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.