The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Why it matters that Greenpeace lied and the press doesn't seem to care > Comments

Why it matters that Greenpeace lied and the press doesn't seem to care : Comments

By Graham Young, published 12/1/2006

Graham Young asks why mainstream journalists have accepted Greenpeace's claims to be rammed when they are obviously the aggressor.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 21
  9. 22
  10. 23
  11. All
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.
Posted by plerdsus, Thursday, 12 January 2006 10:51:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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?
Posted by PK, Thursday, 12 January 2006 11:00:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Scout, Thursday, 12 January 2006 11:20:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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
Posted by Perseus, Thursday, 12 January 2006 11:57:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Audrey, Thursday, 12 January 2006 12:03:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by anti-green, Thursday, 12 January 2006 12:26:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 21
  9. 22
  10. 23
  11. All

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