Graham: I wondered too about those tell tale photos. But in tit for tat between ships down in those rough Antarctic waters I reckon this issue remains a storm in a teacup.

Graham, I can't help but note that the ABC article you refer to is dated 9 January (6am no less). The Japanese footage only hit the media yesterday, two days later. Perhaps you would like all reporters to wait a couple of weeks just to see if anything else eventuates whenever they are reporting a news article.

In addition, I think you're really clutching at straws if you consider the article you have referred us to as either biased or wrong. It is reporting that Greenpeace and Japan's "Institute of Cetacean Research" are accusing each other of ramming their own ship. In other words, providing the public with all the facts available at the time, with no overtones of personal feelings or opinions.

Perhaps you could encourage the Institute of Cetacean Research to publish its press releases earlier in the interests of good reporting?

Incidentally, you state (and after badmouthing the press, I have no doubt that you have your facts correct) that the Japanese boat was conducting its "research" in Australian Antarctic waters when the incident occured. I look forward to a response from the Institute of Cetacean Research as to why it was whaling in Australian waters.

As a greeny myself I can't stand Greenpease that said the media well.
I think just about all media outlets stopped employing Journo years ago most are now opinion writers(usually having done in their lives other then write uninformed opinion pieces) and copy editors of Govern, Company, NGO and pressure groups press releases. The ABC media watch could easily be a 1 hour 7 day a week show.

What a peurile, biased article, Grahame. I think it is by no means clear who rammed who in the Southern Ocean and probably never will be clear. What is clear is that you are a reactionary critic, targetting those 2 old favourites of the right, Greenpeace and the ABC. My impression of the ABC reporting is that it has reported claim and counter claim over who may have been at fault.

Your article does not go to the main point of the whole matter. There is an international agreement banning whaling, and Japan keeps flouting it on spurious 'research' grounds. No-one except Greenpeace is doing anything to make the Japanese accountable. Why not? Because governments like ours are too weak and afraid of upsetting a powerful trading partner like Japan.

In the interests of balance and fairness that Grahame is championing, we can look forward to an article soon from him on this aspect of the conflict in the Southern ocean. Somehow I think not. Much easier to look for leftie bias in the media, hey?

In Iraq our troops are protecting Japanese soldiers while their countrymen are harpooning our multi million dollar whale watching industry. Its only a matter of time until they run out of minke whales and I doubt that their "research" will stop then.Are we still that primitave that we wipe out a species to protect it?

Come on‚ who are we supposed to believe Graham? You, quoting Jennifer, quoting other views on the web. It's third hand by this point at least. Or prehaps we should believe someone who was there at the time, is paid very little money, has no ulterior profit motive for being there and belongs to a group dedicated to non violence. Or maybe the next story will be about Greenpeace blowing up a French ship in Auckland harbour?

Here's the direct account:

8 January 2006
Their desperate measures by Shane, onboard the Arctic Sunrise

After the horrific sights of the last few days, things took a turn towards the unexpected this morning. The factory ship, the Nisshin Maru, rammed our ship the Arctic Sunrise, in an incident none of us were expecting. All the details are posted here on this blog, but I thought I would reflect on it from a personal perspective, since I was on the bridge of the Sunrise at the time of the collision.

It all happened very quickly. One minute the Nisshin Maru was tied up with the re-supply vessel, offloading whale meat, the next it was heading straight for us. ...
So was it deliberate? I have no doubt. The Nisshin Maru turned a big circle to come around to where we were. When they started, the re-supply vessel was between us and them - they had to come around it to get to us. Why else would you make such a manoeuvre? And the guy with the water cannon - surely that was premeditated, and it was certainly an act of aggression.
...

And the worst part of all of this? I believe it was a deliberate attempt to create an incident and draw attention away from the terrible images we have seen in the last days of whales suffering cruel and slow deaths. For the whalers it is much better to be talking in shades of grey about who crashed in to who, our word versus theirs, than talking about the black and white reality ...

Full version:
http://weblog.greenpeace.org/oceandefenders/archive/2006/01/their_desperate.html

I think there are two important things that come out of this business. These are:

1. The decline of the media, as mentioned in the article and comments.

2. The role of the internet in keeping people informed in a way that was impossible only a few years ago.

The other interesting point is the motivation of Greenpeace, which I think does not really want to stop the Japanese whaling. (This would slow the donation of money to Greenpeace). They are like the famous Sudeten German politician Henlein who said "We must make demands that cannot be satisfied".

If Greenpeace really wanted to stop the whaling they could do this easily by having a boat nearby that would spray cyanide or arsenic or something similar onto the dead whale that would make it unfit for human consumption. This would make the whaling futile, and it would soon stop. Greenpeace's aim is to ATTEMPT to stop things, and thus secure the money that makes it all worthwhile.

Plersdus asks us to plumbs depths of incredulity in expecting us to believe that Greenpeace could stop whaling by some method such as spraying poisons onto the catch. Leaving aside the danger to spray operators in howling Southern Ocean gales, what about the environmental damage such an action would cause. Would any sensible person, let alone an organisation, attempt such a dangerous action? Any more great ideas for stopping whaling, Plersdus? Or is it more true to say that you also don't want to stop whaling, or do anything of environmental benefit, but merely want to criticise others who do?

PK while I agree that plerdsus' suggestion of poison is an oxymoronic approach, his/her points about the decline of the media and the advent of the internet are very valid.

However, the issue I have with Graham's article is his use of information provided by Jennifer Marohasy. Hardly any more unbiased than Greenpeace itself. Jennifer is hardly pro green given her unrestrained support of genetic engineering and coal mining.

Also why use Greenpeace as the focus for inaccuracies in the media? Take the following:

Graham states: "if Greenpeace can get away with telling a lie that their own video footage contradicts, what incentive is there for them to keep even close to the truth in future."

Substitute "John Howard" or "Alan Bond" or "George Pell" or even "Mother Theresa" for "Greenpeace". The meaning is the same. If a person or organisation is permitted to get away with lying then it only further encourages them. This is obvious.

So what is the article truly about?

Is it about lying?

Or is it about Greenpeace?

Or about the standard of journalism?

If it is about the ability of the media to get its facts right, then I am sure there are better examples than this episode of the "you said/I said"of Greenpeace/Japan whaling.

This issue is very well covered in Jennifer Marohassy's blog with posts by Greenpeace staff and their critics. See http://www.jennifermarohassy.com.au

And the ethical question comes down to one of putting the shoe on the other foot to see if it fits. If it is OK for Greenpeace to foul propellers and ram ships on the high seas then it sets a precedent for a similarly zealous bunch of Japanese and Norwegian whale meat consumers (Yakuza perhaps) to marshal the funds, buy a boat and give Greenpeace et al a dose of their own medicine.

Now that would make great reality TV.

Surely, if outrage and emotive argument is a valid substitute for reason and fact, then the vast community that consume whale meat have every right to employ the same standards.

And if misreporting, sloppy investigation, captive journalists and the blatant publication of defamatory material is an acceptable standard for the Australian Media then we cannot complain if the Japanese were to do exactly same. The only problem with that approach is that it would all accelerate in a process of mutual demonisation and de-humanisation to a point where wars break out and good men and women on both sides die for imaginery reasons.

And wouldn't the media just love that

Well of course if Jennifer Marohasy provides the evidence of Greenpeace mis-adventure, then you were right Graham to carry on about the inaccuracy of journalists generally. She's such a reliable source after all! The thing is, non-journalists like Ms Marohasy that populate the web with their corporately sponsored blogs are a much bigger danger to false information than standard media outlets. As you say, any of the 'densest' of net-searchers can find relevant information but only the densest would choose to believe rot like Marohasy's blog. It's a worry Graham because sites like yours make a valuable contribution to online media - but their reputations are tenuous at best. Loyalties must be hard-won but are also easily lost.

Besides, everyone knows that Greenpeace describes certain events to its advantage in the name of exposure. But heck, they learnt the tactic from the corporate PR engine in the first place! Yeah, you're right, tar and feather 'em for trying to highlight illegal whaling for commercial gain. What scumbags.

In describing a sea incident such as the collision between the Greenpeace ship Arctic Sunrise and the Nisshin Maru , one would expect any self respecting journalist to consult the “Collision Regulations.”

“Rule 6: Every vessel shall at all times proceed at a safe speed so that she can take proper and effective action to avoid collision.”

By his own words the Greenpeace captain steamed on quoting Rule 15, The vessel which has the other on its starboard side shall keep out of the way…….”

Then there is Rule18a: A power driven vessel shall keep out of the way of: 1. A vessel not under command; 2. A vessel restricted in her ability to manoeuvre; 3. a vessel engaged in fishing; 4. A sailing vessel.

There seems to be a good case against Greenpeace which any competent journalist should have immediately appreciated.

The trouble with some of these posts is that keep harping (pardon the pun) about the illegal whaling. The article was not about that but about the the reporting. Now concetrating on the article if you can else stop posting. If you cannot debate the article clearly you need to learn to.

And if another source is lampooned as "credile" or not eg. Jennifer Marohasy at least retort with facts else her argument still stands.
The simple fact that there seems to be confusion on what happened. Either version may be right, I do not know. But isn't it weird that the internet is driving this and the Journo's are not. Maybe because the Journo's are not Journo's any more where research and corrobrating facts are used. They seem to be "opinionators" and that is not what I thought the journalist job description. Maybe it is the leftist culture in Unis or the time pressures. But time pressures can still be met by clarification and or retractions in later editions. Research is a lost art. In the end who would you respect (and follow), person who is attempting to be right or a person who is attempting to be popular.

I feel let down by most in the media.

Congratulations on a highly thought-provoking article regarding journalistic standards. It should become required reading for students enrolled in Australian journalism courses.

Scout says that Graham's article uses information provided by Jennifer Marohasy. "Hardly any more unbiased than Greenpeace itself. Jennifer is hardly pro-green given her unrestrained support of genetic engineering and coal mining."

Unless "green" is meant here in a strictly political-only sense, this opinion is wrong. I have many friends who are "green" in the accepted sense of "caring for the environment" and who support these activities. In many cases, their support (especially for GM) is partly because they will produce a positive environmental outcome. As for coal, cleaner burning is in everyone's interest, which is precisely why the current Sydney talks are so important.

Meanwhile, Audrey thinks that "non-journalists like Ms Marohasy that populate the web with their corporately sponsored blogs are a much bigger danger to false information than standard media outlets ..... only the densest (net-searchers) would choose to believe rot like Marohasy's blog."

It is difficult to know how to deal with such ignorant opinions. First, Ms Marohasy is an active journalist - she has a regular column in the Land, and commonly writes opinion pieces in metropolitan newspapers. Secondly, her blog does not appear to be corporately sponsored. Third, her blogsite already has a reputation as the most balanced and useful treatment of Australian environmental issues that is available. Like all blogs. Ms Marohasy's from time to time contains misinformation or ignorant opinions provided by rogue contributors, and like all responsible blog hosts Ms Marohasy will immediately correct any factual errors that are pointed out to her.

By concentrating on ad hominem attack, and getting lost in the moral maze of the whaling issue, earlier comments on this thread have lost sight of Graham's main points:

1. Australian journalistic standards need review and improvement, and

2. The public are seeking and finding more accurate and better balanced opinion on the web.

That is a fascinating outcome to ponder, as Rupert Murdoch and the late Kerry Packer undoubtedly have. And good luck James!

Cathy

I am interested in the criticism of my proposal that there are far more effective ways of stopping whaling if Greenpeace really wanted to. Critics should remember that only a very small amount of poison, enough to put off the fastidious Japanese, would be necessary to ruin the attractiveness of the whale meat. The dead whale would be very easy to harpoon, and a harpoon with a poison capsule at the tip might be just what is needed. No risk of harm to any others around. Just the thought that saboteurs were there ready to ruin the meat might be enough. It is all a bit hypothetical, as I said before, as I believe that Greenpeace is not really interested in stopping the whaling, as it is not in their interest.

Everyone is forgetting the golden rule about protestors - nothing is illegal if it is a just cause and you're fighting against "the man".

The most disappointing thing about this whole issue is the fact that the arctic sunrise DID ram the Japanese boat - exactly what you would expect from a bunch of anarchists with no regard for individual or property rights.

What would have been interesing is if the Japanese boat really did decide to give GP a taste of its own medicine and touch them up on the high seas. I certainly would have loved to see the condemnation from the hypocritical green movement then.

t.u.s

(PS: Graham - I was just wondering whether you approached anyone to write an article about the Young Labor plan for compulsary service for young Australians. Maybe Sam Dastyari could have contributed one because it is a topic well worth debating)

Although I love nature and the environment, I regard Greenpeace as a gang of extremist thugs, and I wouldn’t believe a word they said.

I don’t have sufficient knowledge to know whether or not killing whales in the way the Japanese do his harmful to the species, either.

What I am most interested in is, if our Government isn’t fazed by foreign ships hunting in our Antarctic waters, is this because they are not really our waters, and the Government cannot do a thing about it, or is it because our Government doesn’t want to upset Japan?

The other concern I have is that Japanese still claim they are carrying out research, which appears to be unnecessary, if not nonsense. If they want to eat whale meat, and they are harvesting that whale meat legally, why do they make this claim?

Graham Young - if you are going to criticise journalists for not checking their facts then you had better get your own facts straight. In your article you refer to the web site of Jennifer Marohasy which you claim shows clearly that the Arctic Sunrise rammed the Japanese whaler.(
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/). Hopefully everyone will go to read that article because Jennifer states that the Arctic Sunrise did not ram the whaler, was in reverse at the time of the collision, and had every right to be in that part of the ocean. The video and pictures show the whaling ship to be on the port side of the Arctic Sunrise (so the Arctic Sunrise has right of way by martime law), and according to statements made by the Greenpeace crew the whaler had turned in a deliberate manoeuvre to put itself on a collision course.

Also, Graham states that Greenpeace is supported by Australian taxpayers money - Greenpeace Australia does have tax concessions because of its charity status, but receives no government funding. You can check their financial reports at www.greenpeace.org.au. Furthermore, Greenpeace is an international organisation and the ships are funded by the donations of members of the public worldwide.

And finally, lets not lose sight of the bigger picture. Greenpeace is trying to stop whaling, Australia supports the international treaties that limit whaling, and Japan is blatantly ignoring these.

What a disappointing article, Graham, especially when I have so admired your objective management of this online forum.

We would all like to see an improvement in journalistic standards, I'm sure. But if we're going to talk about the reporting (or non-reporting) of lies, let's look at the lies that really matter. The world is an infinitely more dangerous place because we went to war on the back of lie after lie. Surely this at least rates a mention in an an article such as this.

"...links to all the relevant information have been helpfully gathered together by Jennifer Marohasy"

Wow! Hardly an objective source. Jennifer Marohasy makes it her life's work to find fault with every reputable environmental scientist and conservation group she can. I've heard her on RN not that long ago arguing, in the face of overwhelming scientific consensus, that global warming is a natural phenomenon and not a man-made one. As pointed out by Audrey, she's just not a credible source. She may or may not be corporately sponsored, who knows, but she is very definitely and most unashamedly the mouthpiece of big business.

Talking of exposing lies, why not get to the bottom of the Japanese Government's duplicity regarding whaling. What they're doing is not scientific research. It's barbaric slaughter dressed up in lies to get around international whaling bans. Why not mention this lie, Graham?

I'm a Greenpeace supporter and a tax-payer and I don't hold this incident against Greenpeace. I don't particularly care who rammed who. I'm just glad they're out there - doing the job that our government is too spineless or too disinterested to take on. We can pull out all stops and send the Defence Force after a few harmless asylum seekers, no problems, but when whales are being killed cruelly and indiscriminately in Australian waters it all seems a bit too hard.

Go for the lies by all means Graham, but go for all of them.

So it is the subjective, who would have us believe he is objective, telling the generally subjective to be more objective while the rest of us are subjected to the subjective objections of your selective observations re: subjective journos and the abject rejections of anti-whalers' side by obsessed green - hating objectors whose subjectivity is reinforced by your "objective" article that promotes the increased pressure for objectivity as a result of a www. net that can catch the subjective with what usually has turns out to be their own subjectivity dressed up as objectivity.

Perhaps your bias graham is unconscious? Of all the issues why this one? Why the "lie" tag? Perhaps your bias is conscious?

Come on (GY) you are a Liberal campaign manager. What's the real issue? Don't like the greenies upstaging the government and showing up the Liberal's tokenism; their (both sides of governemnt)lack of conviction or effectiveness on the whaling issue? Given that in the future the Greens and the Democrats will be major political forces, do your Liberal campaigners need to start white-anting the true liberal-minded now?

Never forget Graham and other posters - I AM THE ONLY OBJECTIVE ONE IN THE VILLAGE!.(Whales)

Bronwyn - I particularly liked your line about arguing "in the face of overwhelming scientific consensus, that global warming is a natural phenomenon and not a man-made one."

Luckily Jennifer, who is a scientist, knows that evidence and not consensus is the basis for scientific enquiry.

Science is not a majority vote. The consensus 3500 years ago was that Gods caused lightning. The consensus 1000 years ago was that the earth was flat. 100 years ago the consensus was that continents couldn't move.
The consensus 50 years ago was that smoking was harmless. Consensus 30 years ago said we were heading for an ice age. The consensus 20 years ago was that stomach ulcers were caused by stress. It means nothing without evidence to back it up.

Hell the consensus, based on opinion polls, is that John Howard is a great Prime Minister, something you probably disagree with.

t.u.s.

"Although I love nature and the eviroment I regard greepeace as a bunch of extremest thugs and I wouldn't believe a word they said" And nearly in the same breath "I don't know whether or not if the killing of whales the way the Japenese do is harmful to the species" Me thinks a contradiction in terms here.

Are greenpeace the same bunch of extremist thugs that sunk the Rainbow Warrior in Auckland harbour in 1985? No. This little exercise went up to the highest echelons of the French government President Mitterand a known anarchist ha ha.Of course the French position until they got sprung red in your case blue handed was to say"Agents were only sent to spy on Greenpeace" of course history tells us different.

Now the Japenese kill whales in the same traditional method,that has been used since the invention of the explosive head harpoon,although in some cases they electrocute the poor beasts.Some of these poor creatures are stll alive when they are pulled on deck and hacked to pieces,in some cases the female whales will give birth to calfs whilst dieing.Emotive stuff aint it?.But true.

So the method of killing the whales is harmful to the species. Umm I am confused with that,must be some sort of right wing spin,I am missing.I know its easy, I should have known, the whales are all communists.,maybe they should all join the union movement.Maybe we should only kill the ones found off the coast of China or Cuba.

Pray tell what planet are you living on?This is not an opinion it is fact.Whales were driven to the point of exstinction,and if not for Greenpeace and other fifth column activists they may not be with us at all.Governments have only become interested in this slaughter because it gets votes.I am only sorry that Greenpeace doesn't carry deck cannons.

Love your comments "the usual suspect", based your consensus arguement then the consensus that John Howard is the greatest Prime Minister will go the same way as the earth is flat LOL.

I agree with Bronwyn "Go for the lies by all means Graham, but go for all of them"

The bias against green politicals by GY and Christian Kerr in "Crikey" is so passionate I can only wonder what brought it on. I would believe you more if the passion was equal accross all issues.

Usual Suspuect. I agree. OT from the article but....... I hope you have seen the latest study showing that the rainforests emit an estimated third of all methane entering the atmosphere. A much more potent green house gas than CO2. I suppose we should start getting rid of the forests as it obviously is a major cause of GHG's. But obviously our climate models which did not take this into account must still be valid even though forest were considered as green house gas sinks when in fact they could be a major source. ??

But I suppose man induced climate change is proven because the sheep have been baa'ing. Lucky some people are not sheep.

I couldn't agree more Bronwyn

Well said

The evidence does not show that Greenpeace is to blame in fact when the evidence was reviewed by a marine law expert from Monash University he said the whalers were to blame. Here’s the article about it:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/search/story.cfm?storyid=000AB29A-F71A-13C4-81BC83027AF1023A

Also if we look at the photos released from the ICR in detail we can see they support Greenpeace’s claim. Here is the view of one blogger after reviewing the evidence at length: http://dontgointothelight.com/2006/01/a_greenpeace_member_responds.php

This opinion is guilty of what it attacks other reports about: jumping to conclusions without reviewing the evidence full

I agree plerdsus, and crop circles are made by aliens and John Howard didn't lie to win the past two elections. Facts are not opinions but you seem unable to grasp that concept. As far as the article is concerned, read the reports from people that were there rather than quote third hand reports.

frat

I hope Graham is wrong about Greenpeace being the aggressor, which may be the case, but isn't 'obviously' apparent. The fact is, if you're fighting the good fight, it undermines your cause if you act badly, and your efforts are undermined if your actions are reported inaccurately. It is the core purpose of the journalist to report the facts, and to not do so affects the integrity of themselves, and those who they defend, possibly moreso than if a factual, albeit negative article was released.

In regards to the suggestion of spraying arsenic, etc. on a whale to stop such activies, such ideas are fundamentally good, but in effect would be counter-productive. As the whalers would maintain the line that they were performing 'scientific research', a whale sprayed with arsenic would be considered contaminated for this justification also, and would thus be dumped, and not included in the quota, which would not drop.

Tim.

Greenpeace and "aggressor" do not belong in the same sentence. Should Greenpeace become truly aggressive in their efforts, then perhaps they would attract greater support from the mainstream.

Graham, your CV gives a pretty clear indication of your perspective of the world in general. That is not mentioned as a fault, just an observation.
What you do say has merit, if the premise of fault is correct. If, indeed, Greenpeace has falsified what has happened they do themselves, and their supporters, a great disservice. Greenpeace, I believe, has a well-deserved reputation due to its unswerving and ethical approach to the truth. The Rainbow Warrior affair and Greenpeace’s campaign against French nuclear testing that highlighted France’s lies regarding the damage to the atolls, exemplifies the courage of their convictions. If they begin to adopt the tactics of the ‘enemy’ then they also adopt the same traits of those that they remonstrate against.
The footage that I have seen is inconclusive, at best. The orientation of the ships is difficult to determine, as there are no terms of reference to indicate who turned toward whom.
I cannot help but give Greenpeace the benefit of the doubt for they deserve that, at the very least.
One question I would dearly love answered. Why do Indonesian fishermen get crucified for fishing in our waters while Japan can kill whales with impunity? This is not a rhetorical question. I really would like an explanation if there is a legal one.

Whats all the fuss about people,we now live in a culture where the lie is king,who tells the truth, our political people No, our newspapers No, our TV news NO, we live in fear of the truth in OZ, answer me a question Who do you trust our PM,Murdock, GW Bush, used car salesmen,doctors they all lie its just that some have elavated lieing to an art form

Yes, lies are bad, especially the one about catching the whales for research purposes..

The evidence for who was responsible for the collision is inconclusive; both ships were probably at fault. This scenario should have been at least considered by professional journalists.

However the media lead with headlines insinuating that the Japanese were the culprits. For example we read, ‘Greenpeace accuses Japan over collision’ from the ABC, ‘Walers set collision course with Greenpeace ship’ from The Age.

Graham Young rails against the actions of Greenpeace, using this example to support the main thrust of his article: that the media is not presenting factual news but opinion, either intentionally or through lazy incompetence.

I agree with him that an unbiased and fearless media is essential to the workings of a democracy. Although I do not agree with Japan taking whales the quality of our media is much more important to us.

So how about taking your various hobbyhorses and point-scoring to another venue. Can you please apply yourselves to posting comments on the quality of our media as the discussion the article seeks to promote.

Though not a great Greenpeace supporter I'm pretty outraged that this article claims the linked video footage and photos prove that the Greenpeace ship rammed the Japanese. It does nothing of the sort. Any interpretation could be put on it. If anyone knows about commanding large vessels the film could well be showing the Japanese shipping steering sharpley into the path of the Greenpeace vessel. Nor does it prove the Greenpeace version of events. This piece therefore cannot be taken seriously as it clearly sets out on a false premise to disparage Greenpeace. We shouldn't have to put up with blantant propaganda like this even if it is the internet

Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd claim that the Japanese whaling is illegal but can show no evidence of any legal process or of a conviction. This is because they have made no attempt at the due process of obtaining a legal conviction.

Sea Shepherd clearly admit to sinking ships it claims are "illegal"

Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd are both judge, jury and executioner in their own courts.

Are Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd now to represent the Law?

In 1776 Thomas Paine wrote

"For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be King; and there ought to be no other."

The support given by the free press to those that operate ouside the law can only be viewed as a direct challenge to the hard fought system of government now present in free countries.

Goeff, If you are waiting for an unbiased media your wait will be a long one. There is no such thing as unbiased writing whether it be from professional journalists or online participants. Bias does not stop at the end stroke of the pen. The reader’s perspective adds a bias of its own and, as you can see from posts on this forum, can be exponential in its effect. Though I am sure everyone can heave a sigh of relief knowing that you will fearlessly interpret the articles so that us mere mortals may answer accordingly.
I can’t help but notice that you got on your hobbyhorse to score a point about a particular bias of yours. Funny that…

Those Whalers are just doing a job.

They are not evil henchman, and to threaten them and to attack them proves why greenpeace are just viglilates without guns.

Go and make an impact speaking to the Japanese, not by trying to attack the workers. If you want to save the whales, use your head not your brawn.

Too much of the green stuff gets them carried away i think.

Whaling is wrong, it sickens me to see those poor animals being hurled into the boat but being pirates and attacking simple workers does not cut it.

Pull your head in or loose what little credibility you have greenpeace.

Forget the whodunnits, greenpeace did not go out their for tea and biscuits, who hit who is not the issue.

The green terrorists are the issue.

'The usual suspect' puts all his faith in scientific evidence about global warming. TUP or his decendents and fellow global-warming sceptics might one day find themselves on a raft in an ocean where Australia used to be, saying 'we still don't have the evidence that greenhouse gases caused this'. There is overwhelming evidence of global temparature increase, sea level rise, polar icecap and glacial melt, species extinction in otherwise near pristine environments. The evidence for the causes is not yet absolute, however everything, but everything, points to greenhouse gases. The evidence is there, but blinkered, anti green movement people like the sceptics we have heard from in this forum would just like to have business as usual. Ever heard of the the precautionary principal, TUP? Ever heard of trying a cure for diseases even when there is a lack of convincing evidence as to the causes of the disease? Mate, try and cast off your prejudices, you will then see more clearly.

There is no getting away from it, if this issue is of public concern, the facts should be established, those in the wrong should be dealt with under the law, whether it is Greenpeace or the Japanese whalers in our waters.

That said maybe our Navy should accompany the Japanese "scientific" teams to make sure they don't "stray" into "our" waters, and also to prevent the two sides clashing, as nobody want's to see people perish on the high seas.

Finally, Graham could we have other topics of discussion, a progression from race hate, into more topical subjects, only a suggestion.

Bronwyn

Thank you for expressing so succinctly the core of this article - my post was clumsy by comparision.

Of course, I could've predicted that the thread would descend into a who was right or wrong rather than focussing on the issue - that of outright lies and the media response.

It is a shame that Graham choose a loaded and emotive subject such as Greenpeace. It is loaded because he used Jennifer Marohasy as a source and emotive using the topic of whaling.

To reiterate myself and others - go for the lies by all means Graham, however I challenge you to go for the federal ones.

Scout,Bronwyn,
If Graham went for the Federal lies, he would need to be writing for months, come on girls give him a break.

If they could be condensed into core/non-core it may help somewhat

You two are on the right track though, please never change....

Now you've really got me confused Graham. I thought I had a grasp on this article as being about factual and un-biased reporting by the media. With a slight taint of anti-greenpeace to it and a big serve of advertising for Marohasy. Neat package really. Yet it's turning into one enormous contradiction. In aiding my pursuit of the article's real position, I've read today's Ambit Gambit. And you say there that:

"What Dr Wilson is actually quoted as saying is that the Japanese "set-up" the situation. They might have. That's not the issue. The issue is whether the Japanese rammed Greenpeace, or whether it was the other way around, and whether that simple fact has been misrepresented by Greenpeace and the misrepresentation uncritically accepted by many journalists."

Okay, that's cool, I can see your point. But the Japanese are doing THE SAME THING in mis-representing an ambiguous event. Followed up by dutiful reporting of this by the media - even SBS (surely Greenpeace-lovers in your circle) indicated the possibility of Greenpeace fault in last night's broadcast. Yet you continue to go after ONLY Greenpeace as some sort of evil-doing, truth-bending force. This makes you a biased reporter.

As for Cathy's comment that Marohasy has a reputation as "the most balanced and useful treatment of Australian environmental issues that is available". Really? Says who? Heck I use environmental data for a living and need un-biased treatments to keep my job and I visit Marohasy's blog when I need a laugh, not for facts.

Realist wrote:
"Those Whalers are just doing a job.

They are not evil henchman, and to threaten them and to attack them proves why greenpeace are just viglilates without guns.

Go and make an impact speaking to the Japanese, not by trying to attack the workers. If you want to save the whales, use your head not your brawn.

Too much of the green stuff gets them carried away i think."

It can also be argued that German SS soldiers were just doing their job. The definition of 'vigilante' is: a self-appointed law enforcer" (New English Dictionary, 2000). Note, LAW-enforcer, and if international law is being flouted, and that lawlessness is being ignored by official authorities, the rise of a vigilante element is not only unsurprising, but warranted. Speaking to the Japanese has comprehensively failed. Our diplomatic efforts have only prevented the legality of the whaling. By the way, I'm not on the green stuff, though I'm not a member of Greenpeace, so maybe that's my excuse. ;-)

I do believe our condemnation would have a greater impact if we were consistent (not just getting rid of Indonesian fishing boats), if we didn't kill other animals to eat ourselves (irrespective of issues of endangerment), and if we did not ourselves go where we wanted, ignoring the wishes of the international community (Iraq, etc.).

Mind you, this is still ignoring the thrust of the article, which is about media accuracy. Facts are being disputed in this particular case, and Graham's position that "Greenpeace lied" is an indictment on the general media if true, and an indictment on himself if false. If the truth lies somewhere in between, as it usually does, than it is concerning that such black and white persectives have been taken on the event by so many.

Tim.

Audrey says:

"As for Cathy's comment that Marohasy has a reputation as "the most balanced and useful treatment of Australian environmental issues that is available". Really? Says who? Heck I use environmental data for a living and need un-biased treatments to keep my job and I visit Marohasy's blog when I need a laugh, not for facts."

In that case, Audrey, I have to say that I am surprised that you have kept your job.

Cathy

Ehouk1 provides inks to expert opinions that Greenpeace is not to blame and that support the claim by Greenpeace that they were rammed.

However the expert in the article clearly states that "it was Greenpeace who rammed the Nisshin Maru and not the Nisshin Maru which rammed the Greenpeace vessel."

So is Greenpeace guilty of blatently misrepresenting the truth?

We in Australia engaged in whaling until 1978. That is, during the lifetime of most, I expeect, the the morally indignant posters here. Japan will eventually stop. As to the collision, the ship whose bow hits the other one has the burden of proof to show it wasn't at fault. I don't think Greenpeace has come even close to revealing such proof.

Hi all, thought it was about time that I responded to some comments. Please excuse the short:hand! Charge goes first: answer second, with a colon in-between. (Two consecutive posts).

Storm in a teacup : I think that’s the John Howard Kids Overboard Defence.

ABC Report was the 9th so you can't blame them: Marohasy had the photos which confirmed the doubt in my mind up by 5:37 pm on the 8th. The photos she posted had been emailed to a number of people. Any reporter should have been looking for comment from the Japanese, and also asking what was in it for them to ram Greenpeace, not just repeating one side's allegations.

I’m a Liberal and biased : I’m resigned to the fact that some people will only regard me as fair when I’m criticising the government. That doesn’t make them right.

Jennifer Marohasy is not credible therefore the Japanese case is not credible : the pictures speak for themselves. Jennifer has done us all the service of posting or referencing all of them. She deserves credit for doing what professional journalists should have done. I don’t mind acknowledging my sources and giving them credit.

Not only that, but the anti-Jennifer lines are probably the nastiest part of this thread. Here we have Greenpeace caught out. Where’s the Marohasy equivalent? I’d be surprised if anyone could show me something she has fabricated, so surprise me if you can.

We should believe Greenpeace because they were on the spot : Yeah, well so were the Japanese.

Graham is anti:Greenpeace : to the contrary, when I started On Line Opinion I approached them to become a stakeholder.

Second half

Everyone else lies, so why shouldn’t Greenpeace? : Lots of people and organisations lie, but I haven’t seen anything that I can remember as blatant as this. Part of my interest is the complete brazenness of Greenpeace.

Greenpeace is not supported by the taxpayer : a tax deduction is support.

The marine law expert says that Greenpeace is not to blame : what the marine law expert says is that Greenpeace rammed the Japanese.

You can’t condemn any lies unless you condemn all of them : there are only so many hours in the day guys, and you rarely get examples as clear as this one. I’ll deal with others as and when they arise.

The Japanese should say that the event was ambiguous : who said that the event was ambiguous?

I think that’s about it. If I missed your charge, it’s not an admission of fault!

I think its about time, that Greenpeace, & the journalists they conspire with to publicise their law breaking stunts, were prosecuted for conspiracy.
We all know that the object of these stunts is to boost donations, rather than to achieve any worthwhile goal.
I guess it gives the self haters a way of easing their conscience.
Why is it that they, & any other "protester" can break the law with impunity?
Just reading the posts here, it is obvious that the self proclaimed
"green" & "left" believe they are entitled to do anything to try to force their will on the rest of the population.
& they claim to be enlightened.

"We all know that the object of these stunts is to boost donations"

Hey Hasbeen don't speak for me I don't know anything of the sort.Please speak for yourself.This exercise may be needed to improve there ramming technique.In which case I will donate more money until they have it down pat.I was hoping the Japenese vessel would be sunk on the first pass.But alas no.Obviously the Greenpeace vessel is not carrying enough concrete in her bow.That's the front for you.As an x mariner myself I will try to radio the captain and offer some advice on how to hit the japenese vessel midships for best effect,keeping within the rules of the road.This with a bit of luck will sink the Japenese vessel, and give the captain enough time to launch his safety devices to save the crew.Which is some what more chance than the whales get.

"The green and left believe they are entitled to do anything to try and force thier will on the rest of the population"That's rich, one would have thought this is what the Japenese whaling industry is doing to the rest of the world,When you consider that most of the people on the planet believe this practise to be a barbaric excercise left over from the dark ages who is trying to impose there will on whom ?.

Anyway why to you is this a left or right issue ?.So what your saying in effect is, of all the donations made to greenpeace through out the world which probably runs in to millions,they are all made by lefty's.

Now where's my harpoon I need to deflate an over active ego.

What i hate about the whole thing is, really importent issues in the hands of people like the Greens and Co who have no credibilty left.

They have destroyed themselves, thats fine. But in doing so they have also ruined chances for the animals and trees they were meant to be protecting.

They have alot to answer for!

The footage taken from the Japanese vessel clearly shows the Greenpeace vessel is in reverse. The is no bow-wave at the front of the Greenpeace vessel, which there would be if it was intending to ram the Japanese vessel. The Japanese claim that Greenpeace rammed them is false.

The Greenpeace vessel very clearly did not ram the other ship. The 'Arctice Sunrsie' was in reverse. Graham your article comes across as being angry. Please relax.

Japanese proverb:

'The reverse side also has a reverse side.'

"The footage taken from the Japanese vessel clearly shows the Greenpeace vessel is in reverse"

The footage taken from the Japanese vessel clearly shows that the Greenpeace vessel applied full reverse only moments prior to the collision, you can see it clearly by the boiling motion of the water at the stern, prior to that there was no evidence of reverse being applied.

Prior to that the Japanese vessel gave many warnings of an imminent collision, this was clearly audible on the 1st Greenpeace tape. Also audible was a Greenpeace person saying "this is gunna hurt". (hurt who, the Japanese or Greenpeace?)

Upon collision the 1st tape had the Greenpeace PR man clearly announcing that they had been rammed (since denied by expert) and the Greenpeace Capt saying that he maintained course and speed without change (since denied by Greenpeace).

All these items were removed or dubbed over in the 2nd edition, clearly Greenpeace have been editing the facts.

Ev, “The is no bow-wave at the front of the Greenpeace vessel,” I am certainly not an expert on marine matters though, I would imagine, if the Greenpeace vessel was hard to port the bow wave would have been obscured from view. Just an observation.

greenpeace are nothing more than neo-pirates of the high seas supported by an international gaggle of self opinionated media boosters and assorted zealots.

blackbeard lives.
arr, thar be burried treasure jim bob, arr.

japan should stop frigging around and arm its whaling boats with heavy duty canons so when the greenpeace pirates come a ramming they can quickly be dispatched to davie jone's locker.

isn't it ironic that an organisation with 'peace' in its name can be so violent??

Greenpeace attempting to intimidate anyone is not on.

What do they expect to happen, the japanese are not going to say 'hey man, we see your point, peace dude come over for a smoke' so it is obvious they are no better than others attempting the strongarm tactics.

No doubt greenpeace has good intentions, but why put off a large proportion of people from their cause due to their rogue actions?

Are the coffers a little low greenpeace? well you will not get another dollar out of me now, and plenty others i expect. The media fan the flames but you put something out there like they did, the media will just do their job from there.

If i were in charge of greenpeace i would ban all those involved from the organisation, and all those who made the decisions. Arnt they smart enough to realise there are a myriad of solutions to draw attention to their plight, or to deter whaling boats. A bit of basic research will show that there are plenty . i think once again that greenpeace fails to 'think'. i would rather see 100 whales killed, than 1 person from stupid actions.

Hi Graham,

you may have noticed, that real journalism died years ago. These days news are handed from one mob to another. No-one seems to be interested in the FACTS anymore, just sensationalism. Reporters these days become more and more like politicians. Push your line - and damn the facts. They are also just as gutless as our politicians. Why else would it be, that no-one is game enough to really investigate the facts and the reasons behind them?

Here are a few examples: the training of wharfies in the Middle East, to replace the existing wharfies; the "Children overboard" affair; the massacre at Port Arthur and the fairytales that went with it; the new gun laws, which were written BEFORE this massacre happened (anyone getting the gist of this?); the slaughter of whales (some of which take 90 minutes to die - extremely cruel); the lack of action by governments regarding this "scientific" slaughter; the lack of protection of our fishing areas, when it comes to the Japanese (we are good, when it comes to little boats of the Indonesians, though); etc., etc.

Shouldn't a REAL Government stop this massive and cruel killing of whales by all means at it's disposal? Not just protests (which are as weak as water)- but with effective force, if needed. Shouldn't a Government incapable of real action be handed a note of "NO CONFIDENCE" AND BE REPLACED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE? Especially, when these politicians do nothing but deceive the public in general?

Shouldn't REAL reporters check out their stories for themselves, rather than just repeat things parrot fashion? What happened around here - are there no real men left anymore?

If you get the feeling, that I'm wound up - you better believe it!

I'm sick and tired of constantly being lied to and deceived by those, who should be looking after our interests. Most of them seem to be incapable of putting two and two together, but then have the gall, to treat us like idiots!

Justin

GrahamY: In the greater scheme of things the Greenpeace collision with a Jap whaling ship working the vast Antarctic waters is a storm in a teacup. We should have much more to focus on than say, who tripped over a carcass? Besides; anyone taking sides too soon from this distance over navigation issues is jumping into hot water.

With two ships battling for the moral high ground in a surging ocean some one was bound to have their dignity dented. In this case it was Greenpeace but no one was injured. I hate to think how much worse it might have been.

Let’s put the incident in this context and compare it with say the fate of the Balibo five and that official cover up. Now there was an issue involving truth that got my back up. It took years for us to get anything like the truth on that one.

http://pilger.carlton.com/timor/balibo

http://www.scribepub.com.au/Catalogue/C-Up.html

In hindsight I trust no one with second hand info, and I say that in relationship to observing a range of demonstrations, mock ups and media stunts starting with Jim Cairns in Melbourne in the late 1960’s.

A biased media was not worth two bob then nor is it now.

"The incident" raises many pertinent questions.

The following are just some that spring to mind:

Has the Arctic Sunrise berthed since "the incident"?

If so, where and (if so) what authorities were involved?

If not, how is the ship going to take on its next load of fuel?

Who pays for The Arctic Sunrise's fuel?

Most importantly, what flag was The Arctic Sunrise sailing under at the time of "the incident"?

Sincerely etc.

John Andrewartha

"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated."
- Mahatma Ghandi

Having now seen the footage of the HUGE and DIFFICULT to manouvre Japanese ship, and the 'tiny' and EASY to manouvre Greenpeace 'boat', and watching the Arctic Sunrise slowly CRASH into the Jap ship.... whether or not they were in reverse at the time is not really relevant.

What IS abundantly clear, is that any responsible person aboard the Arctic Sunrise would have had AMPLE warning of imminent collision with the VERY much larger Jap ship, because it is so easy to see, because it is so HUGE etc etc etc.....I saw a perpendicular crash, no attempt to swerve by Artic Sunrise.

I draw the inescapable conclusion that Greenpeace orchestrated the crash, 'managed' its physical impact for MAXIMUM propoganda value, and were mainly responsible for allowing the collision to occur..

and by the way, I don't like the idea of whales being harpooned and eaten. I also don't like ideological organizations, which are obviously well funded (by ?) "creating" news in their favor dishonestly, to further their cause, and deceive the already emotional public on the issue !

Boaz_David, you state that having seen the footage "I draw the inescapable conclusion that Greenpeace orchestrated the crash". It seems that you have privy to footage that I certainly did not see because NO inescapable conclusion could be drawn from the footage that has been shown on many television channels of late.

Given that the Japanese are clearly lying when they state that they slaughter the 1000 odd whales for 'scientific research' - even pharmaceutical labs don't kill that comparable number of research animals in one season over one line of research - then personally I couldn't give a damn if by chance, Greenpeace were found to be in the wrong. Somehow, though, given the politics of the situation and the form of the Japanese, I tend to doubt their claims. However, in the current climate of claim & counter claim, the whole question of culpability is incredibly muddied to say the least and so I must suspend my natural scepticism about Japanese motives and their fellow journeymen's claims .

However, I think the shouts of the politically correct like Graham against their straw men of the ABC and Greenpeace should be taken in context. It certainly appears more like the desire to take a cheap shot at those he dislikes. This makes the so called 'Howard haters' mere accolytes to his mastery of this detestable form.

All I can suggest Graham is to take a Bex & have a good lie down, now there's a good chap.

"So, the author cannot understand why no one's making any noise about Green Peace's lies "

Excuse me What exactly is the BIG DEAL here ?
The media has for THREE YEARS obediantly published whatever it was TOLD to publish by the U.S. Govt vis a vis Iraq,(and now Iran, which we KNOW are lies) eventually we all discovered it was all LIES, you may well ask, WHY HAS NO ONE MADE ANY NOISE ABOUT THEM, and in that case, THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT PEOPLE DIED, no matter, that did NOT cut the ice with many people either.
So why should anyone get all worked up over Green Peace's events over some whale buchery ?

Itchyvet,

You have a point, but you are choosing a funny way to express it.

Your point (that the media have fallen into the habit of repeating propaganda, citing a different, and you think more egregious example than Graham's) merely reinforces the points made in the original article. Which is that reporters and publishers are doing a particularly poor job in separating out the spin, bull..t and obfuscation from reality in their efforts to describe and interpret the world around us.

Tony Blair's Alistair Campbell was apparently the world's first Grand Master at the art, but it is now commonplace for all major companies, organisations and political bodies to shape their public pronouncements through (extremely highly paid) spinmeisters. Witness the Donna Stanton fiasco at CSIRO.

The "spun" way of viewing the world was in significant part invented by Greenpeace, whose slogan might well be "The ends justify the spin". Wide public support exists for behaving in such ways, as shown by the large numbers of subscriptions that still flow into Greenpeace coffers, for use in the creation of environmental "hot button" scare stories and tactics to publicize them. The current whaling imbroglio is an all-too-characteristic example.

Cathy.

It is not unusual for the editors in our media to present falsehoods and distort facts, It just compounds the difficulty people have distinguishing some truth, (Not everyone though) some like the lies to feed their own egos, even if they do realize it is a phonies story.
Irf and co will not like this, but read this link and prompt your memory, although not Green peace, the philosophy and premise are of the same shape and kind. Cover up. The evils of the perpetrators triumph.

http://newsisyphus.blogspot.com/2006/01/misogyny-day.html

Excellent Responses Graham.

IMHO Greenpeace cannot expect to be allowed to justify illegal action because the Japanese might be deemed to be acting “illegally”.

The fact is Greenpeace are acting on their own initiative and are self appointed.

They have no licence or authority to act in the name of any recognised nation state, just as journalists have no authority to speak for any government or pretend they hold the right to represent a particular group of people.

The other ship in those waters, the one operated by Sea Shepherd represents an anarchist enterprise. On their web site http://www.seashepherd.org/ I quote

“The conservation ship Farley Mowat ordered the Japanese whaling supply ship Oriental Bluebird to leave the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary and then sideswiped their ship to convey a serious message.”

Without being appointed by any authority at least one of the “fleet” of self appointed anti-whalers have publicly admitted their criminal actions. Strange, Greenpeace should try to maintain their pretence as victim.

If the Farley Mowat had been Operated by Chinese sailors and in the South China Seas – it would have been called an act of attempted piracy.

Ultimately, it is very difficult for any one or any organisation to hold any other person or organisation up to a higher standard than that they practice themselves.

Apologists for Greenpeace might not like it but an organisation which engages in criminal actions is a criminal organisation.

Similarly, any journalist with public recognition (who wishes to retain that recognition) has an ethical responsibility to ensure the origins of their articles are truthful and free of criminal promotion and to readily identify where they have not established accuracy or credibility.

Tus – still speaking what I am thinking.

One passing comment regarding Geoff’s post “Walers set collision course with Greenpeace ship”.

Were they singing “We’ll keep a welcome in the hillside” as they collided?

Note – I deplore Whaling. The difference between me and Greenpeace is - I believe we should do things which are within our legal options or risk escalation of damage and entrenchment of positions

Graham,
it is good to see you are so interested in truth in the media.
There is very little of it around. Why did you choose greenpeace as a topic to push TRUTH in media, when the Federal Liberal party are masters at lying and deciept. The Federal Liberal party uses semantics to issue misleading bs.
Core and non-core promises, children overboard etc. There ars simply too many to count.
Until the truth is reported on major issues such as the IR laws, David Hicks and so on, it doesnt matter if the truth is told on the greenpeace issue. I still remember the bombing of the Rainbow Warrior in NZ by the French, so I do tend to believe that the Japanese would be capable and inclined to act in an aggressive manner.

But really it doesn't matter until there is truthfullness demanded from the media at the federal and international level

Greenpeace is doing a good job keeping the Japanese whaling in the public eye.
Our own government would rather sit on it's hands that protect our oceans from being as overfished as Asian waters. In the name of trade [or a lack of courage] they allow Indonesians to plunder our Northern waters and reefs with the possibility of allowing diseases into the country that have been diligently kept at bay.
I wish Greenpeace or someone else with a bit of guts would set up patrols up there too.
This is just a beginning. When these countries find there is no opposition they will get bolder and bolder , they have a free go.

To my understanding, factual reporting by the media is a cornerstone of democracy, essential for us to cast considered votes. Most posters seem to think that this responsibility of the media is seriously lacking.
If this is the case then the situation needs fixing. .

We individually have access to the facts of very few media reports and so how do we know how widespread this poor media reporting is? Individually we can do little.
Graham Young suggests that we will be able to use the internet to overcome this problem. Perhaps our own media watch to pool our facts could be organized.

Good in theory but in practice facts become bias and bias facts to each of us.

Thus the problems of a biased media, imperfections in our democracy, low public esteem of our journalists and politicians will remain insoluble until posters are prepared see the essential nature of a good media, to place to one side their more obvious bias and pool our facts to hunt the offending journalists.

Browsing the posts this idea would appear naïve as many are intent on point-scoring for their side, left or right, green, blue or brindle, activists of all hues. I hope most people would place advantages of an unbiased, factual media ahead of their individual ideology but I wouldn’t put money on it

AKA, why did I choose Greenpeace? Because the truth is so bloody obvious, and it happened when I wasn't writing about other things. If you want me to write up every lie that has ever happened, I need a bigger budget. You might drop some money OLO's way at http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/membership/, but make sure you put lots of zeros on the end of it.

Dear Graham,

My reply email to you was rejected as spam, even though it had a heading, was the only email I've ever sent to 'the editor', and only one copy was sent. So I've written it below instead:

" This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification

Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently:

editor@onlineopinion.com.au

Technical details of permanent failure:
PERM_FAILURE: SMTP Error (state 8): 550 Rejected by SpamCop (66.249.92.194)

- Original message -

Hello Graham,

Thankyou very much, although your correction was a little misspelt - 'Arctice Sunrsie'.. but never mind.. Your position at OLO must keep you very busy..

Thanks also for maintaining the forum itself. There are still very few online forums such as this in Australia. I appreciate the work you are doing, and consider it very worthwhile.

Regards,
Evan.
"

I hope my email address wasn't classed as a source of spam because I suggested that you relax! Being relaxed is something good. Don't take offence, as none was intended..

When Graham says "the Australian Government supports Greenpeace via our taxes", that's a lie.

His defence on this point, saying "a tax deduction is support", is a joke. Perhaps the government supports me by NOT taxing my home!

Defending a lie is hideous in an article supposedly defending truth. A tax deduction is not "our taxes". Taxes are amounts demanded by government. Present an example and correct your minor but glaring error!

The main complaint seems to be that "media organisations have got the story so wrong". The ABC is cited as an example.

The linked ABC story was of the format: "Greenpeace has accused ..."; followed by "However, a statement from the Japan's Institute of Cetacean Research says ..."

What was the ABC meant to say? These are the claims of the two parties who witnessed the event. No other witnesses. The ABC video is even more neutral, saying one ship collided with the other.

On the other hand Jennifer Marohasy says "Photographs emailed to me ... appear to show the bow of the Arctic Sunrise approaching and then colliding with the starboard side of the Nisshin-Maru." (http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001097.html)

This is also a lie.

The photographs on the page show neither an approach nor a collision. They show two boats near each other. Judging from the lack of wake, the Artic Sunrise appears not to be moving, although it may be moving slowly.

Obviously this is a dangerous game for all concerned. Harassing whaling ships is contrary to the spirit of safe boating. This is something to debate: whether it’s worth the risk.

But for this particular incident, the Japanese ship appears to be the give-way vessel. It's on the port (left) side of the stand-on vessel. And the Greenpeace captain has recited the rules about "maintaining course and speed" correctly. (see http://www.bmarine.com/safe-nav.htm). Even the www.icrwhale.org video shows the Artic Sunrise acting according to the collision prevention rulebook. Note to all: boating rules are very different to motoring rules. No more silly posts please.

Sorry Graham, but your article has lost its bearings.

David, I'm not going to waste time on your diversionary tactics. Allowing an organisation tax-deductible status is quite clearly government support. There is wake on the photos on Jennifer's site indicating that the Sunrise was moving. Jennifer uses the word "appears" to indicate that it might be otherwise than a collision. The videos from all sides subsequently indicate she was too conservative. The ABC gave Greenpeace priority in the coverage that I cited and relegated the Japanese to a few pars at the bottom. As the Japanese were the truthful party, they shouldn't have been the ones put in the position of responding.The link you refer to doesn't support the captain of the Sunrise. It says that even if he has right of way he should take steps to avoid a collision.

I'd like you to withdraw your accusation that I have "lied".

As the story of Greenpeace and the Japanese whale fleet gathers momentum the importance of truth in media reporting becomes clear. Greenpeace and the Sea Shepherd organizations may well have started with noble ideas. Save the whales is a catchy expression and nobody intends animals to suffer unnecessarily.

I have never heard anywhere a dissenting opinion from the proper treatment of animals either in an abattoir or in research. Every effort is made by civilised people to minimise suffering and maintain high ethical standards.

However, on the high seas a picture is emerging of progression into premeditated violence. From following the fleet and other nuisance actions the protestors are now showing a flagrant disregard for the law of the seas. Protest action designed to endanger life, and to damage property is not peaceful protesting. The violent behaviour that we are now seeing on our TV screens is criminal.

The French revolution of 1789 started with high ideals and rapidly deteriorated into terror. In precisely the same way Greenpeace is deteriorating into maritime thuggery.

I do not know how the media will react to the latest displays and threats from these organizations. For myself I have come to regard the whaling fleet according the adage: my enemy’s enemy is my friend.

Graham,
is your solicitation of money an attempt at humour or is it an implication of no cash, no comment ?

David, on the point of tax deduction, I must agree with Graham. If the government allows the suspension of x amount of tax then that must indeed be support. This means you get to keep the money at the bequest of the tax authorities. Charities work on the same principle and are supported by the taxation arm of the government in the same way.

Since there is obviously some confusion about charities and tax concession, let's look to what the government itself believes:

"Charities ... often provide essential services to the community such as looking after those in need. By assuming roles that have been Government responsibility, charities provide financial relief to governments. By providing various tax exemptions for charities as a form of subsidy, the Government has acknowledged this particular function charities assume." Footnote: "This so called 'subsidy theory' is not the only justification for the charities' eligibility for tax exemptions."
http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/bd/2003-04/04bd164.htm

A charitable organisation obtains its status from the common law, not from statutory law or, as implied by Graham's description, government decision-making. This is also outlined in the above paper.

Graham goes further than this if we look at the words "our taxes", which I still cannot connect with a concession.

The idea that the government supports charities through the tax concession is wrong and, the more I think about it, indirectly offensive.

Sadly, I feel compelled to maintain my position.

Taxpayers! If you want to contribute to a charity you must directly contribute to the charity.

Scout, you wrote: "go for the lies by all means Graham." This prompts me to misquote Minsc: "Go for the lies, Boo, go for the lies!"

(I hope that there's someone on the board who connects with this! Just trying to inject a lighter note.)

Hi Graham

You seem to be very thin-skinned, for one who wrote with such certainty about your own position.

I am disappointed with the way you dimissed David L - not going to waste time... That does not become you as Chief
Editor of a professedly even-handed OLO.

And what is you evidence for saying that the Japanese were the truthful party? Without that evidence it could be seen as spin on your part. That would be a shame.

Cheers

Chek

Two issues here - Spin and whaling. Conservatives banned whaling in Australian water years ago. We have an unrecognised claim on Antarctic water. Whaling is banned in waters that are indisputably ours. Does the IPA has a problem with this?

With regard spin, the Australia Institutes Sept 2005 newsletter carries a most interesting article - http://www.tai.org.au/ (side bar, “news letters”)

"Activists: How to beat them at their own game”

“This was the title of a half-day workshop sponsored by the Institute of Public Affairs and the Public Relations Institute of Australia held in Melbourne in April. Leading the workshop was Canadian PR consultant Ross Irvine, well known for his hostility to community groups and NGOs. Katherine Wilson went along to hear what he had to say.”

Some quotes -:

“Public Relations is war”, announces Irvine. He seems to suggest that the words ‘activist’ ‘terrorist’, ‘criminal’,‘guerilla’ and ‘security threat’ can be used interchangeably.

“My (the author’s) group is charged with ‘empowering others’ to support our cause. Our cause is the Port of Melbourne channel deepening.

(David) “Hawkins (supplier to Vic Gov, PR and other services, co-organiser of the event and supremo of the PRIA’s Vic Division – my insertion) suggests marginalising the environmental argument. This could be done with what Bush flacks call ‘the fire hose method’ — bombarding the media with issues, information and press conferences so they don’t have the resources to interview alternative sources.”

“To my (the author’s)suggestion that the case for channel-deepening should be the voice of reason, Hawkins says, “No, no, let’s be the voice of unreason. Let’s call them fruitcakes. Let’s call them nut—nutters.”

You know, let’s say they’re…” “Environmental radicals”, suggests the Darebin PR.

“Exactly. You know… say they represent 0.1 per cent but they dominate, you know, let’s absolutely go for them.”

An old saying - “be careful what you wish for.” Irvine and Hawker should be thanked for the heads up. Hypothetically, if I’m to be a personal target, at what point should my strategic deliberation contemplate making the issues manager the issue in Irvine’s war?

JK.

Faustino

Are you suggesting that Graham is a hamster? ;-)

Back to thread -

1. If Greenpeace lied - bad but not as bad as SIEV X

2. We know for sure Japan has lied - "scientific purposes"

3. Media should report accurately - no s**t - when?

4. Use of possibly biased information - Marohasy - has yet to write open unbiased articles eg, Genetic Engineering - totally in favour of multinational control; hardly presents balanced view. Would prefer "proof" of Greenpeace transgression from other source.

5. Recent whoppers more have greater impact on our well-being - James Hardy for example.

And finally a little weblink to Crikey

>>Should John Howard sue for defamation over an anonymous website devoted to calling him a liar? Web publisher Graham Young thinks so. See how the debate unfolded in the Crikey subscriber only emails here:

http://www.crikey.com.au/articles/2004/07/02-0003.html

Scout

Hi Scout,

Thank you for your last post.

It might have shed some light on why my second and third submissions to OLO got rejected, especially when my first one, on Corby, got 150 comments. The rejected ones were both critical of John Howard's leadership - triggered by current events. The last one was the state memorial service he offered for the tax avoider Packer.

By the way I could not open the links to the Crikey website.

cheers.

Chek

David, sorry mate but must disagree on the support issue. Either I missed something there or you relinquished your own position.
What do you think that 'subsidise' means exactly? Any way you wish to examine it, the word 'support'would feature in its explanation.

Chek - link works fine for me.

Try Google - lots of refs for Graham & JHlies.

As for the Whale story - the more I read about it the more it appears that both Greenpeace and Japanese whalers have a lot of explaining to do. Not much honesty anywhere.

As I support the ideals of Greenpeace and am vehemently anti-whaling, I am disheartened by some of the tactics used by Greenpeace.

However, to return to the thrust of this article - given that there is so much blame on both sides, another topic could have been chosen to clearly define the role of media and honest reporting.

Chek, your articles were rejected because they weren't good enough. And as you seem to think it is significant that I am a Liberal Party member, can I ask whether you've maintained your Labor Party membership?

Scout, why don't you try reading the blog post about John Howard Lies rather than the Crikey mail. You'll find its about anonymous posting - the site didn't carry any authorisation whatsoever - not whether John Howard is a liar or not. In fact, the post says he is.

And the reason that I chose this example is because it is so unambiguous. The reactions of many on this thread, like yourself, indicate, that even when the evidence is clear, unequivocal and uncontrovertible the committed will still try to question and dismiss it. Imagine how well I would have done with an issue where the evidence really was complicated. You'd have had a field day if I disagreed with your position.

The fact stands that Greenpeace rammed the other ship and the evidence shows that. It should have been reported that way. Attempts to explain it away do not reflect well on anyone.

Indeed, you have missed something. I am not denying the tax concession exists.

The first thing to remember is that taxes are not for government; they are for the nation-state or community. Treasury is not a private bank account. The government is like a trustee.

Let's look at a trivial example -- a hospital. A donation to a hospital is like voluntarily paying tax, because its money that the government or community would or should otherwise need to spend. The tax system recognises this by not making individuals pay tax AGAIN on these amounts. Charities are defined in this manner under the common law, dating back hundreds of years. The income tax system came later.

No free society ever presupposes that only the government defines exactly what is good for the community. The government cannot say "the sick should get only this", "the poor should not get this". The tax system is so designed.

I am not making this up. This idea was established centuries ago. It's one of the bedrock pillars of a free society.

This is not to say government is unsupportive of charities and many charities do receive direct funding (from "our taxes"). I would also like to qualify that statutory law may have declared that some non-profit organisations should be given similar tax status as common-law charities.

I have a renewed respect for Magistrates and all the Constable Cares out there. "They say, we say, they say, we say, they say, we say, but we say" must really give 'em the [deleted for profanity]. I say: lock 'em all up for afray.

I think it was unfair of you, GY, to assert with such certainty that Greenpeace had lied given that the story has two sides. The whole situation from the footage and reading the blogs above is very ambiguous. Just because the media failed, according to you, GY, to tell both sides of the story doesn't mean Greenpeace have done the thing that you alleged.

GY's response to: Everyone else lies, so why shouldn’t Greenpeace? : "Lots of people and organisations lie, but I haven’t seen anything that I can remember as blatant as this."
GY I think you and the respondee are hanging with the wrong crowds.
Most people, I hope, aspire to honesty. Who are these people and what lies have they told?

While you are there. You also say: " If you want me to write up every lie that has ever happened..." I find this very disturbing that lying is such a dominant and accepted way in Australian culture.

When people lie, particularly those in high, influential positions, well the ideal of a fair go and a true democracy becomes as feckless as stating the obvious (bit of self criticism there to make all the Rancitas-haters happy). Having said all this, I think OLO is the best thing since - damn I can't think of anything. Anyhow, thanks to you GY and your helpers for all the effort you put into OLO. (Sliced bread)

My dear Graham,

So my articles were not good enough to publish. On which grounds?

Perhaps for the sake of demonstrating your integrity you should publish every week the articles rejected and those accepted, with brief reasons. Surely not too hard to do for an online enterprise? We will be convinced then of your even-handedness. (You could include a 25 word synopsis, stipulated as a condition of submission.)

It took two weeks to have my second article rejected, only after I enquired about it. It took just 4 days or so for David Flint’s last article to get published after its first appearance in a broadsheet. Even-handedness?

Garaham, I had no idea if you were still a member of the Liberal Party. It was your urging that Howard should sue for defamation that made me think that my criticism of Howard’s leadership might have caused you to reject my articles.

Your rambling article showed a man on a crusade – with noticeable boisterousness. Good enough to publish? Well you hold the gun, and you seem to be not averse to using it in this thread.

By the way I resigned from the Labor Party a good many years ago. It was not a place for a Chinaman who did not know his place – I have posted this elsewhere over the years. But you should not have asked this question. You should distinguish between your role as the Chief Editor of a supposedly independent and even-handed OLO, and your apparent need to score personal points.

I really admired your initiative in creating OLO, even though the debate it was to generate has transpired to be far from edifying or focused. But the way you have responded to criticism in this thread has taken away most of my initial admiration. You are right and that is it, and your automatic gun seems to be at the ready for the slightest rustle in the grass.

Cheers

Chek

Well we all know that the Japanese are lying when then take their scientific quota of whales which end up in their restaruants.It was not necessary for Green Peace to lower themselves to the incredibility of the Japs.

In the past honesty and trust was an integral part of our society.Now we are proccupied with political spin,smoke, mirrors and distortions of the truth to fit a politically correct idealogy.Green Peace taking the high moral ground does not entitle them to selectively alter the reality.

When we reach the point of total distrust,our society becomes consumed with seeking soft options and corruption.When this happens we will have achieved third world status whereby dishonesty becomes a substitute for productivity.A society cannot be productive without a tremendous degree of trust.People want more out of work than just a pay cheque at the end of the week.We are social beings and want recognition for our altruistic motives, as well our abilities in the work place.

There is no doubt that many like myself see our society in serious decline and Green Peace are just reflecting the deterioration in our ethical fibre that reduces us all to moral eqivocations,whereby the ends justifies the means.

Such impassioned reprisal for Greenpeace not reporting their boat ram should have also been heard loud and clear when it was claimed (by Howard et al) that children were being thrown overboard from a fishing boat north of Christmas Island. But forgive me folks, I should be careful not to adopt a black-arm-band view of recent Australian political history.

Chek, if you didn't know I was still a member of the Liberal Party, then you're not paying attention up here in Brisbane, because everytime I write something critical of them they tend to threaten to expel me. I don't mind you being aligned with the left, just would prefer you were upfront about it instead of attacking me because you can because I am upfront about my alignments.

You might like to tell us what problems the ALP had with a "Chinaman who did not know his place." Could be an interesting story, but send it to susan@onlineopinion.com.au. I don't normally deal with your stuff, but I'd rather not have you under the illusion that I am dealing with it and bagging me. Susan makes most of the publishing decisions.

Oh, and Rainer, I expect Greenpeace to spin, but I expect journalists to catch them out.

Rainer ,you are quick to take the moral high ground for one who has touble recognising the truth.

Do I get an apology for your lies trying to associate me with ultra right wing parties? How about eating a little humble pie?

The political correctness of the left Rainer,makes liars of us all,because politicians can only allude to their true beliefs for fear of offending the sensibilitiles of some powerful minority group.It is never that easy or simple as calling someone a racist and you don't like your most powerful weapon being diffused with a few simple words.

I would like to withdraw my accusation that Graham Young lied in the article (this thread, 16Jan2006 3:41AM)

It was meant to mirror Graham's own accusation in the article title; throwing the mud back so to speak. But this was a mistake. I would normally not accuse someone of telling lies unless it was deliberate and malicious; and even then unless there was necessity. In this case, Graham’s claim was inaccurate but probably just through carelessness, not thinking that the statement applied to all charities.

The same reasoning applies to my accusation that Jennifer Marohasy lied. I’d like to withdraw that accusation too. She may have expressed what she meant incorrectly or perhaps she genuinely thinks she sees movement or a collision in those photos.

I apologise for any hurt the accusations may have caused.

For those who have also been critical of Graham’s article and are wondering why I am apologising, it’s not in my nature to be accusing people of this and that. I've been quite uncomfortable with that post. Anyway, I hold to my own standards of honesty and integrity (yes, often failing to meet them) but shouldn’t lessen them because others hold to different standards. So I am making an example of myself. Perhaps some good can come of that.

Greenpeace have got their key message across to the public. The Japanese are not killing whales for scientific research but are killing almost 2,000 whales for commercial gain when this is supposed to be banned.

The first TV recording I saw seemed clear that it was Greenpeace that was rammed.

Why people like Jennifer Marohasey claim the opposite may have more to do with their paid role as attackers of NGO activist groups rather than the actual facts.
A profile on Jennifer and IPA http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=259&page=I

..."In 2001 IPA launched what it claimed was 'an international first' when it 'started publishing a monthly corporate newsletter, by subscription only, dedicated to watching activist NGOs' [Non-Governmental Organisations]. These were, it warned, 'targeting business' and other 'organisations as never before'. This new corporate newsletter was NGO Watch Digest"

"With regard to its own funding, the IPA claims it maintains its independence because, 'Our annual budget - of about $1 million - is obtained from more than 2,000 individuals, corporations and foundations'. However, according to Sharon Bedder , 'Almost one third of IPA's $1.5 million annual budget comes from mining and manufacturing companies.' "

"With Monsanto amongst its funders, the IPA has a specific focus on 'biotechnology', saying it wants to 'combat the misinformation put out by radical groups' who oppose genetic engineering."

I too have been attacked by Jennifer Marohasey through the supposed "unbiased" articles she writes. My crime? I'm a farmer that has researched GM canola and found, contrary to publicity hype by the GM industry, GM canola has no benefit that can't be offered with non-GM, will require the use of more toxic chemicals to control unwanted volunteers, will cost far more for both GM and non-GM growers, will contaminate our consumer preferred GM-free crops and will deny consumers a choice to avoid GM products.
I just want the GM company to be liable for the economic loss caused by GM, rather than the non-GM growers as proposed - which is not unreasonable. Greenpeace just want the Japanese whalers to comply with the "no whaling" agreement - which is not unreasonable.

David,

What a great example you have set for us. Congratulations, and thank you.

Hope GrahamY takes it to heart.

Graham,

Your connection to the Liberal Party is irrelevant to my postings. As I said, it is your urging Howard to sue for defamation and my critique of Howard’s leadership that made me think that that might be a reason for the rejection of my articles. There is also the swiftness with which Kevin Donnelly and David Flint got published and the weeks it took to get mine rejected, upon my enquiry. Did theirs get an automatic stamp, and mine sent through various channels, like some boat people? (figuratively speaking only)

You should only mind if my writing passes your unpublished criteria, and it does not become you to assign me to the “left”. Just for the record I am passionate about integrity in public life, and social justice issues - not unlike some genuine liberals.

As for your invitation I will decline. First, I would feel that I am submitting myself to your whims- two rejections on current leadership issues concerning the PM, but an invitation to write on an “ethnic experience”. Hmmm, perhaps it is not an ethnic’s place to be a fully-fledged citizen – to instigate debate on leadership issues of the nation? (Jeez, suddenly when it comes to ethnic tales, my writing might be good enough to publish, if I am a good boy eh!) Secondly you can read my views in Meanjin, Overland, and Brisbane Institute Online.

I would happily write about it if I know that your integrity in rejection is aboveboard. So far it has not been demonstrated. And the circumstantial evidence to the contrary that I have alluded to remains.

Susan may make most of the decisions, Graham. But you must know what Clyde Packer had to do when he refused Kerry’s instruction to pull the TV interview with the then ACTU fellow, Bob Hawke. Just indulging in a personal note, have you seen that old film, The hireling?

Integrity, self-control(self-cultivation even), and public service, Graham!

Cheers

chek

Graham,

Yes I agree, journalists should have been interrogating them big time but these are the same journo's that didn't question Howard and Reith’s spin on children overboard. Editorial decisions are obviously made higher up on specific news topics in the Murdoch Empire. I think we would both agree that this unwarranted and unhealthy for Australian democracy. Well, what's left of it.

Arjay, I have no proof that you are not a member of an extreme right wing political group. In my personal assessment your writings certainly indicate that you could be. I won't apologise for making a calculated guess based on this evidence.

I've been reading extreme Right wing fiction in my professional life as a researcher for years and your style of writing and ideas bear all the prosaic characteristics found in extreme Right wing political literature. The only thing missing is a testimony from yourself about an alien abduction.

But more importantly, did you miss me ol buddy?

Graham

Going to have to agree to disagree that "And the reason that I chose this example is because it is so unambiguous" Seems to me that there is a lot of ambiguity from the research I have done and from the posts to this thread.

And now it is too late for the media to come clean - so to speak.

Not to worry, someone, somewhere will try to pull the wool over the public's eyes and hopefully it will be nice and simple with no grey areas. Kind of like Johnny's core and non-core promises.

Dear GrahamY-are-you-getting-so-angry? ... I think the fact that there are an equal number of posts debating the evidence of the ramming in either direction on this page is enough to show that fault is still ambiguous at best. In ref. to your comment "Attempts to explain it away do not reflect well on anyone.", well I'd like to stand up for all those that disagreed with your article here and simply say that attempts to staunchly take one side or the other don't reflect well on anyone either.

Let's face it - bagging the media for "that reporters and publishers are doing a particularly poor job in separating out the spin, bull..t and obfuscation from reality" (neatly summed by the cathy-sartre of OO) is just a smoke screen really. Particularly when the source of the criticism is a gate-keeping lite media outlet itself, defending another gate keeping-lite media outlet. OO wouldn't exist if people didn't have a burning desire to debate the 'facts' as they see them. Which means it's ultimately the reader that's having to do the sifting - only morons allow the media to deliver them the facts.

Amazingly Cathy, I still have my job. Just got promoted too!

I think your claim that only those who don't "staunchly" take a position come out of this well smacks more than a little of post-modernist solipsism. So if I don't take a position on the fact that it's day, I am more correct than the person who says it is 7:00 a.m. in the morning and therefore it must be day?

Honestly, who gives a rats?
Anybody who's ever motored a boat around knows they dont steer like cars
Two ships in close proximity with unclear 'right of way' with one harassing the other (apologies to Greenpeace - I'm sure they see the reality & danger) - Im surprised there isnt more contact. The smashed nose on the GP ship means nothing except there was a 'right of way' argument.
Greenpeace are a major contributor to the wellbeing of this planet. Let them do what they do well..
Nuff said..

Audrey,

When you say “it’s ultimately the reader that has to do the sifting - only morons allow the media to deliver them the facts”, I think you are accepting that our media is “doing a particularly poor job in separating out the spin, bull..t and obfuscation from reality".

I ask you how I find the time and expertise to become acquainted with and sift the facts of the many, varied and complex goings-on every day .I cannot and in most cases must rely on media reports to form an opinion or to cast a vote. My choice is then to be a moron or to be honest and disenfranchise myself.

Seriously, people have turned away politics, from debating issues, from casting meaningful votes because they know they are being fed spin not facts, they are not morons. Without facts they realize it is all a waste of time and energy.

I have concluded that those that defend the media and accept the status quo may be realists but more probably they come from the camps that have the tamest journalists/editors, with the most to gain for what they believe in.
Those suggesting that the media needs to be encouraged to report facts that the morons can rely on are pushing more than their ideologies, they can see the damage poor media does to our democracy and are arguing to correct it.

To me the ISSUE (related to the article) is DID THEY LIE or did they not ?

FACTS. (what I saw)

1/ Large, long ship (the Japanese one) is at right angles to the much smaller greenwar ship...
2/ The Greenwar ship MUST have had ample time to pull back or to swerve because of the distance the LARGER ship had to travel across the path of the Greenwar ship.
3/ The Greenwar ship struck the larger ship at 90deg not even a HINT of avoidance.
4/ The distance from the impact point to the front of the Jap ship was considerable suggesting an avoidance strategy would have been successful by changing course.

CONCLUSION
Based on the evidence, the claim 'Jap ship rammed us' was an outright LIE, and not supported by the observable facts.
Had they said "The Jap ship took a part directly in front of ours, and we found it impossible to avoid ramming them" they might almost have come away without guilt. But they didn't. So they won't.

Greenwar seems to be of the view "Any publicity is good publicity" and that the actual lie will fade as the bigger issue of whaling takes the forefront

Shabby.. very shabby I say.

The Japanese video shows the full side of the Artic Sunrise, so nearer a 45 degree angle leading up to the collision. After colliding, the Sunrise yaws towards 70-80 degrees. The first photo shows the boats about 3m apart, but the Sunrise moves relatively 20m or so down the side of the Nisshin Maru before they hit. A few seconds after the collision, looking at distant clouds vs the superstructure, the whaler seems to be turning or yawing. The Sunrise drifts behind and to the port side of the Maru.

The Greenpeace video shows the two boats getting closer, but the moments before the collision, the Sunrise is close to being dead in the water. The relative speed is provided by the Maru. This is why there were two collisions (not one), about 30m apart. The first collision is a swipe, the second a longer scratch.

Overall the greenpeace boat is drifting along 3/5 the length of the Maru, 130m long. Either the Maru is picking up speed OR the wind is affecting the Sunrise (we can see Sunrise's smoke in the same direction)

It's fairly easy to make sense of the three videos. The Greenpeace video shows the position of the two Japanese videographers. The photos come from the one closest to the stern (sternist?)

What David Boaz said, proves the ambiguity of the evidence. It is a very different account. For example, he sees that there was no attempt by Sunrise to avoiding the collision. He says they struck at 90 degrees and that manouverable distances where involved.

If he would like to propose new collision prevention regulations, then he needs to go through the International Martime Organization. He could start by writing to the Maritime Safety Committee.

I think both Greenpeace and ICR were wrong to say the collision was deliberately caused by the other. But the rules say the Sunrise had the right of way and the conditions were OK, so it will be very hard for the Maru to place the blame elsewhere.

Perhaps David Boaz can get his new rules to be retrospective?

Well, yes GY if you want to call it a day because it's light outside, then it is a day. Just because someone says it is 7am is using someone else's definition of 'day' to determine a fact - if you were in Norway in winter, you'd both be wrong. Okay, that is a little existentialist, but there are no real facts just interpretations of reality especially when there is air-time to be sold. People choose to believe what they want to believe.

Though Swilkie makes a very valid point - so I'm calling it a day on this one.

Rainer,you said that I was an actual member of One Nation.It was an out and out lie and you still think that your behaviour is justified.You were asked for proof and none was forth coming.I have never been or am a member of any political party.If you cannot see that it is wrong to lie,then what does that tell us of your ilk's leftist mentality?

I'm just glad that you didn't get banned indefinitely since your behaviour speaks for itself.You will be treated with the contempt that you deserve.

Arjay, we've had that argument between you and Rainer, now can we move on? He didn't raise it this time, you did. Can you give him a bit of space rather than provoking him?

Audrey, if that's your attitude, why bother with coming to a site where people debate things?

Because people like Audrey come here to lecture, not debate. It makes them fell good about themselves that they are morally superior to the rednecks.

t.u.s.

I worked for an animal rights org, I am a vego and very dedicated to animals getting a better deal.

When I worked for them, We always tried to separate our group from the Greens. We also worked passionately on the Live Export of Aussie Sheep to the Middle East. As soon as PETA got in on it, we separated from them.

With the Live Export issue:

Animal rights along with the Aussie Meat Workers Union was lobbying to have the sheep slaughtered here in Australia, instead of the torturous journey to the Middle East. When PETA came in on it they threatened the wool industry and took the focus of live export and onto mulsing (cutting away skin on the sheep’s backsides to prevent flystrike). True this is animal cruelty, and PETA’s threats have quickly forced the musling technology to much less cruel methods.

I am sure if I were a sheep, I’d prefer my bum cut to a hell boat trip to a bunch of barbaric arabs for their vile cult like fetish of ramadan.

A few Aussie farmers are now exporting slaughtered carcasses to muslims in I think its Indonesia. Why didn’t PETA use its power to help us or maybe as they are so huge, take on the middle east and its revolting animal practices.

My problem is that groups like the Greens, GP and PETA give us all a bad name.

I saw the footage of the boats, it looked clear to me GP were in the wrong.

Some of these groups care more about themselves than they do about the animals.

They are now destroying with their threats and lies any sympathies the public may have had for animals and their homes (the trees).

actully ill just correct myself a bit there, i have no right really to speak for my old works stand on various other orgs, it was more just me urging them to separate

All who have participated in this discussion have had access to the same information, all of it partisan.
Marohasy, Kerr,and Young see incontrovertible evidence of wrong-doing by Greenpeace, and thus swayed; Graham Young moves to an argument about media culpability.
DAVID LATIMER (Jan 19) noticed a cloud formation that does appear in both ICR and Greenpeace vision of the incident. During the unfolding of the drama, about one minute, that same cloud formation "moves" about 45 degrees- four o'clock around to seven o'clock, as an observer on board the Nisshin Maru would see it.
Of the vision provided by Greenpeace, an establishing shot taken from an inflatable near the bow of the stationary Oriental Seabird shows the same cloud formation. Thence, Arctic Sunrise can be seen to maintain the same heading (not course!) for about 25 seconds; until Nisshin Maru obscures the superstructure of the Oriental Seabird, which I use as reference.
As the expert suggested, only GPS datalogging will reveal the truth.

Have you seen the too frequent picture of a car wrapped around a pole? Graham Young would have us believe the pole did it

Clink, you're on the wrong side of the tree! Ramming is defined as prow to ship contact, and Greenpeace rammed the Arctic Sunrise. That is not a partisan statement, it is what _all_ the evidence says. They're the ones claiming that the tree jumped out in front of them.

Interesting that you and David can apparently pinpoint exact cloud formations in an overcast sky which allegedly show the Nisshin Maru turning so as to somehow force Greenpeace to hit them. Even Greenpeace doesn't claim this. If you listen to Rattenbury's voice-over he says that the Nisshin Maru moved to port _after_ the collision.

There's a whole public relations course in what not to do from this one incident. All Greenpeace had to say was "We rammed the other ship. We didn't mean to do it," and no-one would have been all that interested. It is the spin that is the issue, not whether the Nisshin Maru should have given right of way or not. You can ram another ship and still be in the right. But you'll negate the advantage of being in the right if you lie about having hit them. That's the issue.

Graham, I am having difficulty digesting your definition. What source is it you use?
The ICR, and Greenpeace both, have used the term to refer to the deeds of the other.

I made two mistakes in my previous post here.
-First,the name of the Panama registered tanker/cargo vessel is of course ORIENTAL BLUEBIRD.
-Second, I had given a figure of 45 degrees as being the deviation made by Nisshin Maru during the period of available footage. The ICR record alone accounts for 45 degrees of slew over a period of 28 seconds.( plus perhaps 5 seconds while the cameraman repositioned to the port side.)
- In total, the Nisshin Maru slewed about 80-90 degrees (four o'clock around to seven o'clock)

Response to GrahamY:

As I pointed out in my Dan Cass post, there are different meanings that can be attached to the word "ram". The specific naval meaning involving an attack using the prow of a ship does not apply, because it was not an attack.

Also there are no metaphoric "trees" on the ocean. We have two boats in motion.

To clarify, I remember discussing clouds moving in the ICR video but not the Greenpeace video. There was smoke in the Greenpeace video from the Sunrise engines, when according to others, it commenced reversing the engines, but to me it only showed that there was wind.

Finally, I don't believe the sofar evidence shows anything more than an accident, albeit in (and to some extent due to) an antagonistic environment.

Of course, we were not there, we don't have all the evidence and are not experts in maritime safty. We cannot call someone a liar based upon popular opinion - that's why we have courts and safty investigators

Graham, I will test your sentiments for the fourth estate and your hopes for the 'tangled web'; as you espouse in the last few paragraphs of your article.

For record purposes: Piers Akerman writing in the Daily Telegraph on January 17 2006, echoes the thrust of your message, and pulls together a whole closet of hand-me downs to create a veritable ensemble out of sheer dissembly.
Radio National's COUNTERPOINT, broadcast January 23 2006 has Michael Duffy talking to Shane Rattenbury (GP), and Glenn Innwood (ICR) about the incident. Counterpoint's web page has a transcript and MP3 link.

I've just discovered a webcam on the Greenpeace site; behind the weblog and webcam buttons. Time is GMT. so it's dark at the moment.
.......................To be continued................................

ESPERANZA has docked in Capetown, and the live-webcam looking forward over the bow, is showing nothing but darkness.
http://oceans.greenpeace.org/en/photo-audio-video/live-webcam

Graham continues (Ambit Gambit) to besmirch Green peace. I will describe as best I can the features of the evidence provided by both ICR, and Greenpeace; with a sideways, but crucial look at SSCS (Sea Shepherd Conservation Society).
Please archive all of the videos now, so that we are looking at the same footage.

The shorter of the ICR videos at 00'42" is a single take from the bridge of Nisshin Maru, starboard side. It starts at the time-equivalent of 01'12", of the longer(from another angle) video. Both then provide time equivalent, but different views of the "approach", contact, second contact, and regression of Arctic Sunrise behind the stern of Nisshin maru. The longer video "dwells" a little longer, to picture the Arctic Sunrise at a position astern of Nisshin Maru, and at 7 o'clock. To be continued...

The ICR video, coded GPAS1 (00'42") starts at :-

00.00" A fleeting glimpse of zodiac behind and to port of A.S. Disturbed water around stern.
00.01" Audio starts: "STOP THE....." Camera is lowered very quickly to rail and back.
00.02" Here, A.S. is headed straight for camera position. Note the angle between rail and A.S. Store this image, and compare with ICR still photograph of impending contact.
00.03" On A.S., note position of cameraman (port rail), and figure directly below. Also note 'lazy' bow wave.
00.04" Glimpse of zodiac through forest of aerials atop bridge of A.S.
00.05' Note turbulence at stern of Nisshin Maru (water cannon?)
00.07" A.S. cameraman retreats from rail.
00.07" Zodiac visible.
00.13" Contact made (sound) N.M. crewman below bridge leans on rail.
00.16" A lot of camera shake from 00.13" to 00.16".
00.19" A.S. cameraman returns to rail.
00.25" N.M. crew on main deck run to starboard.
00.30" Second contact (sound)
00.36" A.S. is now clear of N.M. stern. Note distinctive cloud.
00.42" Audio ends "KEEP AWAY...."

Time from initial contact, to time when A.S. rounds stern of N.M., is about 22 seconds. In that period, A.S. has travelled 59 metres.
Sideways! ........To be continued......

No time to post today, Monday will have to do.

I looked in on Sea Shepherd site. Makes interesting reading.

http://www.seashepherd.org/news/media_060130_1.html

Clink, what's this "Zodiac" you're talking about? And have you any idea how difficult it would be to get a ship the size of the Nisshin Maru to travel sideways? And how is it you can assert that something happened that no-one else even reports? Just repeating so-called facts doesn't establish your position. What is quite clearly demonstrated by the videos is that the Greenpeace ship rammed the other one. Doesn't matter how you slice and dice it.

Graham, the 'zodiac' I mentioned and will again, is the colloquial name for an inflatable boat. It is a brand name.
http://www.zodiacmilpro.com/product/sbyt/info/630frb.pdf

I don't infer that the Nisshin Maru travelled sideways.

The Arctic-Sunrise, merely by being in close proximity to a moving vessel, did "appear" to move "sideways".
Said vessel, the Nisshin-Maru, was travelling at 9.5 Km/Hour.......

I'll explain further tomorrow..........

Hmm. the link to Zodiac Marine fell over. This might be more acceptable:
http://www.police.govt.nz/operation/wharf/#top

Isn't it a bugger. Every time I re-view the videos there's something there I hadn't seen before. Last night looking at the Greenpeace offering: at the Esperanza footage sandwiched between the Arctic Sunrise recording, and the talking heads; right at the end of the clip after the camera drifts astern and picks out the Zodiac(TM) briefly, there is a clear indication of exhaust smoke from the Nisshin Maru. It is lower than the plume from Arctic Sunrise. Small things.

More about the ICR video GPAS1. At 00'42", it captures two successive cycles of the WARNING!! announcement as it was broadcast over the P.A. of Nisshin Maru. My stopwatch says it repeats at 18.2second intervals. It is the one feature common to both ICR and Greenpeace video footage. I will use it as a yardstick when I now consider GPAS2, the ICR video(from another angle).

GPAS2 (01'52") has three edit points (jump cuts) at 00'35", 01'10", and 01'51". There may be an edit at 00'17", but I can't verify it. The audio glitch says there is. In just three frames the camera jumps from the bow of Oriental Bluebird, to the foremast of Nisshin-Maru, and to the bow of Arctic Sunrise.(Optical image stablilizer getting out of whack?) Please note the figure evident at the bow of A.S.

The camera position for the opening sequence of GPAS2 is on the port bridge-deck rail. By the close of the first 34 second sequence, it provides a wide angle view which establishes the position of A.S. somewhere level with the bow of N.M. The distant Esperanza is an adequate reference to gain some idea of relative speeds. Nisshin Maru is moving slowly, as too is Arctic Sunrise.
It is at this time 00'29", that the gate at the corner of the paddock is opening on to greener fields. The last couple of frames before the 00'35" cut, suggest to me the camera is being turned off, viz.it is a completed record.
........To be continued........

The Greenpeace video, downloadable from here:
http://oceans.greenpeace.org/en/the-expedition/news/whalers-ram-ship-111
displays a caption advising of a one month time-limit for access. That time is now. Be aware.

ICR video GPAS2 (from another angle) continued.
At this point (00"35"), I'm faced with the task of proving the existence of something that doesn't exist.That something is the passage of 21.4 seconds of elapsed time. The first sequence, taken from a location on the bridge-deck, port side; is edited ><, at a time 1.5 seconds before the end <>, of a sound cycle. viz.
......BACK OFF!!__1.0"__ ><___1.5"___<>WARNING!!......WARNING!!....

Now, at (00'35"), the second camera above and behind the starboard Bridge rail(atop the JJCJ call-sign banner), takes over the recording, starting on the second ...WARNING!!.....This is the..etc.....

At a minimum, 1.5 seconds plus 1.7 seconds are unaccounted for. The position of Arctic Sunrise immediately before, and after the 00'35" edit beggers/buggers this interpretation. Together with the "constant" of Esperanza in the distance, leads me to believe there is another 18.2 seconds "missing", which makes for 21.4 seconds in total.

I feel like a Coroner called to the scene of Humpty Dumpty's accident: after all the King's horses... etc. have gone.
Hmmm. Exoskeletal remains, Clearly a DNA job. Did he fall, or was he pushed?!
And where Does the Vatican fit in?

ICR Video GPAS2 (from another angle) continued.

00'35" : The camera takes some moments to 'find' Arctic Sunrise, then drops slowly and deliberately to the side of Nisshin-Maru, and back to A.S. over a period of eight seconds. (GPAS1, at 00'02" had a similar establishing shot)
00'38" : Arctic Sunrise sounds four short blasts, and one long blast of her horn, finishing 00'51". Note the figure at the stem of A.S.
00'47" : camera zooms in to 'frame' Arctic Sunrise.
00'51" : The Greenpeace video starts here, twice!
00'56" : Figure moves to port side of bow and leans over side.
01'04" : Camera is panning back to A.S. and cavitation now visible and getting larger.(like a skid mark?)
01'06" : Exhaust plume visible from stack. Esperanza appears very briefly.
01'09" : Bow figure, who has been in bow since the beginning of GPAS2, leaves foredeck and appears, in the last two frames before edit point, as a fugitive shape visible above the last S of "Sunrise".
01'10" : After the edit, the same person is seen bracing against bulkhead wall, some five metres away. ....To be continued.....

ICR Video GPAS2.(from another angle) continued.

This instant, (01'10"), is a critical point in the record of events, and yet ICR has released no footage of some 4.2 seconds of elapsed time. The 'hole' is of 4.2 seconds duration, which I determine from the discontinuity in the sound watermark, and which is validated by the observed vision-glitch across the edit point. An answer to this quandary is to be found by looking at the Greenpeace offering; at (Greenpeace 00'33" to 00'37"). The GPAS2 cameraman is otherwise occupied. Whilst there, note the goings-on at the rail of the bridge. GPAS1 starts at(Greenpeace 00'39").

It would be easy to ascribe an intent on the part of ICR, to compress continuity, which HAS happened. It seems there was no intent; just happenstance.

The impression to be gained from the sequence was another thing altogether. Crap assertions such as Arctic Sunrise "turned hard to port" ; "The video clearly shows...." etc. My first post had Arctic Sunrise maintaining her heading constant, by referencing the Oriental Bluebird which was stationary.

There are other complications happening here. We're looking at a monitor screen which is flat. Projected on to the screen is a rectilinear-projection of a three-dimensional world.

http://slash72.club.fr/gurl/MODES/PROJECTION/en_prefecture_rectiligne.htm

also, http://www.research.ibm.com/dx/proceedings/cart/cart.htm

....To be continued.....

That first link fell over, so here is a tinyurl.com version:

http://tinyurl.com/9k6mu

A brilliant site!

ICR video GPAS2 (from another angle) continued.

I should include in the time-line for GPAS2: at the same instant the bow figure is visible above 'ise' of Sunrise,at (GPAS2 01'09"), the cameraman onboard Arctic Sunrise reaches for the rail. This corresponds to (Greenpeace 00'30"), when he is reacting to the slowing down of A.S. He is heard to utter "this is gonna hurt!"

00'17": At this time, Arctic Sunrise is pointed directly at the camera. Note the angle between Arctic Sunrise, and the side of Nisshin-Maru. Save this frame and put it with the similar frame from GPAS1. The water behaviour around the bow of A.S. is most evident here.

01'24" Looks really bad don't it! Go back to the frame-grabs from this video (00'17"), and from (GPAS1 00'02"). Compare these with the still image provided by the ICR on it's site,,,
Well I was going to provide a link to ICR, and a page entitled "Greenpeace should release UNEDITED footage of Joint Actions with Sea Shepherd", but it's gone. I hope you saved it!! The image of impending collision remains and is under "photos".
For now, I ask just where is the evidence that Arctic Sunrise turned "hard to port" in order to ram Nisshin Maru.
....To be continued...

This from the Greenpeace weblog:
http://weblog.greenpeace.org/oceandefenders/archive/2006/02/from_behind_the.html

It was for a specific reason I bade you consider GPAS2 01'24". That was the instant the still photograph was taken, and subsequently released by ICR; as evidence of two vessels in close proximity.
The two frame-grabs from GPAS1, and GPAS2, have Arctic Sunrise pointed at the camera. It goes to optical theory, but it is only possible to make an estimate of the included-angle between two objects when one is parallel to a side of a rectilinear projection.
Also, the wider the acceptance-angle of the taking lens, the greater is the visual distortion away from the optical axis. All important here.

01'25": Contact is audible.
01'27": Note it is the mainstay which snags the fender of Nisshin Maru. This accords with Greenpeace video.
01'28": Camera drops momentarily, showing lots of auto focus.
01'30": Arctic Sunrise has rolled to starboard
01'31": Glimpse of "cloud"
01'34": Arctic Sunrise rolls to port.
01'36": Note the persistent "artifact",the colour on deck.
01'43": Audible! Second contact?
01'49": Arctic Sunrise rounds the stern of Nisshin Maru.
01'50": Figure crosses to rail, obscuring colour.
01'51": Discontinuity in time-line due to edit at this point.
....to be continued....

...ICR video GPAS2 (from another angle) continued....

01'51": The camera crosses to port side and gives just a glimpse of Arctic Sunrise and zodiac(TM) far astern. There is a lot of diesel exhaust out there, but there is no mistaking the "cloud". Arctic Sunrise has slewed some 90 degrees since contact was made.

I use the sound watermark to estimate 13.75 seconds are missing from the time-line because of the edit.

From the start of GPAS2, up to first contact, one minute twenty five seconds (01'25") have elapsed, according to the ICR time-line.
The two edits I have identified in GPAS2, at 00'35", and 01'10", together add about 26 seconds, so the actual elapsed time to first contact is one minute fifty one seconds. (01'51")

Having regard to the relative positions of Arctic-Sunrise and Nisshin-Maru at the start of the recorded evidence; a period of almost two minutes passes before contact; and after just another 22-23 seconds, Arctic-Sunrise passes behind the stern of Nisshin-Maru.

This begins to look like an old fish-tale, or is it a fish-tail!
.....to be continued.....

Some reflections on the ICR videos GPAS1 and GPAS2.

Glen Inwood,a spokesperson for ICR, was interviewed by Michael Duffy, on Counterpoint, January 23 (Radio National). He said that ",the Nisshin Maru blew the five warning signals as was required...etc"
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/counterpoint/stories/s1553014.htm

There is no record of this on GPAS2 other than at (GPAS2: 00'25"). Arctic-Sunrise is heard at (GPAS2 00'19") to begin the first of four blasts of her horn, and is drowned out by the Nisshin-Maru's horn at 00'25". This would suggest the existence of another edit point, leading to revision of the time-line.
I'm also intrigued by the appearance in GPAS1, of what looks like very disturbed water at the stern of Nisshin-Maru. I do not know whether Nisshin-Maru has bow and stern thrusters, but I note that the wake visible in GPAS1. disappears after Arctic-Sunrise has made contact. No, it isn't just water spray.
....to be continued....

Clink, you're over-complicating a very simple issue. I assume this is intentional. It didn't seem to me that the Japanese had edited their video, but if they have, so what? Greenpeace have certainly edited theirs, but all the videos concur on one thing - Greenpeace rammed the other vessel. Get over it!

Graham,I'll next be considering a page which was until a week ago, heading up the ICR home page.
In the interests of a dissemination of ideas, I'd appreciate a mirror of the page:
"Greenpeace should release UNEDITED footage of joint actions with Sea Shepherd"
One Jon Sumby presented an analysis of this particular page at:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/po0601/s00035.htm
Sumby reviewed the "interpretation" of events given by the ICR; of the actions of Sea Shepherd.
I am concerned more about the images SSGP1, and SSGP2, provided by the ICR in support of their stance.

SSGP1 is an image attributed to SSCS, which shows Farley Mowatt heading for the whaling fleet, and is still with quite a way to go. The circled area is indicative only of the direction Farly Mowatt is headed. Oriental Bluebird and Nisshin-Maru are indistinguishable; either along-side or passing.
SSGP2 is also attributed to SSCS, and shows Farley Mowatt to be much closer, and depicts, to my mind, relative positions some time after the collision. The Esperanza is not visible, and must lie beyond Oriental Bluebird. Nisshin-Maru has performed quite a manoeuvre to be where she is now!
Another image, SSGP3(?) shows Nisshin-Maru very much marked by collision, contrary to the sequence of events put out by ICR.
Graham, this rather pedestrian series of posts demonstrates I hope, the wealth of information to be had, by examining the evidence without prejudice.
...to be continued....

The Jon Sumby article is here:

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0601/S00035.htm

or here:
http://tinyurl.com/jolxx

...to be continued...

Graham, I am deeply sorry that you have been under the illusion that journalists are generally ethical! I need to advise you that this is incorrect. I assure you (first hand too!) that journos have the power to make or break any person. They too are extremely biased and constantly abuse public gullibility. I have seen the destruction and downfall of prominent people all too often - thanks to biased reporting. So Graham, get over it! As for the allegations that Greenpeace rammed the Japanese whaler - hooray! If I wasn't an oldie, I would have offered to assist! Your right wing philosophies are apparent when you attempt to raise a moral issue over the disgusting, sadistic practice of whaling. And as for another post claiming that Greenpeace really aren't attempting to stop whaling for monetary reasons - what tripe. Tell me the name of one Greenpeace member who is making a quid out of this truly amazing and dangerous commitment to protecting the environment?

While industry is polluting the globe and regularly killing off members of all species with governments kowtowing to each other in the name of diplomacy and greed, the rest of the big end of town are attempting to call all those who care, "nutters"!!

At the expense of sounding contradictory, I assure you that not all "nutters" are left wing loonies - they are simply more evolved!

Dicki