NOT long after Media Watch went to air last night with its item about sea level’s disappointing refusal to rise as quickly as recipients of climate science grants would wish, Sultan of Smug Jonathan Holmes was exchanging tweets with detractors, admirers and friends. Background Briefing’s Wendy Carlisle was very definitely in the third category.
Now visitors to this blog may recall a series of recent posts on the topic of Carlisle’s poxed work, The Lord Monckton Roadshow. These cited, and linked to, documents she presented as supporting her contentions that
(a) Fred Singer rejected the link between tobacco and cancer,
(b) polar biologists did not attribute drowned polar bears to a storm, rather than a lack of ice, and
(c) Viscount Monckton’s number for sea-level rise is wrong, but less so than Al Gore’s.
Upon examination, it became clear those same documents actually refuted her narrative’s assertions, which were the product of (a) mischief, (b) misrepresentation and (c) mis-reading.
When avid tweeter spot_the_dog brought the posts to her attention, she dealt with the matter by the simple expedient of banishing him, and his questions, from her in box. This is an example of the arrogance others who question her reporting have also tasted. How Holmes reacted to notes from Bunyipitude readers – several have written to say they alerted the media watchdog to his ABC colleague’s travesty -- remains unknown, as no public word or tweet on the topic has passed his well-paid lips.
He has, however, been a good deal more forthcoming with Carlisle, who sent him a little tweet as the sea-level item was coming to an end.
@Wendycarlisle Wendy Carlisle
…which prompted the following exchange:
jonaholmesMW Jonathan Holmes@Wendycarlisle at least ABC gave CSIRO a right of replyin reply:@Wendycarlisle Wendy Carlisle@jonaholmesMW yes we shld be thankful for that. But gave Brady a cred that was undeserved. Had you seen it?
There was another tweet, too, with a jocular references to “passing the bottle” and Carlisle making a mock apology for her “impertinent filthy question”. One gets the distinct impression these two are (a) bonza cobbers, (b) ardent warmists and (c) further united by a contempt for those who are not.
Perhaps Holmes has been too busy to set shared climate convictions aside and examine his ABC colleague’s handiwork, but that seems unlikely in the light of the gusto with which he picked at The Australian’s sea-level story. Meanwhile, the duo's display of public affection and mutual regard does raise the suspicion that Holmes will always prefer to look anywhere but in Carlisle’s direction for his show’s targets. And if he has trouble finding them, Carlisle will provide a few suggestions to confirm his aim.
What was it they used to say about Caesar’s wife, that she should be above reproach?
The ABC, it never ceases to amaze. Here we have a fellow paid, and paid well, to keep an eye on slackness-and-worse in the media, yet demonstrating an affectionate eagerness to take advice from someone accused of slackness-or-worse in the media. Meanwhile, the unfortunate Brady, who scored Media Watch’s disdain for being not only a sceptic but a paleontologist to boot (be warned, Tim Flannery), cops both barrels and a salvo of sneers.
It really is an organization to make the jaw drop, their ABC, and not just for putting groupthink and bias on open display. When it comes to a brazen contempt even for the appearance of doing its duty, your tax dollars have never supported its equal.