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. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. ...
  10. 21
  11. 22
  12. 23
  13. All
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.
Posted by Bronwyn, Thursday, 12 January 2006 3:11:06 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
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)
Posted by rancitas, Thursday, 12 January 2006 3:43:41 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by the usual suspect, Thursday, 12 January 2006 3:47:00 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
"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.
Posted by PHILB, Thursday, 12 January 2006 3:48:57 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
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.
Posted by yakz, Thursday, 12 January 2006 4:36:07 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
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.
Posted by The Big Fish, Thursday, 12 January 2006 5:12:10 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. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. ...
  10. 21
  11. 22
  12. 23
  13. All

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