by Bob Fernley-Jones
Regular readers of WUWT will likely recall the interview with Bob Ward of 2/Oct/2010, which resulted in strong ridicule of the ABC, that went viral on websites in Australia and around the world, such as at the UK Guardian and WUWT [1]. I raised a complaint to the ABC, including the listing of seven such websites, but it was rejected for reasons which are arguably based on strange and selective interpretations of their self-regulating Editorial Policies. (I continue with enquiries, but the wheels grind slowly). Here is ONE aspect of that rejection, where the “complaints unit” refused to admit that most listeners to the show were arguably misled. It resulted in insult and innuendo against Professor Bob Carter, whom was a guest writer at WUWT recently. Now seems a good time for a review of that one aspect. (Caution; this is in Oz English)
(1) The closing remark in the broadcast was:
Robyn Williams: “Bob Ward is policy director of the Grantham Institute of the LSE. [London School of economics] We invited Professor Carter to comment on those remarks but he declined. You can however read Ward’s critique and Professor Carter’s recent reply on our Science Show website…”
In fact, Professor Bob Carter declined an offer to a separate telephone interview, after the unheard interview of Ward. Instead, he strategically Emailed an already published reply based on previous experience with the PR-man-Ward’s assault on an oldish 2008 paper [2]. The following Email extracts refer, the first being from the producer David Fisher on 24/Sep/2010:
“…We’re broadcasting Mr Ward’s interview 2nd October. Ideally we would do a phone interview with you before end of Thursday 30th September and include this in our program of Oct 2. If you would like to respond, please call me and we’ll make an arrangement.
Here is part of Professor Carter’s reply of 26/Sep:
“…Mr Ward has a long history as a tireless public relations manager for the cause of global warming alarmism, and… …If you wish to quote me regarding Mr Ward’s views of my work, then please use the attached response to the extended essay that he published recently in the EAP Journal.
Meanwhile, on matters that are more strictly scientific [2], I remain happy to discuss issues with Robyn at any time. For instance, perhaps he might like to interview me regarding my recently published book, for which I attach a selection of review comments?” [3]
Thus, Professor Carter’s comments were supplied in writing, well before the requested cut-off date of 30/Sep. However, they were not used on the show, but were offered to the listeners on the website, which is arguably obtuse and inconvenient for most radio audiences.
(2) Now compare the experience of journalist Andrew Bolt:
Mr Bolt is also sceptical of the hypothesis of catastrophic AGW. His interview by journalist Robyn Williams followed unheard criticisms from Professor Jeff Severinghaus beforehand, wherein Bolt innocently thought it all to be nothing new, and answered to what he did know. To elaborate, here in part is what Williams wrote separately in an essay in Cosmos.
Williams: “…I duly brought back [the Jeff Severinghaus] interview to be broadcast on ABC Radio and, silly fellow that I am, thought Bolt might appreciate being given a right of reply…”
Amongst other things, it seems that Williams was deeply hurt when Bolt had the audacity to ask if Williams really thought that sea levels could rise by 100 metres this century. (which was under discussion, and the answer was yes). But sorry, I digress, and here is part of what Bolt later wrote in response to “being given a right of reply”, my underlining added:
Bolt: “This seems a bit underhand. Robyn Williams, host of the ABC’s Science Show, asked me on to answer criticisms he said Professor Jeff Severinghaus had made of my reporting of his study. That was fine. Although Williams didn’t tell me exactly what Severinghaus had said (in an interview immediately preceding mine), I got the chance to put my case – that nothing I’d written contradicted what his study of ice core samples said. So I appreciate having been given a chance to respond. But that wasn’t all Severinghaus accused me of…”
The whole article; “Answering Williams’ shameless slur” is interesting reading, including gems like Severinghaus writing to the Brisbane Sunday Mail in error, and it was this paper that failed to respond. (not Bolt’s Herald Sun in Melbourne, where it should have been addressed).
(3) Now to Williams’ concluding allegation; “We invited Professor Carter to comment on those remarks but he declined”:
In my Email of 14 December to the ABC “Complaints Unit” , (AKA ‘Audience and Consumer Affairs’ or A&CA), I wrote in part:
“…For instance, to take one point; it doesn’t really matter what YOUR new interpretation of professor Carter being invited onto the show means. What counts is what the LISTENER hears and comprehends. The INNUENDO to the listener was that Bob Carter was invited and declined, which is hardly fair…”
A&CA ignored that comment, and to elaborate; when I refer to “THEIR new interpretation”, if we go back to their Email of 8/November, they seemed to parallel the very point I was making about audience perception:
…I [Kirstin McLiesh, dept Head] note that Professor Carter was asked on to the show to respond to the criticisms made of his views and others by Bob Ward. Professor Carter declined, as Robyn Williams noted during the broadcast…
…In my view, the invitation made to Professor Carter to appear on the program, and the publication of his paper and response on the program website, indicate that the program was seeking to present its audience with a diversity of views on this subject…
…(notwithstanding Professor Carter declining the invitation to appear on the [2] October program)…
But then, on 13/Dec, after consideration of the Email exchange I supplied to A&CA as in (1) above, they changed tune and wrote in part, precisely what the radio listeners could not be expected to know:
We regret you have misinterpreted Robyn William’s explanation of the invitation to Professor Carter in the program. The request to him to take part in a pre-recorded interview is what was meant by “inviting” him onto the program. We feel our use of this term also may have mislead you but this is a standard way of describing a request for someone to participate in a pre-recorded show on the ABC.
[some extra padding deleted]
In the course of the interview, which also would have been pre-recorded, Robyn Williams would* have verbally put the criticisms Bob Ward made of Professor Carter to him in the form of questions or statements. This is a fairly standard journalistic practice and should not be considered a sinister or underhand approach. Furthermore, I [Claire Morgan, for McLiesh] do not believe that there is anything untoward in the manner in which the material provided by Professor Carter was handled by the Science Show team. It was posted onto the website and it was referred to on air.
*I suggest they should have said ’might’ rather than ‘would’, going by the experience of Andrew Bolt in (1) above! And, it is relevant to know that something A&CA as an “independent group” admit to is that they seek advice on complaints from the affected department, which is quite likely to include advice framed in self-interest.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] WUWT website, (Watts Up With That), was recently voted “Best Science Website” in the 2011 Bloggies Awards.
[2] See biography and impressive scientific publication record etc: Robert (Bob) M. Carter Please click the buttons at the base of the page! See transcript and audio on Bob Ward interview here Note that the introduction by Williams starts with: “Bob Ward says those who seek to reinterpret the science of climate change often have minimal publication records…” I wonder if Williams and Ward are aware that Bob Carter is an active scientist and has been an author in some 100 research papers and much more. (click those buttons on his website!). However, these scant commentators have the gall to clarion that the learned professor is incompetent!
[3] It’s a tad off topic, but it is interesting to note, re 2nd Email in (1), that Professor Carter’s proposal to discuss his acclaimed book was declined, yet recently the “Science Show” did two full 1-hour jobs on Tim Flannery’s and then Naomi Oreskes’ new books, oh, and also a nice chat with David Suzuki, all three of whom have a very different take than the professor. Of course, this a is typical attitude as seen in other mainstream media and the so-called consensus.
About Bob Fernley-Jones
I’m a retired mechanical engineer, and I guess that because in my science, any bad assumptions can get people killed, I have an abhorrence of many things that are perpetrated by academics in some areas of science. In the case of so-called climate science, the culture and bias in some media is also repugnant to me. I’m hoping that the ABC will improve its self regulating policies and culture to eliminate bias, and this website is under development towards that end. (if necessary).
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Hi Tango – you wrote in part: “In a Australia to listen to the ABC you have to agree to the green agenda or be brain dead or both.”
Now I still listen to the ABC and I’m neither green nor yet brain dead, although I will soon be the latter, as I’m very, very old, or so I’m told.
I may be old but in my heart, I’m still an ABC Argonaut.
I love the ABC!
It’s just the presenters, the producers and the programs that I dislike.
It’s not the Greens’ ABC.
It’s not the Governemt’s ABC!
It is the National Broadcaster!
It belongs to all of Ausies.
We wll prevail (eventually).
I stopped noting the ABC, except for classical music and Miss Marple, some time ago. Abolition is the only answer. Privatisation is a thought but probably aimless. The Corporation is clearly answerable to neither parliament or people. It is utterly devoid of integrity. Knowing that brings no pleasure to one who, until recently, had listened avidly since childhood in the early 1960s. The loss is great but lost it is.
Bob Fernley-Jones – you have quoted the chairman of the ABC.
I once knew him personally – he obviously does not believe in fairies.
I have written to him, as I’m sure many others have done.
We should keep it up.
There is a feint change occurring in some parts of the ABC.
Particularly the new 7.30 line up (was 7.30 Report) .
All we need is impartiality.
What is happening in the field of climate at present is the most exciting story since the fall of the Berlin wall.
Science – economics – politics – power supply stability – potential loss of billions of superannuation money poured into failed green funds – you name it – all rolled up into one.
One day some smart reported and some producer or editor WILL pick it up and run with it.
May that be soon.
Bob Fernley-Jones
THe structure of the ABC is very strange.
There is a proper seperation of board and management, so that the board may not interfere with operational matters.
Then there is the old newspaper ethos, where the managing director does not interfere with editors / producers.
The idea was to ensure that the working reporters are free to fearlessly tell the truth and not be knobled by the political or financial interests of the owners.
This has become quite distorted at the ABC.
Staff are free to pursue their political views, quite free from Board or top management oversight.
Eventually this will have to change.
I suspect that by nailing their flag to the AGW masthead, the proponents are creating the situation, when the stables will be at last cleaned out.
You only had to observe how the ABC treated the visit of Lord Christopher Monckton to Australia in Feb 2010 to determine their deeply ingrained culture regarding AGW.
Despite the fact that Monckton is a world recognised spokesman against global warming alarmism. he did not once appear on the popular ABC 7.30 Report following National News. To cover his visit, they instead had a segment with carefully short edited Monckton clips with no less than 3 champions of AGW to comment on them. The process was obviously designed to ridicule Monckton.
At no time was Monckton allowed to answer these comments live which I am sure he would have been delighted to do. As opposed to this the ABC has had countless in depth interviews on both the 7.30 Report and Lateline spinning the party line.
At the time when polls showed that more half of the population had doubts about the extent of human activity on global warming, this is nothing short of scandalous for a publically funded media organisation.
What the ABC is frightened of I am not sure but they continue to orchestrate and manipulate public opinion by stifling debate with any-one that questions AGW. Monckton’s visit was successful but he had to do it at grass roots level in town hall gatherings without any national media coverage.
With a carbon tax well and truly on the table now, sceptics will need all their forces co-ordinated and show great will and determination, because the fight is going to be biased, ugly and dirty. And led by the ABC.
Jack @ur momisugly March 16, 2011 at 12:31 pm
I can rarely bring myself to watch QandA on ABC TV (Question and Answer), unless the panel make-up might indicate an interesting debate, even with Tony Jones in the chair. One such that I remember well, involved Andrew Bolt whom is sceptical of catastrophic AGW. He was introduced to the audience as “controversial newspaper columnist Andrew Bolt”, and was sat next to Greg Hunt, (shadow minister for climate change, environment and water). Hmmm, could be interesting I thought, but no, not as I thought, because Tony Jones did not field climate change. (?! Odd!). Nevertheless, I sat it through, and I thought it hilarious at one point when the debate turned to Afghanistan, and Andrew Bolt made the other “experts” on the panel look like rather hollow “armchair experts” when he said something along the lines that he had formed his views after having visited Afghanistan several times.
For video or transcripts and more, including all past programmes go here:
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s2521164.htm
A more recent one that was rather interesting was when Tim Flannery (Hyper-Greenie mammalian fossil expert and Australian of the year 2007) appeared together with Barnaby Joyce. (leader of the Nationals in the Senate, Shadow Minister for water and stuff). Barnaby’s attitude towards Flannery and Jones was of palpable dislike, although he wasn‘t given much opportunity. See video etc here:
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s3138582.htm
Incidentally, you may find this recent so-called “Science Show” interview of Tim Flannery (chair of the governments enquiry on climate change) interesting, but as a caution, have your vomit bag ready. Sheez, he is said to be salaried $180,000 for his part-time job as chair!
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2011/3101365.htm
I see that commenter Treeman feels that the ABC is showing some signs of change, quoting the most recent programme solely with our great leader Julia Gillard, and I’ll continue this Tony Jones thing by way of response to him shortly.
Jack @ur momisugly March 16, 2011 at 12:31 pm
Further to my earlier comment, I forgot to mention that although Dr Jennifer Marohasy’s Oz-website which you cited has relatively low traffic compared with WUWT, it is, nevertheless, in my opinion of extremely high quality. I strongly recommend that all visitors at WUWT, also visit her HOME page here:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/
After my article here “has dropped off the bottom of the page“ at WUWT, (which typically happens quite rapidly), I hope that Jennifer may mirror it, and keep it warm in Oz, and I’m about to Email her to that effect since it is a rather Oz-centric topic.
A concern I have with the web is that issues tend to spread rapidly around, and then they all die within a short period. Thus, I reckon that mirror posts might better be separated in time, to keep them alive for longer.
” (Caution; this is in Oz English)”
Is there any other kind?
An important point.
It is the conversation reported above between Robin Williams and Andrew Bolt over sea level rises in this century, said by Williams at possibly 100 metres. Robin Williams answered “YES” to confirm his point to Andrew .
How can the ABC justify engaging Robin Williams as a presenter of science .?
It is possible that the sea may rise up to 0.5 metres this century, but it’s not likely. I am a person who has lived close by the sea for over 70 years in Australia.
He appears to have no idea of the actual situation.
We are all aware that mankinds presence on earth is making it very difficult for the ecology, because of our 300% increase in the world population over the past 80 years.
Barack Obama wants more nuclear power generation in the USA.
That is ,it seems, until Japans incident over the last week .
I can’t believe it, we’ve had nine weeks of “The Science Show” without good ole faith based AGW. Is Robyn asleep at the wheel? a sceptical conversion? or perhaps he has been told by senior management to rein in the rhetoric.
everything I have read here about ABC could just as easily be applied to the other state controlled mother company the BBC.
The BBC broadcasts via Five Live radio a show hosted by Rhod Sharp and every Wednesday morning at around 03:00 a section that uses an Oz ‘legend’ one Dr Karl Sven Woytek Sas Konkovitch Matthew Kruszelnicki [Dr Karl]who answers science based questions from emailers/twitters etc.
Oz based he is convinced that humans are causing AGW. Sadly the BBC never allow a balanced show and anyone that questions the Warmist view is never able to put a question. I have tried via various channels but failed dismally.
All hail the impartiality of the BBC!
I have noticed in the last few weeks that programmes on the BBC such as ‘Countryfile’ appear to have new scriptwriters as the once-obligatory pro AGW statements that were uttered wherever appropriate by the show’s presenters have ceased. It makes an excellent programme better!
I would like to think that Robyn Williams might, just might eventually move to an even handed examination of the of the case for and the case against Anthropogenic Global Warming, but Tony Jones will go down kicking and screaming if he ever gets “tested” on the extent of his bias. I watched him twist words of a scientist who was adopting a reasonable neutral opinion as to the cyclic nature and natural cause of the Queensland floods, you could see that this was irritating Jones, who waited for an oportunity to suggest to the scientist that Global warming, might also be a factor, it was clever use of the words, and the scientist hesitated but could not emphatically discount the question in the way it was worded, so he answered in the way Jones wanted, the interview was then cut and Jones filled in the rest attributing that as an extreme event and went on to link the flooding to way out predictions that such events were expected to become more frequent and extreme as a result.
The look on his face when he succeeded was so smug, that he had been able to get at least a partial acceptance from a scientist who had made no such claims during any other media interviews, which is most unusual on Australian Television. He reminds me of a Kevin Rudd (deposed prime minister) mini me, full of his own importance. It seems he also has KRudds infamous tantrums as well, when things go against him. I say invite him along not as the interviewer, but as a participant with Williams as the presiding person and two of the leading sceptical scientists, one scientist from the Bureau of meterology and one from the CSIRO, oh and Andrew Bolt to counter Mr smug, Tony Jones. Or if they don’t like Andrew Bolt, Joanne Nova would be suitable – great TV I’d say. Bring it on ABC!
Alexander K says:
March 17, 2011 at 2:46 am
I have noticed in the last few weeks that programmes on the BBC such as ‘Countryfile’ appear to have new scriptwriters as the once-obligatory pro AGW statements that were uttered wherever appropriate by the show’s presenters have ceased. It makes an excellent programme better!
________________
Well, it would be even better without the awful muzak and even more awful ‘swooshing thump’ sounds that accompany a change to a new ‘segment’…ghastly.
I am angry with both the BBC and ABC for the way they are so biased and lefty-liberal (i.e. deeply illiberal), and they either can’t, or won’t, see it. The classical music stations on both are the only ones I can listen to without my BP rising. The News on the BBC, and also, I’m afraid, on ITV and Channel 4 seems always to push the CAGW line.
Bob Fernley-Jones says
bad assumptions can get people killed
Yet you fail to take issue with this from Andrew Bolt’s blog:
In fact, as the University of California’s Professor Jeff Severinghaus and others note, at least three studies of ice cores show the earth first warmed and only then came more carbon dioxide, many hundreds of years later. So does extra carbon dioxide cause a warming world, or vice versa?
It’s a false dilemma, why can’t it be both? Severinghaus acknowledges as much and it is Bolt’s failure to do so, assuming that only one or the other can be true, that makes this a misrepresentation of the science.
You failure to address Bolt’s shaky logic suggests that, rather than “bad assumptions”, it is assumptions you disagree with, regardless of merit, that you abhor.
Kevin MacDonald,
Rising CO2 is a function of rising temperature, not a cause.
That blows a hole in the CO2=CAGW conjecture. But that conjecture has always been on shaky ground. There is no empirical evidence whatever showing that more CO2 raises global temperatures.
Smokey says:
March 17, 2011 at 4:57 am
Kevin MacDonald,
Rising CO2 is a function of rising temperature, not a cause.
As ever, you fail to grasp my point. Rising CO² levels are indeed a function of rising temperatures, but it doesn’t follow that it cannot be a cause of them too. To argue otherwise is a non-sequitur and makes no more sense than arguing that because eggs are a product of chickens, chickens cannot be a product of eggs.
Kevin MacDonald says:
March 17, 2011 at 7:28 am
All I have ever seen is the assertion that causes unknown start the warming, then CO2 takes over. Why can’t the causes unknown be the cause of further warming?
DaveE.
Get with the programme, Mr McDonald. The science is settled, human emissions officially cause devastating earthquakes and are already making the planet inhospitable to all life. Yet here you are, merely saying that it’s not impossible that rising CO2 levels could warm the planet.
Sigh…
True, it’s not impossible. However, there is a stunning lack of supporting evidence to suggest that it either has done, is doing or ever will do. Stable measured atmospheric opacity to longwave radiation, versus a demonstration of heating a 100% CO2-containing sealed bottle. Surely you can grasp why a few stubbornly independent minds may not yet have accepted every tenet of AGW hook, line and sinker?
Treeman @ur momisugly March 16, 2011 at 2:10 pm
I did not watch the Q&A episode with Julia Gillard, our great leader but no panel, but I think you may be right that host Tony Jones is maybe becoming more investigative on political issues. If that is because someone has whispered in his ear, that’s fine, but I don’t think it has worked yet when it comes to climate issues.
As chair, he not only controls what questions are asked, but then steers the debate by prompting or interrupting the panel members. For instance in the previous programme, he announced the agenda thus:
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s3151089.htm
The political issue was the proposed “carbon tax”, but the questioner asked if the “tea party” syndrome in the USA might take over in Oz and drive a revolt against it. The debate was carefully steered by Jones to be mostly about the “tea party”, and this was the only question taken on the big issue of “carbon tax” that had generated so much heat in previous days.
I see that KenB has made some comments about Tony Jones, and in response to him, I’ll continue with that theme shortly.
If you think this created some sort of storm, sorry till I read this I had not even heard of this as an issue, of course using your own website as one of the points of that so called storm is a little much.
As far as Carter goes, yes the man is well published but much of his work relates to his field Stratigraphy/Geology his own website lists his publications
http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/new_page_4.htm
He does even still publish in what are classed as high level science journals (but they are few) and those couple of papers are back to his field and not AGW skeptical, what unfortunately is also obvious to anyone familiar with these sorts of journals is that those listed that could be classed as ‘skeptical’ are not in those sorts of journals but things like Economic Analysis & Policy, World Economics or a conference proceeding from the “Australasian Institute of Mining & Metallurgy” preaching to the converted!
And of course Environment & Energy well known in the science community, and ignored. As it quickly became known they would publish just about anything as long as it was skeptical of AGW.
If Carter is being ridiculed, he brings it on himself, he is linked/creator of 4-5 groups he and in NZ that style themselves heavily on similar U.S. groups these don’t offer science, but are aimed squarely at the general public, who have little idea if what they are being told is factual.
A prime example of that are references to the climate of the planet 500 million years ago, a point used by Carter, Monckton and Plimer, it is not and never has been a valid point, as regardless of the CO2 content, other variables like solar activity, continental position and currents where vastly different and there was also little land based life so the albedo of the land was also very different to today, soil and sand has an albedo of 30-40 while forest/plantlife is around half that effect at 10-20, any geologist should know that and not try to draw such a comparison, as it is deliberately misleading.
That sort of thing is why both Carter & Plimer have lost credibility in the science community not because of fictional conspiracy theories.
AusieDan @ur momisugly March 16, 2011 at 7:31 pm and @ur momisugly March 16, 2011 at 7:39 pm
Yes and yes!
Concerning the structure and culture within the ABC, this article “Climate balance urged at ABC”, from The Australian newspaper is of interest. The opening paragraph is:
And, further down, rather depressingly:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/climate-balance-urged-at-abc/story-e6frg996-1225839329115
I recall that Andrew Bolt (prominent sceptical commentator on catastrophic AGW) has also written somewhere words to the effect that he was ambushed by Media Watch staff. One would think that this programme should be impartial.
Dan says:
“And of course Environment & Energy well known in the science community, and ignored. As it quickly became known they would publish just about anything as long as it was skeptical of AGW.”
Dan certainly sees thing upside down. The position that is skeptical of the AGW hypothesis is the null hypothesis, against which the alternative AGW hypothesis must be tested. That is the scientific method in action. Observations and experiments always trump pal reviewed papers and computer models.
There is ample empirical evidence for natural climate variability, but there is no empirical evidence for AGW, which is a conjecture based on computer models and radiative physics. There may be some minuscule warming attributable to AGW. But there is no testable, quantifiable evidence.
And since the Climategate emails show how corrupted and cowed the climate journals are, other peer review journals must be used; the Mann/Jones-controlled climate journals deliberately scheme to keep AGW skeptics’ papers out, making the climate journals agenda-driven instead of science-driven. There is no doubt about this, it is routinely discussed in the Climategate emails.
If Dan ever decides to follow the scientific method, he should demand that equal journal pages must be given to scientific skeptics – who certainly have the superior arguments and better facts.
Let’s face it: AGW hysteria is a multi-billion dollar business. It is based on a message of impending climate disaster, which is based on computer model simulations cited by IPCC, the organization responsible for creating and fueling the hysteria.
The media have been willing pawns. Whether it’s ABC, the BBC or CNN, one of the major weapons used by those who are promoting AGW hysteria is one-sided, biased reporting through the media.
IPCC ratcheted up the scare through new summary reports predicting warming of several degrees with a resulting major rise in sea levels , severe weather events, droughts, floods, storms, extinction of species, mass immigrations, etc.
To show concern for “dangerous AW” was “in”. It was the “PC” view to express.
Nobel Peace Prizes (and an Oscar) were being awarded to the purveyors of the dAGW message.
Many politicians also took up the cause, in the interest of being able to control national energy economies through new taxation and regulation of carbon.
Media networks, such as ABC, BBC, etc. willingly jumped on the bandwagon to help sell this message. Besides, disaster stories sell well, as they increase ratings and circulation.
Climategate, etc. has brought a major change in the public perception of IPCC and climate science in general. No longer are most people willing to simply swallow the dAGW party line.
While the billions of dollars at stake are slowing the process down, a move away from dAGW is slowly coming to the mainstream media, as well.
ABC and BBC may just be a bit slower in catching on, but they will eventually change, as well (possibly with a change of some key personnel who “failed to get the word”).
It’s good that we have individuals out there like Bob Fernley-Jones, who are willing to challenge the one-sided reporting of their national TV channels in order to “keep them honest”.
Max