Australian Newsagency Blog

A blog on issues affecting Australia's newsagents, media and small business generally.

SMH: ‘Dangerous, misinformation’: News Corp employee’s fire coverage email

Mark Fletcher
January 10th, 2020 · 51 Comments

‘Dangerous, misinformation’: News Corp employee’s fire coverage email, by Zoe Samios and Andrew Hornery writing for the Sydney Morning Herald is fascinating look inside News Corp and how one employee views their reporting on climate change.

A News Corp employee has slammed the organisation for its “irresponsible”, “dangerous” and “damaging” coverage of the national bushfire crisis, urging executive chairman Michael Miller to think about the “big picture”.

In an email distributed to News Corp Australia staff and addressed to Mr Miller, commercial finance manager Emily Townsend said she had been filled with anxiety and disappointment over the coverage, which had impacted her ability to work.

“I find it unconscionable to continue working for this company, knowing I am contributing to the spread of climate change denial and lies. The reporting I have witnessed in The Australian, the Daily Telegraph and Herald Sun is not only irresponsible, but dangerous and damaging to our communities and beautiful planet that needs us more than ever to acknowledge the destruction we have caused and started doing something about it.”

I think the News Corp. reporting climate change has been appalling, ignoring science for baseless fantasy theories from the fringes. Add this to the extreme bias demonstrated buy News Corp on myriad political matters and non wonder people are cancelling their subscriptions and stopping purchasing newspapers.

News Corp. newspapers and online platforms seek to drive agendas rather than reporting news in my opinion. Shame on any of us how pay this American controlled company money to interfere in the future of our country in this way.


Category: Ethics · Social responsibility

51 responses so far ↓

  • 1 Graeme Day // Jan 10, 2020 at 6:30 PM

    Mark, It would appear that all papers present articles from journalist that have a bias. this is not restricted to any one newspapers For a lonf time now people have been aware that ABC and Fairfax Now NINE were and still are “married” in lefty views as well as partners in real life…….
    THEY the people of generalisation say the Murdoch Press is right wing etc.
    Of whom you agree with and have stated your opposition to News Corp and Murdoch quite openly.
    Frankly I read most newspapers in NSW and Aust. publications daily and find News twisted in all publications and above that some really great articles in ALL the different publications some would be reagarded as Left some right same newsapaper.
    i woud prefer to think issue on issue and not left or right as they are extremist and paranoid about their opposition rather that the truth of the situation.
    Barracking for any one side is divisive and belongs to footy followers and other sport biased club types (I am one for my teama barracker but when they lose it usuallly is their fault or they got beaten by a better team, that’s footy not politics)
    There are no winners in arguing politcs for it’s decided by Ballot on election day and the rest of what is in newspapers everyday is “fodder” and perception not necessarily the truth.
    to bash major suppliers of products we represent in the market place may bring some angst with the people we serve who buy products like The Australian -The Age or SMH. te Daily Telegraph or buy a ticket in the Lott out of deperation from what they have just read in those newspapers..
    Ease up have a great year and don’t let the bastards get you down is a good motto.


  • 2 Peter // Jan 10, 2020 at 7:55 PM

    Team Rupert Duke of Word News,
    are lying and using false truth to support it. Then again US Gov Public Servants in the Middle East are called contractors rather than Mercenaries which is what they are.

    Lotto develops the same command & control systems thinking telling us what to think as responsible gambling sellers and and fuck the rest.

    All the way with LBJ.
    PS Your Shout Mark
    Bundy OP & Coke


  • 3 Mark Fletcher // Jan 10, 2020 at 8:00 PM

    Graeme, the News Corp bias is set in the executive offices in the US and actively encouraged through their papers and other platforms. If the company was not systemically biased then the reporting to which you refer would not get through.


  • 4 Graeme Day // Jan 10, 2020 at 9:08 PM

    Mark you’re correct, however it emphasises an attitude problem of the Execetive Offices of the U.S. Oops! then maybe it doesn’t emphasise this. My point is surely you and everybody of individual thought is capable of sorting their own opinions without needing biased propaganda.Mark, on most occasions you have supported Freedom of thinking however sometimes and many other times you take a biased stand.
    I personally disagree with yout thought that they need control over their articles. To promote exercise over free speech especially by Govt. goes against the ability to analyse the real problem and the mood of the people enmasse.
    It leads to Dictatorship -control – isn’t this what has always led to War?
    Basicaly it’s about solutions using more influence in argument against what we disbelieve with a plan for a better result – it’s Demorcratic it’s healthy -Stuff them -whoever “they” are, we need to get on with what’s right with sensible attitude and leadership.
    Soory for the rant but nor sorry for want of -“let’s get on with our industry which is no longer Agents to newsapers as they have made this obvious.


  • 5 Peter // Jan 10, 2020 at 9:53 PM

    I don’t care whether you’re from the left or right in your political thinking. What disturbs me is the blatant disregard for science and the truth. Look around you, everything we have today, all the progress is due to rigorous scientific application. Yet when it comes to climate change some people will use any excuse, any bit of anecdotal evidence to deny what scientists are warning is clearly anthropogenic climate change. Newscorp add to this by pandering to this ignorance. The ABC, the Age and the SMH will be on the right side of history, whatever quality of future we may have.


  • 6 Graeme Day // Jan 10, 2020 at 11:55 PM

    Peter, you,are being absolute in your way of knowledge.
    The ABC and Fairfax- now NINE are as biased as News Corp it’s called a difference of opinion. At this point in time you are taking sides by abdicating scrutiny by accepting that all scientist are right. This is bias (intellectually)
    There is much more to this than forthright
    uninformed opinion. What is presented at the moment is two sides in opposition to each other and what is the most important is both think they are riight. Discussion from both sides shoud be the focused on finding not only the truth but how we can as human beings live with the result This is theGoal -the answer to our future- forecast or not we do need to examine Climate variation and how we can adapt to it
    This is the biggest challenge for Busines and Money has a bias as does intellectualism and what the ABC- Faifax and New Corp claim is a self interest- which by the way we all have
    This matter is not Black or White is is a Grey matter and with open mindeness and genuiness we as humans have the abilty to sort it out.
    We need unity to do this not personal views.
    Letting go and seeking the truth without bias will be hard but this isn’t them or us -it’s all of us.


  • 7 Peter // Jan 11, 2020 at 7:46 AM

    Do you believe in god Graeme. Bet you do. God will save you….ha ha. Me not so much. If my doctor gives me advice on my health, I’ll take it and make the necessary changes. If scientists on mass are warning we are in a climate emergency I take their advice and I’m up for change. There is only one planet Graeme, there is no plan b for future generations. We are the masters of our own destiny.


  • 8 Graeme Day // Jan 11, 2020 at 8:05 AM

    Peter again you take assumption as fact. I recognise that other people have faith and belief patterns that I don’t share that can’t be proven.. religion is a doctrine invnted by humankind. Any unproven doctrine that is debatable and many scientist are debating this subject deserves more thought and discussion.
    I have stated this see 6
    You have fallen for headline news and haven’t read detail of what peolpe say including what I have written here
    No point going over it ,read it or carry on with your own belief pattern by peddling your own “God”. I findi respecting other view points is a step, a starting point, if you like, into understanding that one persn or group of peolple is not the sole arbiter of knowledge.


  • 9 Peter // Jan 11, 2020 at 10:19 AM

    Graeme, you waffle on like a politician, round and round in circles never directly answering the question. The scientific consensus that humans are causing global warming is over 99%. In Australia the highly respected CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology and in America NASA have all warned of the risks of continuing down the current path. Who can you refer to, some old crackpot with peer reviewed opinions conducted at the local pub.


  • 10 James // Jan 11, 2020 at 6:35 PM

    Scientific consensus is an interesting topic which I suspect some of the commentary above has little to zero understanding of.

    Scientific consensus (including Einstein) held that the Universe was stable and steady state until a Catholic Priest/Astrophysicist conducted experiments that established a new theory that the Universe was still expanding. Gradually scientific “consensus” (including Einstein) completely flipped and fell in behind the new theory “The Big Bang Theory”. And consensus usually turns on the ability to achieve repeatable results from experimentation. Much of what passes for climate science involves data manipulation, interpolation, and modelling. Even the newly revised BOM temperature data sets (2nd revision) are not repeatable or transparent.

    And of course the 97%, 99% or whatever consensus number you want to throw out there is complete bollocks and has been shown to be so by any number of independent assessments.

    And then there is the question of personal carbon footprints. Lets not go there.


  • 11 Graeme Day // Jan 11, 2020 at 7:05 PM

    Peter, your best form is to attack. You have insulted me as a person, tried to destroy any compassion I may have and refused my intellect. Unles you can present a better informed explanation than you have I refer the fact that you are a headliner news person with no attention to detail.
    Read something fully and the discuss it intelligently this form of communication from you is absent.
    For further information I refer you to post 10 by James whom I don’t know.


  • 12 Peter // Jan 11, 2020 at 7:41 PM

    What independent assessments James? Graeme your posts are not detailed, they are just long without any evidence to back you up. Simple question fellas. What you’re saying is that the CSIRO, the BOM and NASA are not credible? That’s just plain crazy and shows you how far climate deniers will go to avoid the truth.


  • 13 Peter // Jan 11, 2020 at 7:50 PM

    And another thing James. Once upon a time we may indeed have been blessed with a multitude of “catholic astrophysicists”.These days they’ve all been replaced by catholic paedophiles.


  • 14 Graeme Day // Jan 11, 2020 at 10:07 PM

    Far from denying “your” acceptance of truth I am questioning both sides for healthy debate.
    you have taken the “God” factor of rightousness from learned doctrines as did those that followed Religion. you have been religious in your belief thus abdication human consciousness of objective thought.
    When you have an idea of your own thinking please share it.
    Your doctrine is fixed and unfounded.
    Anyway I attend this blog for it’s newsgancy content and find Mark’s comments there interesting and informative.
    I chalked up 50 yaers anniversay since I purchased my first newsgency. i was a Vice President of NANA LTD in 1987 sold out and later was seconded to be their CEO for 3 years and after was a paid consultant on a case by case basis with the top Accountancy practices in Sydney -Bird Cameron and BRI-FERRIER to name two and Sims Partners another as well as two major Banks ANZ and NAB for 10 years -both supporters of the “Block System lending 100% against the Goodwill of the Newsagenct System this was in the “Recession we had to Have” according to Paul.
    plaes note we haven’t had arecession since and yet asset prices are out of reach and incomes lower than ever-Capital starved and leverage “burned”

    I was again requested to go back to NANA ltd as CEO in 2001 just after (which I disagreed with) signed contracts with the publishers to allow a contract termination clause of the newsagent giving 3 months notice to quit Distribution and ythey giving a 6 months notice. This resulted in retailers onlly contracts of 12.5% of cover price and those have both less.
    The enevitable is the result we have -no longer newsagents -just resellers.
    Basically I have an unbiased analytical mindthat is open to others of the same ilk. It is not conducent to “fixed” set minds of purpose of self indilgence of rightiousness of with you first email you accused me from a base of no knowledge of bein a GOD freak when in fact is you that is playing GOD.Whilst we do this please read Christopher Hitchens ‘God is Not Great and the Richard Dawkins “The God Delusion” after this read Hitchen’s brothers opposite views where Christianity can save the WORLD.
    Malcolm Muggerige- oh bugger why should I explain the a total fool with just a mouth Look up Hitchen’s on You Tube and see what a great debate is about- research of an individual not acceptance form an abdication of human conciousness and unfortunately I am not insulting you it’s just disappointing that your ignorance is so profound.
    My interest has and is in newsgancy survival it’s my knowledge and experience yours is “climate change” it’s your knowledge and personal experience as you proclaim.
    Yes this is a long answer no it’s not political it strated with an innocent comment seeking answers on a debate level.
    You set that straight.
    By the way I put my full name as who I am I thought Peter was the First Pope and the Founder of the roma Catholic faith.


  • 15 Graeme Day // Jan 11, 2020 at 10:42 PM

    Peter -Your answer to James I thought ‘trite’ most single sex institutions have similar behaviour patterns .
    Gender is evolutionary not GOD decided.
    We have and are still going through a learning curve on this subject. Gender what does it mean?
    i acknowledge it is a fact and I want a fair and resonable thought process on equality as there is no GOD given choice as we are humans with our own free will- let’s be kind to this.
    On this I was also conscripted at the age of 20 to spend two years (wasted excepted for the genuine friends I made ) compulsory Birthday ballot of which I had no voting rights until I was 21.
    Yes it was the Vietnam War agreement with USA.
    i was posted to Vietnam on my 21st Birthday
    No vote no go I fought it from within and I won.
    Being absolute changed me whem the absoluteness was democratically voted for.
    i am grateful that after 50 years of no contact with two of my every day mates contacted me and now we share evry thing as we did and we aren’t interested in the call up or the ARMY
    This is why I don’t trust absolute statements then it was Communism and now it’s Climate Change that is the enemy- well the Americans actually won the Vietnam War however capitulated a week before the enemy admitted defeat.
    So my friend I have learned that things aren’t necessarily what thet appear to be.
    Healthy debate is not political it is the opposite
    Take care and relax with absolutes they are as fixed as Donald Trump. God Bless America as they say for no one els will as Gough said abouth the Govenour General


  • 16 James // Jan 11, 2020 at 10:46 PM

    If my Doctor gives me medical advice, I take it and make the necessary changes.

    Good advice Peter.

    Interesting because right up until the early 1960s, the consensus of the medical profession was that there was no link between smoking and lung cancer. In fact if you’d gone to your doctor in the early part of the 20th Century, your Doctor might have even suggested you take up smoking and offered you some free samples.

    Science is never settled and consensus can be misplaced, in some cases just plain wrong, and is definitely changeable.

    And anti catholic bigotry has no place in any mature informed debate. So save that stuff for someplace else.


  • 17 Peter // Jan 12, 2020 at 9:27 AM

    I think we’ll just have to agree to disagree. Either of you won’t provide me with one science based, major organisation that disputes anthropogenic climate change. I asked a simple question also about whether you believe NASA, BOM and the CSIRO are credible organisations in light of their warnings re anthropogenic climate change. Instead I get a resume from Graeme and an anecdote about early 20th century medicine from James. What if you’re both wrong and all the scientists are right. I know that’s shocking to contemplate. The consequences for all life on the planet are catastrophic. If I and the majority of the world’s scientists are wrong, then we have transitioned to a cleaner and sustainable energy world.


  • 18 Graeme Day // Jan 12, 2020 at 12:26 PM

    Peter whether you are right or wrong didn’t matter as much as you assumed those with other opinions (mine not formed as yet though I concur with cleaning up the planet) were idiots and only you could be the arbiter. You called me a GOD freak without te slightest knowledge of me-that’s why you got a resume.
    If you had taken this apoproach in the first place unpleasantness would not have arisen.
    There a plenty of Scientists that disagree with man made Global Warming punch it in Google and read their views. The jusry is out as far as I/m concerned re cause but not action.


  • 19 Mark Fletcher // Jan 12, 2020 at 1:49 PM

    Graeme it is wrong to say “There a plenty of Scientists that disagree with man made Global Warming”. There are very few scientists with experience in fields directly related to climate who dispute man caused climate change.

    I expect that in a few years, not sure exactly how many but a few, we, those of us still alive, will look back and say that from the 1990s on, when the science was clear, politicians and those who elected them failed.

    This is why I agree with those who say there is no time for discussion, that only urgent action is required. There is no time to argue that we as a country are too small. No time to waste money on coal and related subsidies. For there to be any hope urgent action is needed.

    The urgent action I’d take is price carbon immediately, ban all new coalminers and agree a plan to reduce our reliance on coal. Permit local solar grids in local communities without any obligation to the statewide grids in control now. Make fuel efficient public transport free in every state. Offer a prize for a new cost effective approach to desalination so we can have better water reserves. And all that is for a start.

    That’s my view based on the science. I don’t care if people disagree with me. They won’t change my mind as the facts supporting my view are settled by the experts.

    This is why I think News Corp’s action represents criminal behaviour and why I encourage people to stop spending money with them.


  • 20 James // Jan 12, 2020 at 2:38 PM

    Well worth a read.


  • 21 Graeme Day // Jan 12, 2020 at 5:11 PM

    Mark it isn’t WRONG of me to saywhat I said, it’s my opinion based on what I read See james Blog 20 This type of commentary is not isolated Too much ABC and Fairfax plus too nuch hate of Murdoch seems to be your agenda of late.
    is this not wrong for me to assume this or is it your opinion and should be respected as such?


  • 22 Mark Fletcher // Jan 12, 2020 at 5:37 PM

    Graeme, with respect we are beyond opinion. Facts matter. Facts are settled.

    My agenda here primarily is for a bright furture for businesses we used to cll newsagencies. That, in part, depends on a strong economy. A strong economy depends on a more stable climate. Hence the need to focus win the scientific truth of climate change. And that, Graeme, puts me at odds with the biased propaganda of News Corp and the Murdoch empire. I urge Australians to not give them any money.


  • 23 James // Jan 12, 2020 at 8:03 PM

    Worth a watch. Especially you Peter.

    And on the topic of giving money to biased media organisations (all media is biased), unfortunately we have no choice about giving money to the ABC which given a choice, I wouldn’t.


  • 24 Paul // Jan 13, 2020 at 10:37 AM

    Make fuel efficient public transport free in every state – and what would you offer for all the country towns without the choice of public transport – and desalination wow what will power them


  • 25 Mark // Jan 13, 2020 at 12:19 PM

    Mark your criticism of News Corp does nothing to tackle carbon emissions.

    Trying to shame us for purchasing News Ltd product is nothing short of bullying .

    Very hypocritical of you, considering the amount of time you spend flying around the globe, iam sure you enjoy the preferred treatment you get from Qantas using the Qantas lounges to sitting up the front of the plane in luxury .
    So do you think of the damage you are doing every time you hop on a plane ?

    We all know climate change is a global issue we also know there are a small number of countries who are the biggest polluters.
    The top 10 countries account for 60% of carbon emissions.
    Over population is the cause of climate change, 7.5 billion people with India and China accounting for 30% of the total .

    I agree everyone should do their bit.
    Mark for once in your life you could actually practice what you preach by:
    Stop flying.
    Move out of your Jacques apartments and buy a little cottage which you can set up and get off the grid, grow your own vegetables, compost your waste and become carbon neutral.
    You could also relocate your Tower offices , take a holistic approach to the design and layout and take the lead on an environmentally friendly work environment.

    We have invested in renewable technology ,
    20kw solar system on our shop.
    10kw solar and 12kwh Sonnen batteries on our house and a Toyota hybrid Corolla car.

    Over to you now to take the lead


  • 26 Mark Fletcher // Jan 13, 2020 at 3:09 PM

    Thanks Mark for your ignorant contribution. You don’t know my circumstances whatsoever. But bless you for throwing trash anyway.

    As for News Corp, without their attacks over the last ten years we would have had a price on carbon and other achievements and that might have encouraged other countries. Instead, we act like children and blame others, when we are to blame.


  • 27 Andrew T // Jan 13, 2020 at 5:25 PM

    See. Like a petulant child Fletcher hisses and wheezes if he’s contradicted and proffered an alternate view to his.
    I know all of my posts are pre-barred but I enjoy seeing other contributors trying to challenge your bigoted point of view. Without success


  • 28 Lance // Jan 14, 2020 at 10:04 AM

    Discussion is good Andrew…..why are you here…..?


  • 29 Mark Fletcher // Jan 14, 2020 at 11:58 PM

    James Murdoch:


  • 30 MARK RICHARDSON // Jan 15, 2020 at 1:00 PM

    Fletcher you love to preach , but what are you actually doing to reduce your carbon footprint.

    If you are truly passionate as you preach tell us what
    changes you have made ?

    We are all listening


  • 31 Mark Fletcher // Jan 15, 2020 at 1:31 PM

    Bless you for your interest in my personal life Mark. However, it is none of your business. Not ever here have I told / demanded or preached to people what to do when it comes to you reliance on fossil fuels or other environmentally challenging fuels.

    if you go back and read my post here you will see it is about News Corp and their misleading reporting on climate change.n Their failure to published evidence supporting reporting is part of what has got Australia into the mess it is in.


  • 32 Graeme Day // Jan 15, 2020 at 2:06 PM

    There you have He’s right and your wrong no explanation needed just cop it.
    Unbelievable something in the air since New Year me thinks.


  • 33 Peter // Jan 15, 2020 at 2:11 PM

    The odd bunch are out attacking the messenger. They don’t like the message. They’d rather “google” their evidence than trust a respected organisation like the CSIRO, BOM or NASA.

    Probably into flat earth, anti-vax, fake moon landing, Chemtrails and all that other crazy conspiracy stuff available on the net. ”

    The fact is we are all enmeshed in the carbon economy that is causing climate change. The only way we can really change this is at a government level.


  • 34 MARK RICHARDSON // Jan 15, 2020 at 2:31 PM

    Peter we have taken action and spent our money on renewable technology , what have you done .

    Fletcher you are the one lecturing everyone on climate change so yes what you are doing is relevant.

    With no positive response from you i would say your contribution is zero you are a climate change fraud !!

    You have zero credibility on this issue .


  • 35 Mark Fletcher // Jan 15, 2020 at 2:44 PM

    Mark, I am lecturing no one. This blog is a place where I publish my opinions on a range of matters. No one asks you to stop by and read.

    On this topic, my focus has been on the awful behaviour of News Corp, which has now been called our by James Murdoch.

    Thanks for your judgement Mark, again.


  • 36 Peter // Jan 15, 2020 at 2:54 PM

    Mark, without major Government action on climate change, what you do individually is important, but it won’t prevent the worst effects of climate change. Trying to shut down debate by attacking individuals carbon footprints or implying one country is more responsible than another is the method of the desperate and weak.


  • 37 Paul // Jan 15, 2020 at 4:05 PM

    Reminds me of Extinction Rebellion – lets just protest tell everyone how wrong we/they are and do nothing but add to the problem with no REAL fix and Mark you do rightly so push your own agenda and you can along with all the press you don’t like
    Its all the same


  • 38 Mark Fletcher // Jan 15, 2020 at 4:12 PM

    Oh, Mark, stop making stuff up. Yes, I have published my opinion and, yes, I have disagreed here with some. I have not denied anyone the opportunity too do he same, to voice their opinion. News Corp. on the other hand, publishes false information and does not publish counter opinions nor the science based facts.

    Hey, Paul, if I didn’t like opposing comments here I’d shut them down.


  • 39 Paul // Jan 15, 2020 at 5:05 PM

    Hey Mark if you did shut them down there wouldn’t be much to read Sorry what did i make up


  • 40 Graeme Day // Jan 15, 2020 at 8:01 PM

    I wish I could say the same thing as succintly as you have put it.
    There are many variables and not one huge blanket solution This blatant “You are wrong I am Right” is not going to solve any problems.
    This issue Climate Change has taken a media frenzy position from both sides and broad brushed into a one side arguments in fairness from both sides -me versus you.
    It is like all problems a step at a time to get to cause and effect and not a giant leap of uniform solution
    Bush Fires seperate issue -Carbon emission seperate issue global Warming seperate issue -emotional out of controlusing headline news withour scrutiny and then by linking all this into one cause will fade but in the meantime causes unnecessary division
    Mark in his defense is compassionate and what he believes is absolute and if you have another especially a different opinion then you are Wrong
    He has told me so on this his blog and unfortunately it closes any argument or creditabily he is trying to present
    Selective criteria for sensible discussion can be usefule once it has been examined however dictated it remains selective not constructrive.
    I am also concerned that this selective critisism is happenning within our industry and thus devaluing
    our true worth this is the feed back I get from enquiries believe the negativity is frustrating to explian the conflict of such opinion that we publish Lotto is bad and cannot be sustainable and the Press especially Murdoch is no good etc.
    At the coal face this blog does not support buyer ensuthiasm


  • 41 Peter // Jan 15, 2020 at 8:24 PM

    Graeme, if you believe the science ( I do) and you believe the vast majority of reputable scientific organisations (I do ), then you understand the urgency. The time for debate on climate change is well and truly over. As far as this blog goes, I dare say it wasn’t created to “stimulate buyer enthusiasm”. I think Mark wanted it to be a forum to discuss the good and the bad of the Newsagency channel. Like climate change you can’t just pretend the bad isn’t happening. If you and others are not happy, why not create your own blog where hard copy newspapers will go on forever and climate change doesn’t exist. Andrew T can be your editor in chief


  • 42 Graeme Day // Jan 15, 2020 at 9:23 PM

    Peter I find you comments insulting to human intelligence the debate is just begun THIS is reality
    Sure it needs formulating as for your comments on my attitude to hard copy newspapers you have made this up
    I am well known for transition for newwsagents and have implement many a change which is ongoing
    Accusations such as your cause conflict not solutions.
    Maybe your emotion in telling me what;s best for me and who should be my Editor in Chief spells out your lack of maturity
    You can take on board that if I wanted to start a Blog that I am very capable of doing so
    I do not need advice from you
    Discussion is fine ,arrogance of percieved knowledge is what is happenning with your comments.


  • 43 Mark Fletcher // Jan 16, 2020 at 12:43 AM

    Graeme arrogance of percieved knowledge is core to the problem with climate change debate as it suggests denial – in this case of Peter’s focus on the scientific evidence. I am withPeter in believing the experts in this field, the scientists who have proven that the earth is facing extinction unless there is urgent change. This whole post started because of News Corp’s continued denial about the facts of climate change.


  • 44 Graeme Day // Jan 16, 2020 at 6:35 AM

    Mark, this post started because you made an issue of climate change and turned an issue into an assummed fact Noboby not one person has “proved that the Earth is facing extinction unless there is urgent change” Change yes -debate as to what’ s causing it everything thing from Bush Fires to Asthma.
    Who’s to Bless and Who’s to Blame -has been the theme on this Blog.
    There are many learned peolple who also have a say re this, people who have lived Bush, worked mines and are Farmers qualified to discuss their experiences look up The Salt Bush Club where you can read articles from peolpe real peolple who have experience and wish to share. these are not Headline Murdoch -News Corp or Fairfax ABC’s
    Argue with them and you may get a sensible debate oh sorry it’s already too late for discussion the World self as we know destructs next Tuesday and if it doesn’t then it will be the following week In the meanwhile the RFS will be putting out Bush Fires started by lightning and humans


  • 45 Graeme Day // Jan 16, 2020 at 7:07 AM

    There is plenty to read and interviews to see actual people including a Scientist who worked with CSIRO discussing all of this without the emotional rage. look up


  • 46 Mark Fletcher // Jan 16, 2020 at 7:34 AM

    Graeme, I wrote this post solely to sine a light on what one News Corp employee said about their company’s appalling coverage of climate change.

    Climate expert scientists around the world have written about the extinction timeline in evidence based peer-reviewed papers.

    As for your comment about emotional rage, not sure what you mean.


  • 47 Graeme Day // Jan 16, 2020 at 7:42 AM

    The rage from the Press in general is News unworthy headline stuff. Imentioned this in my previous post.


  • 48 Mark Fletcher // Feb 4, 2020 at 9:28 PM


  • 49 Graeme Day // Feb 5, 2020 at 8:25 AM

    Thanks Mark A very good illustration supporting my post 47 The media is its own circus of political bias.


  • 50 Peter // Feb 5, 2020 at 9:25 AM

    who do you see as the propagandist in the video from post number 48 ?


  • 51 Graeme Day // Feb 5, 2020 at 5:24 PM

    Interesting Question.
    I see it as two diffent view points If you’re trying to seperate the proposed idea as to its opposition then it’s clear.However I am commenting on the emotional rage of journalist to a fro using their political bias as a point. This is illustrated in the direct aim at individuals rather than discuusing the matter in itself. I am an issues person and prefer to play the ball rather than the man.
    I have stated this many times and the video illustrates why it is rabble versus rabble in deliverance whereas it could have been intelligent debate.
    I believe the debate is far from over however it’s not a matter of which side wins it’s a matter of how this subject is to be addressed with a positive outcome and what that is hasn’t been decided as far as I am concerned. There was little substance in the rabble I believe and therefore the whole lot was propaganda
    The meaning of proaganda -is the spreading of information in support of a cause…it is often used in a negative sense, especially for politicians campaigning etc etc, in this case both are guilty of campaigning therefore both are propagandists.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Reload Image