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.