greatly admires their struggle against some petty adversity.

I doubt that there would be enough people watching the ridiculous program for any ABC 'political influence' to be effective.

An accusation of bias or improper reporting by our national broadcaster on the subject of water purity I would have thought would have had a wide audience, not the least being the people of Tasmania who appear to be bombarded almost every month with some other development matter impacting what used to be a pristine environment.
The article in this case, written as it was by a writer whose life is totally dependent on the industry which was the subject of the ABC report, can hardly be expected to be supportive of anyone who, based on their own personal efforts over a long time, spent a great deal of time investigating a pollution source which was impacting an important industry in Tasmania, that is oyster farming together with anyone using the water for drinking.
There appeared to me to be no doubt whatsoever that this problem was eventually able to be corrected, not by the actions of an interested government, who on the surface appeared to be less than motivated to be of assistance, but by a combined effort of oyster farmers,and scientists, such as the NIWA experts in New Zealand. Why would they have an axc to grind?
I may be naive but the fact that this is an election year, the writer, by emphasising that this may have been a motivation for the ABC to produce the program, made an unworthy comment, but understandable because of his total subservience to the very industry responsible for the pollution in this case. If he was doing anything in writing his story it was showing his allegiance to his employers, a natural reaction.
When one talks about fairness and objectivity, be seems to fail on both counts.

Mark - Sublime work

Hits every nail that needed hitting.

What we have is a wilful collaboration of activists and the ABC with the sole intent of corrupting the public sphere. And we thought that threat came from the commercial media! Alston was right - the ABC and commercial broadcasters ARE structurally the same. Might as well privatise the bast*rds after all.

Mark's analysis of the whole sorry beat-up is the one that deserves national coverage.

Good article Mark.

Thanks for offering an alternative view, as no one I'm sure outside of OLO would probably print something in Australia that criticises the green lobby or the ABC, we've become so PC.

I think you're pushing the proverbial uphill trying to get any recognition of bias out of the ABC.

They see themselves as unbiased, middle of the road, because they all think the same way, way left that is.

It is irritating the way they support all the eco, enviro stories, like this like AGW and never bring any balance to the table.

I'll get flamed for saying this as so many on OLO consider them the epitome of balance.

Sack them all, including the guy at the top whose arrogance is breathtaking and sell it to the lowest bidder.

When the revolution comes, we'll give the ABC to the gun lobby and the guys who organize the SummerNats - just so we get a few decades of the opposite to what we get now .. that would be balance (that's a joke OK, take a deep breath and let it all gooooooo.)

Well said Mark! Your attention to detail contrasts dramtically with the lack of detail given in Something's in the Water. I get very frustrated with the constant attacks on the forest industry. The bias and misinformation that is pushed out is incredible.
Before this type of slanted story is released with the resulting concern and community division, let the research be done properly to establish the full facts.
Thanks again.

Mark,
The issues that you raise of lack of balance and the flawed practices of the ABC must be immediately investigated by the Australian Communication and Media Authority as it seems the ABC is in breach of its own code of practice . It is not the first time that the ABC has been found guilty of breaching its code when it comes to reporting on Tasmanian forestry. You might remember the ABC’s own Independent Complaints Review panels damning finding of bias and inaccuracies against Ticky Fullerton’s Lords of the Forest see http://www.ipa.org.au/library/57-1-ABCparalysisonbias.pdf

Even a complaint to ACMA when the ABC management failed to act on its findings seems not to have prevented a repeat six years later.

What is of greatest concern is the ABC’s failing to make all evidence available to public health authorities and also failing to declare the involvement and role of the legal firm Slater and Gordon. When the Tasmania’s Director of Public Health tried to access the results of the testing, AAP reported that he was referred to this legal firm. Now, documents made available on the ABC web site after the program aired, show that legal firm commissioned and funded the testing undertaken by New Zealand’s National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd (“NIWA”).

The ABC also ignored the request of the Forest Industries Association to ‘viewers are made aware of all the issues, facts and history when considering whatever findings are put forward in the second episode.’ Instead the FIAT letter and its counter claims was only available to the 800,000 odd Australians that watched the program if they accessed the web site.
If they had they too, like Mark could have also accessed the detailed response for the Director of Public Health see http://www.dhhs.tas.gov.au/news_and_media/st_helens_drinking_water_quality that demonstrates that this issue has not been ignored by the Tasmanian government and in fact has been taken very seriously by health authorities and the Department of Primary Industries and Water

Some of the points raised by the author can also be used to discredit forestry corporations - the idea of government funding as an immediate sign of ill-doing vis a vis the community group. So what if this community group is funded - so are corporations in many ways via corporate welfare and a strong lobby influence on goverment. This does not make the assertions about the effect of genetically modified eucalypts necessarily wrong or right.

This program was mainly about getting the government to acknowledge there is a problem that needs further 'impartial' investigation.

cinder's link reveals that the government is now using activated carbon powder to further treat the water so there was a positive outcome and a short term solution until further study can be undertaken.

It would be irresponsible for a doctor to ignore an increase in unusual illnesses in a small area like St Helen's and for the oyster farmers (not usually environmentalists) to join the cause to seek answers.

There are many vested interests in GMO as well but that is not mentioned by the author of this article.

the biggest load of old boll@cks i have read in years...the article..and most of the comments..LOL

Yes, I thought there was something odd about the program too and I'm pro old growth although I'm not tree hugging feral.

They backgrounded the doctor from the Falklands which gave her 'hero status' and then edited to her good work in Tassie. The narrative was of a caring doc (which I'm sure she is) fighting against the Tassie Government, the bureaucracy, etc. That reinforces the hero stuff.

But like Ulysseus, she stuck to her gunns (sorry) and with a little help found that there were toxins in the water. That leaves the reader with a sense of completeness, that goodness will triumph over evil and that all is right in the world.

Absolute bollocks. The program needed much more equanimity and distance. The reporter advocated for - short of consorting with the doctor - for an opinion, which she, herself created and which was the only opinion that people could 'deduce' from being presented with an narrative like that. That is bias.

Pelican, lobbing the GMO card indicates either (i) you are not across the issues or (ii) that you wish to further inflame the passions of the eco-gullible.

E.Sykes, scorn is fine but is more effectively served garnished your doubtless devastating counterpoint. You must have accidently hit POST half way through. Or it that it?

I have noted, in recent years that, whenever the ABC is mentioned in meetings of my forestry and global warming friends there is a cynical laugh. How can we take this organisation with its very obvious political left and conservation green philosophies seriously?
My complaints have been rejected with protestatioons that their Code of Conduct prevents them from crossing the bias line.
Bovine excrement.

hugoagogo

My comments were expressing the opinion that some of the arguments laid at the door of the doctor, oyster farmers and the ABC could easily be used against the forestry industry's relationship with the Tasmania Government.

The eucalypt plantations in the St Georges area were a particular variety that had been genetically modified. Tests revealed the amount of 'natural' toxin from the eucalypts was more potent and at higher levels in the water catchment than usual for that species.

My argument was the GMO and forestry industry has much to lose if those claims are verified by further investigation.

How is that inflammatory?

Could you please explain the issues that I am not across.

To rexw (Comment no.2):

I can accept the tag of writing from a viewpoint of self-interest as, after all, the profession of forestry which I represent is intimately involved with this matter. However, why should foresters be invalidated from speaking up about things they know about as you appear to be suggesting by labelling me as biased? Who else is qualified to correct the misconceptions contained in the Australian Story if not people who are associated with the issue? Is it in the public interest to let things 'through to the keeper' which are obviously wrong?

I agree that Tasmanians should be very interested in this story, but they deserve a fair portrayal of the issue as a whole, not a skewed portrayal which ignores the views of people/agencies who are involved in it. It is surely in the Tasmanian public's interest to hear the views of groups such as the CRC for Forestry which is based in Hobart, and the plantation industry itself which could have easily clarified issues such as the 'genetic improvement' of E.nitens, the non-effect of pesticides on the Tasmanian Devil Facial Tumour, and the research that has already been done into water quality in relation to forestry.

If the ABC refuses or neglects to give these bodies a chance to participate in the program, it can only be regarded as either bias or poor journalism. By all means the ABC should cover stories such as this, but they should cover it objectively by canvassing all views during its documentation, not wait until a few days before it is to be screened to ask for alternate views which it knows cannot be included in the program. Add that behavior to the timing of the program's screening during an election campaign, and what is one to think?

Pelican,

The eucalypts in question are not Genetically Modified in the sense that GM or GMO implies; and Bleaney’s evidence is unconvincing.

I struggle with your intent with the phrase “assertions about the effect of genetically modified eucalypts necessarily wrong or right”. Whatever it means, why bring ‘Genetically Modified’ into it? It’s not done in E. nitens breeding. And the difference is pertinent; the ABC program darkly hinted at the illegal deployment of time-bomb Frankenstein trees with Andromeda strain DNA inserted that may somehow kill some innocent punters, when in fact it is only simple selection, mainly for growth rate and straightness, among a bunch of saplings raised from seeds collected from a few hundred mother trees in Victoria. I know the guys who raise the seeds. I managed some of the mother tree collections in Victoria in 1992. It’s straight down the line stuff. So as in the Parrot sketch, GMO don’t enter into it. You have to be precise with this. If you were you were being mischievous. If not, sloppy. OK, maybe there's a third option- if so you were being inscrutable!

Part 2 coming

Pelican part 2.

I do recognise that the program was mainly about getting the government to acknowledge there is a problem that needs further 'impartial' investigation. That’s what Australian Story does - provides a last ditch blaze of glory for folks who feel that nobody has listened to them.

But the précis of evidence Bleaney placed for public perusal on the Tasmanian Times website indicates why no-one has listened. It may be ‘classic toxicology’ according to a breathless PhD laboratory chick oft quoted, but the sampling strategy (number and location of collection sites, replications, flow conditions un-stated) and the sample size likely to be very small, but again un-stated. The results were not statistically tested, suggesting an ‘n’ of not much above one. It’s probably just noise.

I genuinely don’t think there is enough there to warrant a proper study. I don’t think the Tasmanian Chief health officer does either. I don't even think Bleaney does! BTW, The activated carbon powder filter they’re placing in the St Helens Water plant is definitely a placebo.

Of course it would be irresponsible for a doctor to ignore an increase in unusual illnesses, but the trouble is again that claim hasn’t been coherently expressed, merely hinted; the data is under wraps, maybe that’s GP privilege; but it hardly helps me assess the veracity of the story. Surely if it was compelling it could stand open scrutiny.

Beer O'clock

See ya.

The ABC may well be biased, but if its reports challenge the entrenched biases already out there in society, what's the matter with that?

So, to those criticising the ABC, is Gunns and the Tasmanian government biased towards development in the easiest and most cost-minimal way possible? Does the public service suffer from inertia, such that it downs tools unless and until it has a red-hot poker inserted somewhere? Do governments go into cover-up mode when there's the chance they will have to pay compensation to those it has financially penalised or otherwise disadvantaged via its decisions?

AT the very least, the questioning and challenging is welcome. If it helps to get to the full truth, even better.

Pelican, pelican pelican ;-)

Clearly you don't understand! Opinion, particularly a self interested short term one, out weights science every time.

To some misguided individuals on OLO, like you and I, don't seem to realize that the way to refute something you feel is outrageous and based on alleged science is to make even more outrageous statements without any science to back it up (refer para 1).

Apart from which business is without any shadow of doubt, altruistic to a fault (that it isn't in the least) and would never consider it's interests above that of humans.

And clearly the bigger the industry the more altruistic it is That's why they're called "life science corporations" to distinguish them from the "robber barons", the majority of the people . Hell, they should all be revered.

The good honest (well self serving anyway) perspective, needed to run a business cutting down incredibly cheap non renewed resources (it takes too long),and their supporters must be intellectually, morally more advanced.

Perish the thought that anti them spin is more evil than their self-serving exploitist Ludditism.

Clearly interstellar concepts like objectivity, is for (spit), urban conservationists (aka a working democracy) and the scourge of the world, science, must be all be an insidious Cominusts, comyoonalists, commoonists, damn greenie plot. :-)

RobP, what a great idea. Lets have the ABC challenge all these things.

Now when we hear them challenge the global warming rubbish we cop every day, I'll agree with you.

While the only thing they do is support the crackpot theories of activists, they are just a waste of space, & our money.

So, does this author mean to imply that the ABC wants to see the back of the Labour government in Tasmania, and that the screening of this Australian Story in an election year was an attempt by the ABC to influence voters against that incumbent government?

Because that accusation has to be a first. Isn't the ABC traditionally accused of being top heavy with left wing socialist bleeding hearts who are genetically modified to be biased against the Liberals?

Help. Everything's going upside down.

From a management perspective there are a number of significant issues relevant to both the program screening and this article, that may be observed;

[1] the author of the article has failed to declare his own vested interest in the issue

[2] the program is clearly titled Australian 'Story,' and although it covered this issue from the perspective and focus of the Dr profiled, as I observed the program, it made no definitive conclusions of the cause of the anomalies identified. It was up to the viewer to consider the suggestions. It may be reasonably suggested the program favoured the view of the Dr, however, she, with her cause, was the profile of the program.

[3] the reputation of successive Tasmanian Govts is deservedly justified as retaining a siege mentality culture and attitude toward any criticism against its forest industry cash cow. Similarly justified is its reputation of a country hick mentality, that generates a general perception belonging to bygone eras, of Tasmanian males retaining macho egos designed to promote perception of it matching the size of their kahunas.

Reminiscent of that redneck colonial clamour of anxiety, it is concurrently observed of a reputation for being, at the least, 'cavalier' with the rigour and integrity of its science. Therefore, suggesting its adversaries responsible as initiating flawed or contentious reasoning is laughable.

[4] That the article and posts, to this juncture, concur there is scientific anomaly within the issue, would it not be more constructive for the parties to cooperate in identifying the problem, than point scoring with the politics?

I am aware such cooperation within these issues is potentially doomed. For the record of neo colonial ideology is synonomous of the record of religious fundamentalism.

The Australian story is described in its own publicity as “part of the ABC's current affairs output.”

Section 5.2.2 (e) of the ABC Editorial Policies states that staff of news and current must:
Be balanced. Balance will be sought but may not always be achieved within a single program or publication; it will be achieved as soon as reasonably practicable and in an appropriate manner. It is not essential to give all sides equal time. As far as possible, present principal relevant views on matters of importance.

So will we have a follow up program that gives air time to the following views of matters of importance?

• That rather than respond with a siege mentality, the Tasmanian government allocated immediate and significant resources to address this issue, including as Mark points out, engaging an independent expert to assess the original claims on pesticides and engaging the expert nominated by Dr Bleaney to review her patient cases.
• That the University of Tasmania analysis of samples from the George river catchment in 2005 found toxicity in samples both upstream and downstream of plantations sites, and concluded these were natural.
• That the Department of Health Services tested the drinking water in 2004 and found it to be safe and NOT toxic.
• That Independent assessment of toxicological data from healthy devils and devils suffering from Tasmanian Devil Facial Tumour Disease found that a chemical cause of the disease is unlikely.

The principles of editorial practice for ABC news and current affairs content starts with “All news and current affairs content will be accurate, impartial and objective, and thereby avoid bias.”

It will be interesting to see how the ABC defends this program.

>>While the only thing they do is support the crackpot theories of activists, they are just a waste of space, & our money.<<

Crackpot theory, eh, Hasbeen? I saw the show and it wasn't presented as though a con was going on. The show proffered clear proof that there were toxins in the waterways. Even the Tasmanian Government admitted that. Where the local activists and government differed was on what caused it.

The only way you'd be right is if there was outright fabrication going on in the story. If that were true, well, your appraisal of the ABC would be spot on. If they're right though, they're doing a great service to the country. Now between you and them, I think I'd go for them being right as they have made some effort to prove their case. In contrast, you've whipped out an opinion.

To Ngarmada
I think your post is a perfect illustration of why articles such as this are so important in challenging and correcting misconceptions spread through the media.

What personal experience do you have that enables you to draw conclusions such as the Tasmanian Govt "retains a siege mentality culture" and a "reputation of a country hick mentality, that generates a general perception belonging to bygone eras, of Tasmanian males retaining macho egos designed to promote perception of it matching the size of their kahunas"?

I'll wager that you've developed these views by reading newspapers and watching shows like the one this article is referring to which, by failing to tell the whole story, reinforces these types of stereotypes amongst those with little actual knowledge of the issues.

Do you appreciate the academic and intellectual rigour that underpins the profession of forestry. No - I don't think so - but I don't blame you for that. If I didn't work in this discipline I may even have the same views as you, simply because Tasmanian forestry issues are generally reported (particularly on the mainland)in a manner that reinforces those sort of outdated stereotypes by rarely telling both sides of the story. In relation to forestry issues, many Australians are simply guilty of being gullible and not caring enough to seek out the truth for themselves.

I agree that it would be better for all parties to cooperate in examining the water quality issues and I can see no reason why they won't. However, it is those making the allegations who have chosen a path and a vehicle (Australian Story) which has transformed this from a scientific issue to a political one. On that basis, attacking those like me who seek to inject some balance into the public's currently skewed perceptions of the issue is hardly justified.

MWPoynter,

The views I extolled of successive Tasmanian Govts are widely held perception within the public realm. Those perceptions may be inaccurate, as public perception is frequently known to be, however, to suggest or imply that perception does not exist, may be suggested churlish and misrepresentative.

As much as right wing conservative ideologists wish to decry the ABC as a left wing propagandist regime, the fact is, the ABC is regarded internationally, as critically acclaimed, reliable and reputable media entity. It remained so even during the term of the virtually autonomous appointment of Mr Windschuttle, a rampant right wing conservative, to the ABC Board by the previous PM, Mr John Howard, a right wing capital C, conservative.

Such arguments underline the conclusion of my post, that as a known phenomenon, ideology is so readily beset by emotion, objective consideration is trivialised to the facile nature of dogma.

To suggest that the program "Something in the water" was held over till an election is somewhat of a furphy; both the Liberal and Labor parties are in accord in relation to forestry issues.

The oyster farmers at St Helens were aware something untoward was happening to their stock and paid for scientific study to ascertain what was occuring.

There is a widespread perception in Tasmania that the government cannot be trusted; rightly or wrongly?
It is for that reason I believe that Dr Bleaney and Dr Scammell have been caggy about where their information goes.
The personal attacks on their credibility suggests they were wise in such a strategy. What is being ignored is that their research has been peer reviewed giving what has been done so far credibility.

In a previous official study there was acknowledgement of toxins being present in the water; however, the effect of those toxins was discounted.

The matter is now to be be officially investigated, and a carbon filter has been put in place.

Ngarmada
I don't disagree with you that there are negative public perceptions about Tasmania, particularly on the mainland, but as you yourself have conceded that doesn't mean they are always right.

I can only speak about forestry matters because that is my area of expertise, but invariably when you know something about the issue in question you can easily see the holes in the way it is reported.

A very good example is the proposed Tasmanian pulp mill. From the start, its proponents and the Tasmanian government said it would not use wood from "old growth" forests, although it would use some native regrowth timber for 5 years when it would then be totally reliant on plantation wood. It would also be built in an industrial precinct near the mouth of the Tamar River close to existing industrial infrastructure including export woodchip facilities which have operated for 35 years.

Yet, mainland audiences were initially informed by the media that the pulpmill would destroy Tasmania's "old growth" forests and trash the pristine Tamar Valley! This perception still persists in the mainland community even though over time the media has reported the issue far more accurately. The damage is largely done by the initial coverage.

I would contend that this skewed initial reporting occurred because the media simply parroted without question the views of those opposed to the pulp mill. This is exactly what has happened with this Australian Story episode which was embellished with a range of things which either aren't true or are only partially true, as I have detailed in the article. Documenting the failure of the ABC to fully investigate and objectively present this issue is an attempt to ensure it doesn't happen again.

hugagogo
You are being disingenuous methinks. I did not raise the subject of GMO out of thin air, it was raised on Australian Story. It is the GM eucalypts that are causing the water to become toxic - toxicity can originate from 'natural'causes as well as not.

ant and RobP's comments echo my feelings about the matter.

There is distrust towards the Tas State Government for whatever reason, mainly due to the shenanigans and perceived political wrongdoings over Gunn's.

Regardless, the fact is if the environmentalists had not raised their concerns and findings the carbon solution would not have been offerred. Why is it always so difficult for environmentists to be heard over the interersts of forestry groups?

Each case should stand on its own merit with proper scrutiny rather than the usual anti-green reactionary knee jerk response from government and pro-forestry groups.

examinator
Are you really Graham Y in disguise? :)

To Pelican and ant
Your mention of the new carbon filter highlights another shortcoming of the Australian Story in failing to say that the water was already being treated and therefore implying that what was being sampled from the river was the same as the water being drunk in St Helens. The fact that the river water has always been treated was highlighted by the Director of Public Health after the program.

Whether this new filter significantly improves the existing treatment process I don't know, but it could well be just an action designed to appease the unnecessary hysteria created by the program.

Pelican, your ongoing conviction that the trees are GM when they are not only further highlights the damage to the truth done by this program.

Examinator

Love your work, mate.

A quick question:

Who has the greater political and financial clout?

The forestry industry such as Gunns?

Or

Oyster farmers and a G.P.?

There's something in the water and not just the chemicals.

Further, those critical of the ABC for its temerity in questioning the forestry industry gods, where else would such important topics be disseminated? On Nine, Seven or Ten?

MCPoynter, I would refer to my initial post on this article, that; “[1] the author of the article has failed to declare his own vested interest in the issue …. People in glass houses etc.”

Although I am a professional in the field of management, my family are land owners and several have maintained long term careers in logging. The brother of my father was killed while logging, in the type of terrain helicopters are now used to extract the timber.

His death was not as a result of negligence, but owing to one of the many unforeseen variables attributed to the practice. He undertook the problem himself owing to his decision not to allow one of his crew exposure to that risk. He was a professional. I retain the personal ability to fell a tree and extract it.

Therefore I am aware of both the rigour and discipline required in that field, and the extensive demands the industry places upon the land and environment. Trees are by nature very hungry, especially big ones.

I am not anti logging, I am pro sustainable industry. That you are aware of the rigour, discipline, and demand required in the industry of logging, I suggest it reasonable to expect your application of the same to your argument.

For how may others have confidence in your argument, if you consider bending the rules of debate to suit your own vested interest, while coincidently whinging about others applying the same lack of integrity? It is indeed disingenuous.

Because others are not aware of the practice of the forest industry, does not mean they are stupid.

Without Drs Scammell and Bleaney having put a lot of energy and resource into testing the water quality of the George River the carbon filter would not have been put in place.

The oyster farmers I understand have had to change their mode of farming to be more labour intensive ( costly) to ensure quality of stock.

The ABC program did show scathing comments against Drs Bleaney and Scammell from the former Minister Steve Cons and the Mayor of the Municipality. So it is unfair to suggest that the program was completely one sided.

Drs Bleaney and Scammell realized after their first report that they needed to be more rigorous in their follow up study and did indicate it had to be within the means of them and their supporters.
They did show in their subsequent research that an official follow up study should be done, and it would be negligent if it was not.

this is the latest advice from the Director of Public Health on the issue more details at the web site www.dhhs.tas.gov.au, lets see how the ABC report it!

St Helens water supply update

Director of Public Health Dr Roscoe Taylor has again written to St Helens residents in conjunction with the Mayor of Break O’Day Council and Ben Lomond Water providing the community with an update on their drinking water supply. (letter on web site).

The letter includes the results of recent water testing in the George River for common compounds from eucalyptus trees.

“I’m pleased to be able to inform residents that testing done on treated and untreated water samples taken from the George River last weekend has come back negative to common compounds from eucalypts.

“This is helpful information and should provide residents with an extra level of assurance about their drinking water supply.

“Previous testing in 2005 looked at concentrated surface foam and scum. As might be expected, this did show eucalyptus leaf compounds in the foam. These latest samples were from the body of the water itself where the drinking water is drawn.

“Interestingly, another sample taken from a different river (not used for drinking water) within a native forest did show the presence of a very small amount of a eucalyptus substance.

“I am still waiting to hear more about the work that is reportedly underway to identify the chemical makeup of the alleged tree toxin which was highlighted by the recent Australian Story program.

“The letter also highlights that the Tasmanian Cancer Registry has now examined preliminary data for 2007 and advised that there is no indication of rising cancer rates in the area,” Dr Taylor said.

The letters were sent yesterday and should start arriving in letter boxes today.

More information about St Helens water quality and the Department of Health and Human Service’s original investigation can be found at www.dhhs.tas.gov.a

Pelican,
You'll go to a Liberal/Anglican hell for that besmirching GY, He's well connected with both groups you know.:-)
_____________________________________________

Mr Poynter Please excuse me not using exclusive caps but We do know your name, shouting doesn't add anything to the conversation.

Re your defensive comment about Forestry, yes I do know what is involved for similar reasons to Ngarmada albeit not so tragic.

I would draw your attention, to the fact that given the amount of science information out there, it is virtually impossible for you in a working environment to be across all the issues that maybe involved.

There is no such a thing today as a polymath that know everything about a composite of disciplines that are covered by forestry.

This the era of specializations and thereby collaboration is the only sensible way to being across most of potentially relevant issues.

You clearly, exude a defensive contempt for *any* opinion that might impact your *business/industry*. Frankly, it's attitudes like that which engenders the 'us against them', misunderstood perception, of which you complain.

As a suggestion, hire a competent PR company, if you want to change opinions, You're not very good at it. You need to prove your assertions it with facts/science. The question that came to me was where is your professionalism as a business person/industry professional?

If any of my senior staff ever put out something like that, they would have lost their crayon writing rights, toot sweet!

Let's be clear, The ABC is a media organization and conflict/drama get viewers. It's the political influence for a measurable standard, that demands viewers.
Sure it has *that* over all interest, but to make the claims you do without hard facts it's self defeating.

Your implication that the ABC is more interested about swaying the election is ludicrous. As discussed they're more interested in entertaining the bulk of viewers i.e. the mainland and Tassie viewers.
It come across as yet, (Yawn), another mildly paranoid minority person stamping their foot. Hence my original satired response.

MWPOYNTER
If the show misrepresented the plantation as being GM when it is not then that, agreed,is irresponsible. The jury is still out on that one. The point is that the water was found to be toxic - whether the crops were GM or hybrids does not change the fact water toxicity was high.

The water in the catchment area was treated but the addition of carbon was a later one after the environmental findings were presented. It should be acknowledged the Tas Government did not ignore the findings but surely it is important to discover the source of toxicity.

The media can also be a useful way of ensuring all sides are kept honest (or as honest as possible). Do you believe the carbon would have been added if this was not bought to the attention of first local media and later the national media.

However, the forestry industry has not always been honest, neither has the Tasmanian Government on forestry matters.

I am not anti-plantation, in fact plantation timber helps to ensure the survival of old growth forests (when governments and logging companies follow the rules).

The Dr and the oyster farmers (hardly extremists)should be applauded for bringing this to the public and government attention, not derided and maligned by the forestry corporates.

The ABC news has finally posted its report advising Tasmanians the of the Director of Public health’s letter to residents at St Helens.

“The Tasmanian Health Department has written to St Helens residents reassuring them they face no danger from the town's water supply.
The drinking water supply has been the subject of toxicity claims first aired by the ABC's Australian Story program.
The Director of Public Health Roscoe Taylor says the letter updates residents on the latest testing of water for known chemicals from eucalyptus trees.
He says the results were negative.
"We're reaffirming to residents that the science so far is very unclear and that the scientists involved in the Australian Story program also say that their work is very preliminary on their toxicity testing and it has nor relevance yet on human health," Dr Taylor said.”

Will we see that this advice is broadcast on Monday night to inform Australian Story watchers throughout the nation, or will the audience be left with the biased and unbalanced impression that the drinking water is so toxic it is causing cancer.

If the ABC had included such findings, these are consistent with all previous drinking water tests, I wonder if the opinion poll, taken in the week immediately after the broadcast of the first part of Australian Story whould so strongly favoured the greens after a massive swing against the ALP.

The tone Mr. Poytner tries to set is one of an objective scientific observer; yet, he makes many comments which cannot be claimed to be scientific. His comments about the ABC can only be construed as being personal opinion. He also tries to denigrate the motives of Dr Bleaney in the research she carried out through indicating her involvement with the National Toxics Network, Doctors for the Environment, and Poisons Tasmania etc one would hope that GPs do have an interest in toxins and poisons and their effect on humans and other organisms.

The Act that allows the establishment of the new Pulp Mill makes it difficult to allow for Vineyard owners or others to make claims should they have evidence to suggest that the proposed mill pollutes their property, or has some other adverse financial impact on an already developed industry. It does not promote confidence in government (Liberal and Labor Parties ) in protecting the interests of small business and individuals in general.
The original RPDC process set up to investigate the new mill was scuttled as it asked too many difficult questions about the new mills processes; and so, the RPDC was scuttled and political processes were utilized.

Despite assurances about no old growth forest being utilized by the new mill, if for any reason stocks of plantation timber run low; then, as a matter of course there will be a cry that jobs will be lost unless old growth forests are used. Both Mr. Barlett and Hodgman have stated that old growth forests will be made available for another twenty years.

cinders,

If the science is unclear as you quote the Tasmanian Health Department as stating, what are they doing to make the science more clear? Or is it a case of them wanting the issue to stay as murky for as long as possible so that the Tassie politicians etc can make good their getaway and/or get re-elected?

If it's good enough for you that the ABC eliminates its bias, it should also be demanded that the relevant government agencies, through a Ministerial missive, drop the obfuscation and get to the bottom of the issue. Then prove who, if anyone, was pulling swifties and the reasons why. First lift the rock and then let the cards fall where they may.

RobP

I was right there with you until:

"First lift the rock and then let the cards fall where they may."

That deserves a place in the book of mixed metaphors - well done.

Another point or two.

An article trying to vilify the ABC rather than get to the issue - contamination due to forestry practices. Suspicious? Yes.

Then an attack on science; round and round we go. An attack on the science of those who have brought the existence of contamination to public attention. But no such examination of the practices of both government and industry. Suspicious? Duh?!?

Then the usual cat-calls: << You must be anti jobs, forest plantations, capitalism, life, the universe and everything.

When what we could be doing is moving towards alternatives to wood-chipping, like hemp, papyrus, bamboo. Focus on plantation timber and leave old forest alone.

Of course this means change, it might mean that companies like Gunns don't make so much money (for failure to diversify) and the Tassie government of the present and future will lose a nice little cash cow.

Why is this all sounding like debates we have had over tobacco, still having over climate change.

Far easier to target GP's, farmers and dear old auntie.

A well written article when you consider the views are bought and paid for by the forestry industry with no basis in fact. Why is it that the forestry industry hates debate? Gunns has led the way with its injunctions against critics, and now the messenger (the ABC) is once again the target.

I am surprised that anyone finds that the ABC branch of the ALP is
biased in any way!
Seriously, I am an avid ABC watcher, but I am aware of the bias so it
does not affect me.

My son who worked at the ABC for some considerable time told me when
he started there he was told not to tell anyone if he was a Liberal
voter. It affects career opportunities.
His comment was that the gays are all out in the open, but the closet
is full of Liberal voters !

So my advice is note and relax, you can't do anything about it and
just take it into account and enjoy the good programs.

>>That deserves a place in the book of mixed metaphors - well done.<<

Severin,

OK, I missed a bit that it seems I should have spelled out.

First, lift the rock and let the sunshine in. Then let the light do its disinfectant work and separate out the truth from the fiction and the good guys from the bad guys. Once the rock is lifted, it's natural that the cards will fall where they may. Given Gunn's and the Government's stake in Tasmanian forstery, it's not all that surprising that the rock's not being lifted.

Bazz,

>>Seriously, I am an avid ABC watcher, but I am aware of the bias so it does not affect me<<
and
>>So my advice is note and relax, you can't do anything about it and
just take it into account and enjoy the good programs.<<

I agree exactly. Sometimes when I watch these programs I see things from another, interesting perspective. I find that ABC programs fill in society's blind spots.

Pelican

Everyone wants to haggle about trees, rather than the main fact that Bleaney and/or her acolytes have distorted the public sphere, and whether or not the ABC is complicit. At least Jon Laws took the risk for cash; the ABC folk probably took the risk for a Logie.

And now I'm disingenuous? I'm hurt! But you'd say I'm being insincere about that too.

Have you satisfied yourself what comprises a GMO, and why the E. nitens (native and planted) in Australia are not that?

Bleaney point 1 vanishes.

Have you satisfied yourself why rudimentary selection for a bit of unpalatability to possums could not possibly cause a fundamental change in chemical composition, or an order of magnitude change in the toxicity of leaf drip? Then did you apply that infinitesimal change (if any) to the planted areas versus the rest of the catchment, then and pondered the modification of these organic molecules as they flow through the leaf litter and soil and countless biological processes as they make their way to the St Mary's water supply?

Bleaney point 2 vanishes amidst mile wide error bars.

Case closed. But they've got everyone excited. So the govt puts a Carbon filter on St Helen’s water. Erm, how good are carbon filters? It could just be a big fat empty fitting cut into the pipe with a big "St Helen's Council Cares" graven on the side. Just like a fat exhaust on a Campbell town hoon's Hyundai. Same stuff in, same out. More noise. Whether it's functional or not, it is a PLACEBO to keep the tourists coming.

But to conclusively test GP Bleaney's assertion (either way) would have a massive cost, and before we start this, the burden of proof is definitely Bleaney et al. and they haven't provided it.

Despite this, however if you and society now wants to insist on routine catchment wide (gotta be fair) water sampling, chemical analysis and interpretation, you should be aware of the colossal price, and be able to muster the political will (e.g. a majority) to make it happen.

The science of testing drinking water is very much settled and the tests done on St Helens drinking water since the problems with the oysters in 2004 have all shown the drinking water to be safe. What is unclear is the science related to toxins in the surface scum of the river. This is ‘raw’ water, yet to be treated and any organic matter floating on the surface is unlikely to be included in the sub surface extraction of the water to be filtered and treated to become drinking water.

The uncertainty of the science of the relationship between finding toxicity in testing in the laboratory and to relate that to human health in the real world is explained in the extended interview with Dr Fiona Young, most of which did not make it the broadcast version of Australian story but can be found on the ABC’s program Web site. http://www.abc.net.au/austory/specials/somethingwatertwo/default.htm
The Tasmanian Health authorities have already announced that they have contacted Dr Young and have announced that “DHHS is working with the scientists involved and other experts to see what the test results mean for human health”.

For those looking to verify the author’s concerns of an orchestrated campaign to raise this issue for the Tasmanian election, perhaps that ‘independent’ web site Source Watch http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Pollution_Information_Tasmania lists three of the main protagonists of the TV show, Dr Bleaney, Dr Obendorf and Environment Tasmania.

Even the ABC’s own Peter Cundall gets a mention as patron of fund raising for this organisation, set up by political lobby groups Environment Tasmania and the National Toxic Network. Perhaps the ABC did not check with Source Watch before promoting their story.

Hi Mark
Thanks for this article.

I watched "something in the water" completely aghast at the lack of rigour applied to the 'information' presented... was this supposed to be journalism?

How could the ABC think that it is OK to run a public health scare campaign of this nature? This was particularly disturbing knowing that the shows producers were aware of the depth of information that questioned Dr Blaineys hypothesis, but they chose to hide this information on the web site, leaving the general viewing public unduly concerned about water quality.

I hope the ABC's media watch have a look at this.
I hope the programs producers & the ABC management are made to explain their motives in releasing such public mis-information.
This is really disappointing stuff from the public broadcaster.

thanks again
Dean

The ABC produces some excellent ploitical commentary in appropiate programs. However, "Australian Story" is not such a program, and the appaling bad program that resulted is a disgrace to the ABC!

Mark, A very interesing critique.

The timing and key messages were certainly brought into question for me, when I read the following part of the transcript:

"DR CHRIS HICKEY, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF WATER AND ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH,NZ: Since our original experiments we designed a second series of experiments whereby we would chemically analyse both leaf material from eucalyptus nitens and foam material, and then follow that up with bioassays with both our fresh water cladocerans and our blue mussels. So this is some sort of forensic toxicology work that we’re doing. What we’ve been able to do is come very close to showing that there’s a common chemical fraction in both the eucalyptus nitens leaves and in the toxicity in the foams. So from that we really feel we’re very close to being able to confirm that the eucalyptus nitens is the primary source of toxicity in the foams. We just haven’t been able to actually get down to the final fingerprinting and molecular weight determinations which will give us our final linkage to the eucalyptus nitens."

Despite the above admission, the story went ahead. A more professional scientific approach would have dealt with the issue long ago. Very poor investigative journalism.

Johno.

Calling Public sphere worshippers

I sent Media Watch a tip-off last week, they don't invariably reject tipoffs about other ABC programs but they do tend to go a little soft. Maybe a few more tipoffs will help, so send your nomination as well.

Send it straight to the producer, and include a ditty in 25 words or less why the ABC Australian Story failed in its duty to present an undistorted public sphere in this case. All for a Logie!

mediawatch@your.abc.net.au
http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/tipoffs.htm

If anyone knows Groucho, could you go by and see if he's OK?

I'm just worried because he normally posts a novel's worth of invective after any of Mark's items, and this time there's nothing.

Call off the search, I just saw Groucho's inimitable style on another forum. We're reading his silence here as grumpy approval of Marks thesis.

kkkk

Mark Poynter is not accurate in references he makes to me in his opinion piece.
I was a founding member of the group Doctors for Forests (Tasmania) not Doctors for Native Forests (Victoria).
It is not correct to say that I made "wild accusations about Legionella organisms residing at the bottom of the woodchip piles at the wharf in Burnie".
I made a public warning that was based on science which had established that Legionella, which can cause life threatening human disease, grows in decomposing wood products such as can be found in the sacrificial layer of woodchip piles. The Burnie piles had sacrificial layers which had not been disturbed for some seven years. It was also esablished that the Legionella bug can survive travel for many kilometers in aerosols and on dust particles.
The woodchip piles are colloquially called "the dust piles" by Burnie locals.
Earlier I had been approached by a Burnie citizen who told me, correctly I found out, that 2 Burnie men, in 2001, had been very seriously ill, requiring artificial ventilation. The woman who gave me this information was concerned that the Public Health and Environment Departments had not taken the possibility of the piles being implicated seriously enough.
Gunns Limited, who own the wood chips, were required to investigate further. The study on the piles commissioned, and paid for by Gunns, did not find Legionella in the samples taken. Gunns used this study to reassure the people of Burnie of Burnie and to sue Dr Peter Pullinger and myself.
Part of my legal defense was to get an expert review of the Gunns report by Dr Trevor Steele, an acknowledged leader in this research area.
Dr Steele was strongly critical of the Gunns report, because of inadequate sampling of the piles and other errors.
As a result of this critical review the current Director of Public Health has, recently, asked for further investigation of the piles.

This is the latest from Dr Roscoe Taylor Director of Public Health in response to a call for him to resign:
Today’s statement from Andrew Lohrey and David Obendorf is disappointing.
I have made every effort to seek information regarding the privately-funded investigations since they were publicly revealed on Australian Story.
Unfortunately, these efforts to date have yielded only scant information, with law firm Slater and Gordon apparently awaiting instructions from their client.
It seems bizarre to me that I am being criticised for endeavouring to provide reliable information to the St Helens community, in the aftermath of a situation where a media program has aroused human health concerns well in advance of any scientific confirmation.
The facts are that the available evidence has not established that St Helens water is actually unsafe for drinking.
Despite that, in conjunction with Ben Lomond Water and Break O’Day Council we have added an activated carbon filter to the St Helens water treatment plant as a precautionary measure.
I have already acted on the premise that the matters raised on Australian Story require further scientific investigation and that is why I recommended an independent scientific panel be established by the Chair of the Environment Protection Authority, John Ramsay.
That panel has now been appointed, with five eminent independent scientists.
We will not be able to progress this matter until the independent scientists have concluded their review and reported their findings. It is expected an interim report will be available next month.
In the meantime, I am concerned that the continued raising of this issue in a political way in the public arena is helping no one and could even be damaging to health and wellbeing in the community.
There is no doubt that this issue has caused a great deal of anxiety for many people in the community.
What they need are answers, not personal attacks and I ask people to be patient and wait for the expert scientific panel to complete its work.
I also encourage people to get the latest information from our website http://www.dhhs.tas.gov.au

I can understand why Mark might confuse DFNF (Tas) with DFNF (Vic). I don't have Mark's problem, as I recall it was the Victorian branch of DFNF who claimed that harvesting of native forests was causing the spread of the Bairnsdale ulcer.

I can post media reports if anyone would like more information on this "public warning" by DFNF (Vic) from a few years back.