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!