A key criticism of media watch was the relationship of the scientist to the environment group. However such a relationship did not concern Media Watch when the ABC reported on Professor's Brendon Mackey's Green Carbon report funded by the Wilderness Society.

This AM story http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2008/s2324272.htm even includes senior Wilderness society activist Virginia Young agreeing with the report that the Wilderness society funded. Despite appearing on ABC Science, National Interest, and AM a year later, Media Watch failed to criticise the media for failing to report the strong relationship between Mackey and the Wilderness Sciety.

A simple google search would reveal that he was a founding member of the lobby groups wildcountry science panel and had produced 'academic' papers criticising a range of government policy including the Regional Forest Agreements. Mackey's work has been used by Get up! and others to attack Tasmania's forest management see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sx3WqdafdOU&list=UUtLKfHEpPAsZ731w-3XTjuA&index=11&feature=plcp .

Yet the media has remained silent when Professor Mackey has joined Professor West, a former national Director of the Wilderness Society, to be part of the Independent Verication Group examining the claims of the Wilderness Society to lock up 572,000 ha of Tasmania's Native forest. Mackey in turn appointed the spokesperson for the Get up! add to help examine these claims.

I wonder if any journalists will actually ever report the connection of these accademic activists and the greens/Engo. Or will they discover that Virginia Young was proposed to be a part of Mackey's 'independent' Work group. But it won't take Media Watch or a lengthy investigation to discover that the independent group found that the Wilderness Society claims were supported by the 'independent' academics.

Jennifer:

Thankyou for the detailed background most enlightening. When I said "sloppy", it was in reference to the original media coverage and what Holmes said about that.

I still maintain that it is a responsibility of the journalist to look carefully at the credentials and backgrounds of persons making public statements.

Renew

I don't disagree that they should look into the background of people making various claims. But when they do this they should then honestly report what they find.

Media Watch did not honestly report what they found.

Again I refer you to the information that I made available to them.. here http://jennifermarohasy.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/JenniferMarohasy_ReplytoMediaWatch_Amended12March.pdf

The Media Watch segment was not only sloppy journalism it was dishonest and misleading.

The problem with the ABC is that it doesn't know how to present stories with the desirable commercial slant. Commercial media knows how to present environment stories..."money good, nature bad". Another problem is that commercial media doesn't control 100% of Australia's media. How can you control the narrative when you have loose cannons wantonly telling the truth?

Poor Australians, we're on the verge of starving to death and those nasty greenies are trying to conserve Nature. Can you believe it?

And what about Media Watch picking on the poor widdle Australian Environment Foundation? OK, just because they should have been called the "Rampant Exploitation of the Environment Foundation" and are funded by the biggest rapers of Nature why shouldn't they have "environment" in their name?

Another well-argued article, Mark. I wonder if Media Watch has seen it and what their reaction is.

The Wilderness Society opinion piece in The Age of 21/3, which you mention, got a prominent position opposite the main editorial page. However, a factual, unemotional article about using biomass, including woodchips, for energy generation the day before, was placed in the much-less-read Business section. The Age’s position is clear!

World Forestry Day, on 21 March, deserved something much better from The Age than a rant on the “evils” of a valid use of waste timber from our well-managed native forests. WFD is meant to be a day of celebrating the value of forests to society. It would be interesting to know if any media in Australia promoted WFD in a postive way.

Great article!! As a frustrated Labour voter I continue to lament the opportunity the ALP had to smash the Green's several years ago. You provide a number of good reasons to sugget that many 'Green' supporters are not familiar with the old adage of 'cutting off one's nose to spite one's face'!!