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.