The solution to the ABC bias in these areas in simple. To fix the forestry bias, don't pay them in money, pay them in woodchips (which must be exported through CALM). Similarly, in the case of the wheat board, pay them in wheat, which must be exported through the AWB

What Roger Underwood who in awe of Syd Shea failed to mention was that Syd Shea was parachuted in the CEO of CALM by the then Minister for Forests the illustrious Brian Burke.The Corruption and Crime Commission is currently putting the dealings of CALM and Brian Burke under a fine microscope over developments in the Busselton shire.

Roger's article highlights the importance of taking public corrective action when a program is found to be Biased and inaccurate. It is not the first time that the media have been exposed on a biased forest story, and the similarities between the WA story and Tasmanian forest reporting are frightening and perhaps show a "culture" of 'bashing' professional forest agencies.
When the BBC was found to be unfair in its reporting on Tassie forestry, the BBC was forced to take out a large advertisement in the Times of London to apologise. The ABC and any other Australian media should do the same (if not voluntary then ACMA should make it a licence condition). They should also give back the Award for excellence in environmental journalism award for "Lords of the Forest" by the Australian Museum that was sponsored by the long suffering tax payer.

Happy to back up what Roger has posted about the ABC’s discredited Four Corners program Lords of the Forests and its reporter Tikki Fullerton yes they both should make good and issue an immediate and unqualified apology to viewers.

Not only did the ACMA find the program to be lacking but even more so damming was ABC’s Independent Complaints Review Panel. It reported to have found that Lords of the Forests was seriously flawed, riddled with instances of “serious bias, lack of balance and unfair treatment”. The ICRP went on to say “Much of the program was found to have failed to uphold the ABC’s key values of honesty, independence and fairness” and that "Four Corners used un-sourced vision out of context or in a way that was misleading to viewers".

The ICRP also found that the reporter’s use of emotive language throughout the program destroyed any claim that the production was balanced.

In a damming conclusion the ICRP found that the program compromised Four Corners own reputation as the “flagship” of the ABC Current Affairs program.

But no word of apology from the ABC or Ms Fullerton just continuing to hide from what is the right thing to do, what a great example of being prepared to correct wrongs, perhaps the ABC can learn from the BBC, which is prepared to publicly correct its wrongs, The BBC did go to the length of placing a half page advertisement in the London Times along with a week long repeated apology broadcast on BBC World when it was exposed for a similar unfair and inaccurate report on Tasmania’s Forests.

The objections were trivial. That the article claimed Huon pine is a hardwood and it isn't. That the article claimed Van Diemen discovered Tasmania when he merely organised and funded the expedition but didn't go. That the ABC was not timely in correcting the internet record. In fact, of the 62 complaints, ACMA upheld two, and stated that they thought the narration was too emotional. The article and its supporters display the kind of hysterical distortion that they accuse the ABC of.

Barista is being too modest, he should have posted a link to his own blog piece on the "Lords of the Forest" http://barista.media2.org/?p=2769

Read barista's piece and compare it to David Underwood's.

Could someone then please explain why barista's post should not have been chosen over Underwood's for the Best Blogs 2006?