Guest essay by Eric Worrall
University of Melbourne “Centre for Advancing Journalism” academic Denis Muller believes climate censorship should be added to legally binding journalistic professional codes of conduct.
Media ‘impartiality’ on climate change is ethically misguided and downright dangerous
January 31, 2020 6.11am AEDT
Denis Muller
Senior Research Fellow in the Centre for Advancing Journalism, University of MelbourneIn September 2019, the editor of The Conversation, Misha Ketchell, declared The Conversation’s editorial team in Australia was henceforth taking what he called a “zero-tolerance” approach to climate change deniers and sceptics. Their comments would be blocked and their accounts locked.
His reasons were succinct:
Climate change deniers and those shamelessly peddling pseudoscience and misinformation are perpetuating ideas that will ultimately destroy the planet.
…
But in the era of climate change, this conventional approach is out of date. A more analytical approach is called for.
…
Harm is a long-established criterion for abridging free speech. John Stuart Mill, in his seminal work, On Liberty, published in 1859, was a robust advocate for free speech but he drew the line at harm:
[…] the only purpose for which power can be exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.
It follows that editors may exercise the power of refusing to publish climate-denialist material if doing so prevents harm to others, without violating fundamental free-speech principles.
Other harms too provide established grounds for limiting free speech. Some of these are enforceable at law – defamation, contempt of court, national security – but speech about climate change falls outside the law and so becomes a question of ethics.
The harms done by climate change, both at a planetary level and at the level of human health, are well-documented and supported by overwhelming scientific evidence.
…
External guidance is nonexistent. The ethical codes promulgated by the media accountability bodies – the Australian Press Council and the Australian Communications and Media Authority – make no mention of how impartiality should be achieved in the context of climate change. The Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance’s code of ethics is similarly silent.
These bodies would serve the profession and the public interest by developing specific standards to deal with the issue of climate change, and guidance about how to meet them. It is not an issue like any other. It is existential on a scale surpassing even nuclear war.
…
Read more: https://theconversation.com/media-impartiality-on-climate-change-is-ethically-misguided-and-downright-dangerous-130778
The problem with comparing discussion of climate change to shouting “fire” in a burning theatre is one of immediacy.
Shouting “fire” to create a fake panic in a movie cinema is punishable, because it has been amply demonstrated through experience that creating a fake panic causes immediate, measurable harm; we know through observation of past events that people can be hurt or even killed during the resulting stampede.
But a public comment disputing alarmist climate claims; not so much.
The author’s comparison of climate change to an imminent nuclear war is absurd. Climate change is a gradual process, with significant changes taking decades or even centuries to manifest.
Even if climate skeptics were totally wrong, there is no justification for shutting down our right to be wrong. Unlike shouting “fire” in a crowded theatre, no single climate “shout”, no matter how wrong, has the potential to alter the trajectory of society to such an extent that measurable harm could be ascribed to it.
If society lowers the bar of censorship to such an extent that publicly supporting a position which might be wrong but which causes no immediate harm qualifies as a punishable offence, then we have lost more than our right to free speech.
For anyone that’s interested in the subject of free speech, a well known British journalist, Toby Young, is in the process of setting up a free speech Union.
In the wake of the Ricky Gervaise, Laurence Fox, Alistair Stewart and the late Roger Scrutton scandals (Alistair Stewart was recently sacked from his job of 40 years as one of the nations best known News Readers for quoting Shakespeare in a tweet; with a reference to an ape, that a known black agitator objected to) many of us have had enough of oppressive WOKE behaviour.
The only criteria for membership is a desire to support free speech.
The object of the exercise is to raise sufficient funds to allow these people to challenge their sacking in court if necessary, so no one else loses their job to WOKE culture.
At the time of writing this I believe full membership is £45 and associate membership £25. I will be paying my £25 by way of support as I suspect I will never require the services of the full membership as I am not a high profile character.
I will add that I’m not sure if membership is open to anyone outside the UK.
Toby can be contacted at: jsmillsociety@gmail.com
Twitter: @toadmeister or @SpeechUnion
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/toby.young.50
HotScot,
Does the organisation have a web site? I don’t do Twitter et al but am interested.
Oldseadog
They don’t have a web site yet. If you open a Twitter account you needn’t use it other than to keep a check on Toby’s announcements.
Surely the comparison with shouting fire in a crowded theatre when there isn’t a fire fits more closely with the behaviour of the climate alarmists. Shouting that the world is on fire when it isn’t.
DING DING DING
We have a winner!
Where is this”overwhelming scientific evidence”? I have not yet been overwhelmed.
Phillip Bratby
I was a believer in ‘Global Warming’, then I was incredibly underwhelmed by the ‘evidence’ behind it.
I may not be bright enough to fully understand all the answers, so all I can do is keep asking questions – and as far as I can see, sceptics are ahead by a country mile.
Careful Phillip they will ship you off to the re-education camp until you see the evidence. That is basically where this all goes next because he is basically saying it is a crime.
From the Climate Fascist dictionary
“Overwhelming Scientific Evidence” = Mountains of “pal reviewed” bullshit in supposedly “learned” journals whose leadership has been taken over by fellow Climate Fascists in order to promote the propaganda.
In essence, the only thing “overwhelming” about it is the sheer quantity that one needs to sift through to figure out that what they really have is nothing more than “hypothetical bullshit.”
They do not even realise the ‘harm’ they are doing. They can say what they will, whenever and whatever, and truth is, or is not. It’s not relevant. Sorry for that Jeff but I don’t even care.
I have been desperate to have a conversation with a politician or a journalist without success. My life is affected, theirs is not. If any of the fools from the ABC or The Conversation would have the guts to speak to me I would be most willing. They ‘trust the science’ to the point that a ‘conversation’ isn’t even necessary. They trust the science of those who have sold out. Facts are no longer relevant, follow the money. If you don’t agree with the CC point of view then you are not a true scientist.
The fact is if you don’t question the theory and seek to reaffirm that theory with imput from peers then you are not a scientist of integrity, putting truth before popular opinion.
Truth is no longer relevant. I am tired of being told that I am not relevant and what I have to say is irrelevant.
I am not OK.
People often mention the “precautionary” principle, in connection with Climate Change, as being the best option.
If we compare this to ‘shouting “fire” in a crowded theater’, you could argue that this would be a good precautionary measure, just in case a fire would break out – it would save lots of lives in theory.
The skeptic would say there is little chance of fire in the theater and thus the precautionary “fire” alarm would be not be helpful and deprive the audience the enjoyment of the play.
The alarmist would argue there has been reports that the frequency of fire in theaters may be on drastic increase and that we should avoid huge assemblies indoors, thus it would be better for people not to enjoy the theater – a sacrifice that must be done for the sake of the society, healthcare, etc.
I love it – shouting “fire” when there is no fire is pre-emptive precautionary principle warning…
Media believe they have the skills and morale right to instruct and guide the uneducated masses.
THEY know best.
YOU do not.
So, from their point of view you clearly have no right or ability to think for yourself. Do YOU have a Degree in Journalism?
Unfortunately this is how a lot of Lefties think. They DO believe they know best, and since they know best, it is only logical that they be placed in charge. You, however, do NOT know best, and if only you allowed those much smarter people to use their wisdom to control your life then you would be better. The fact you don’t give a toss about what they think and would really prefer for them to just leave you alone only proves to them that you are too stupid to rule your own lives.
The extension to this is why Lefties often refuse to debate. To debate would admit that there are other equally valid points of view that, within individual contexts, can be correct. This they cannot do. This would prove they were wrong with their base assumptions and they in fact do NOT know best.
This would mean that great parts of their lives have been for nothing and no-one, Left or Right, wants to be someone who has wasted huge parts of their lives.
They wont debate because they cannot debate. Debate equals failure. So they attempt to ban what they can’t brow beat.
The Left is never really about freedom. It is about control, for without control how can they, who remember know what is best for everyone, ensure the correct things happen.
Also the main role of higher education in modern society is to keep the unemployable out of the crowded job market. Without universities people like Denis would be working hospitality (and getting your orders wrong 😛 )
^This, every word of it. These mediocrities enter the fluffy subjects like journalism, poli sci, and sociology at Uni because they don’t have the talent or drive to tackle the genuinely challenging (and useful) subjects. There they join other mediocrities and put their brains in the hands of hardcore Marxist profs who convince them that being leftists makes them superior to the rest of us, and get sent out into the world to assert their right to rule over the bourgeoisie/deplorables.
Note to the chronically polite: it’s okay to hate them. They really do want to see you in reeducation camps.
Yes. To a large degee, all of this, in which climate change plays a part, is just a substitute for religion. It gives them meaning, and rationalizes why they should control society. They cannot accept the possibility of being wrong, their lives would be rendered meaningless and wasted.
A desire to censor opposition is a sure sign that the wannabe censors know that they are wrong, and their opponents are right.
“It follows that editors may exercise the power of refusing to publish climate-denialist material if doing so prevents harm to others”
What about the harm done to Greta Thunberg and countless other children scared to death, giving up their educations and surviving on anti-depressants brainwashed into believing they have no future and that the world will end in twelve years. This harm has been caused by people like Denis Muller and Misha Ketchell. Crimes against children are considered the most heinous when will they be held accountable.
so Biz as usual then?
fingers in ears
la la la la la etc
they know best and we proles should stfu or BE shut up
whole pile of IYI
So before Climate Change became the orthodoxy, i was the heterodoxy. Would these clowns have argued that Climate Change should not have been allowed a voice then? After all, the overwhelming majority of climate scientists didn’t agree that climate change was happening.
Nothing more than religious fanaticism, akin to the Catholic church and Galileo rather than modern science.
The Age has been noted in this post as the “Red Rag”. the “Communist Manifesto” or Aussie fascist nazis.
They are not the same. Fascism is far right, ultra nationalist & authoritarian. Nazism is a form of fascism & showed that ideology’s disdain for liberal democracy & the parliamentary system, but also incorporated hatred of Jews, eugenics & a belief in a master race into its creed. Both regimes were violently opposed to Liberalism, Marxism & Anarchism. Wikipedia.
So, what’s occurring at the Age? Muller & Ketchell are spouting Democratic Socialist beliefs & values.
Democratic socialism is a very different beast from social democracy as epitomised by the likes of the Scandinavian countries. Over there, social democracy is considered necessary, because “the poor are always with us”. But why are they poor? Is it genes or environment? The alliterative expression “nature or nurture” in English has been in use since at least the Elizabethan period & goes back to medieval French. Are we any nearer to solving that intractable conundrum?
Democratic socialism is the old wolf of communism dressed up in sheep’s clothing. In post 2008 politics, its hopes have been revived by snowflakes unschooled in the horrors of the Gulag. These millennials are rushing into the vacuum left by the apparent demise of the liberal consensus, which has governed western world politics since WWII. That old commie Bernie Sanders, now self classifies as a Democrat Socialist. The populist wave that gave us Brexit, Boris & President Trump happened because many, many millions of “the deplorables” are disenchanted with the “holier than thou” postures of leftist, social liberal, progressives, as exemplified by the array of hopeless Democrat Party candidates for the 2020 presidential elections.
When democratic socialism is in minority opposition, it acts as a lamb rather than a wolf. When in government however, the disguise is dropped to reveal its true nature with politicians whose watermelon mantra is “Do as we say; don’t do as we do”. Venezuela, Cuba & Zimbabwe are prime examples. The true nature of democratic socialism is a dictatorship, theoretically led by a class-based majority, AKA the putative proletariat. Of course, that’s not the truth, as was evidenced by the Nomenklatura in Soviet Russia. Democratic socialism is not compatible with, nor even viable, within anything other than a one-party state. The inevitable nature of dictatorships and one-party states is that they are always repressive police states & anything but democratic! Democratic Socialism is a complete misnomer. As Pravda laughingly means truth, so Nomenklatura is a more apt epithet for the Age.
The communist-socialist-fascist axis. The far-right is anarchist. The far-left is totalitarian.
Liberalism is divergent. Libertarianism is emergent. Progressivism is monotonic. Conservativism is moderating. #PrinciplesMatter
From the article: “University of Melbourne “Centre for Advancing Journalism” academic Denis Muller believes climate censorship should be added to legally binding journalistic professional codes of conduct.”
Denis Muller sounds like he works for the “Centre for Advancing Propaganda”.
We are to the point where a “journalist” thinks censorship should be part of his toolbox.
He should probably relocate to China. He would be much more comfortable there and would fit right in. His Social Score would probably be very high with his promotion of censorship. The Chinese could probably use his services right now to censor the Chinese people who are trying to talk about their coronavirus problem.
As for censorship, I vote No.
Why does Australia have a chair for the advancement of journalism? If you have academics meddling in journalism you are bound to get silly opinions like this. By the way, codes of ethics in journalism are not legally binding.
Why does Australia have a chair for the advancement of leftist journalism?
Fixed.
Same reason they get Ridd of anyone who questions their manufactured climate crisis and Lysenkoism as they always have to control the message with the pesky masses lest they question the raison d’etre and direction of Utopia. There must always be a crisis (climate) and concomitant enemy (denier) to blame in order to ferment and feed the revolution. Dissenters ultimately go off to the gulags or showers as a warning to others not to question the pigs in charge.
Why don’t we un-censor the censorious? Publish their email address or where they live?
Ed I am part of a group who has been trying to speak out against the 1,200 plus hectares of solar panels they have planned for our area. One of the group was excited that she had organised a newspaper journalist to come an interview us. Her house will overlook the solar farm.
We turned up armed with the facts, the dirty side of renewables, the fact that there is no recycling in place for panels, the fact that it would be over an area that in times of heavy rain becomes a lagoon that lasts for months and attracts water birds. The fire risk was also a huge concern to all of us. Our neighbor was also concerned that our properties would drastically lose value or be difficult to sell.
We live in a country town and our neighbor obviously isn’t politically minded, she didn’t know that our local newspaper The Guardian, was a leftist newspaper. There was about ten of us at the meeting, most people had something to say, I spoke about environmental issues.
The newspaper published an article of sorts, basically said that we were concerned about property values, non of the other concerns. In the article they mentioned the full names of both my husband and myself and also our address. The only thing they left out was the house number, we live in the country and our street is only two kilometers long. We found that very unsettling to say the least.
I actually thought that the environmental issues might be of interest to the newspaper, obviously the prospect of ‘green energy’ overrode that. I don’t think it even occurs to them that renewables are massive electricity generating plants that don’t even do the job they are built to do.
Megs — Rural upstate New York (and I would suppose Pennsylvania and New England) is dotted with smallish start-up solar farms, many semi-abandoned. I wonder how long insurers will eat the losses.
From the article: “The harms done by climate change, both at a planetary level and at the level of human health, are well-documented and supported by overwhelming scientific evidence.”
Nonsense! Mr. Muller couldn’t prove these claims if his life depended on doing so.
I suppose my comment would be censored at “The Conversation”. That way Mr. Muller doesn’t have to prove the validity of his claims. How convenient.
This is very easy to figure out. If censors at “The Conversation” had a valid argument to make for Human-caused Climate Change, they wouldn’t need to censor anyone, because most people would be convinced by their substantiated argument. But they don’t have a substantiated argument, so to hide this fact, they seek to silence anyone who points this out. That’s what’s going on here.
They ought to rename it “The One-sided Conversation”.
Tom, some people call it The Monologue.
Changing one letter is enough, Megs: The Monversation.
Or if one wants to be more descriptive, The Perversation.
There was an overwhelming ‘consensus’ for the flat earth theory at one point in human history too. Same goes for the Geocentric solar system model. Ditto for the four humors and miasma theories of disease. Or the Social Darwinists and their embrace of Eugenics. Fortunately for us, the deniers of history stood their ground and kept producing contrary evidence until the consensus changed. We owe future generations the same.
In the trolley problem it is possible to get people to kill an innocent person to save the lives of five other people who are on the trolley track. If you want to get people to do something that their ethics does not allow them to do then you need to convince them that down ‘that other track’ lay some great harm. It’s true that we can’t see the great harm because it’s way down the track but it’s there believe us – said every evil dictator ever.
Let’s just quickly say what needs to be said about these people: Fascists, aspiring totalitarians, degenerates – in a word, scum.
Do “deniers and pseudo-scientists” include experts like Dr. Judith Curry who disagree with their colleagues’ alarmism by pointing out important climate mechanisms we don’t understand or criticizing flaws in climate models? I believe WUWT posted a criticism saying climate models include the effect of solar heat as feedback whereas treating it as input would make virtually all supposed warning disappear. Is this scientific “wrong think” to be censored? Or will the censorship only apply to “the rabble” who link to the “wrong think” on the internet or who comment favorably on it?
In “The Mortal Storm” a science professor is confronted by a Hitler Youth in his class and asked if Aryan blood contains elements making it superior to non-Aryan blood. The professor responds that scientifically there is no difference. The Hilter Youth informs him that answer is “against State policy.” The professor loses his job and later dies in a concentration camp. Is this where we’re headed?
Short answer to your four questions: yes, yes, yes, and yes. I believe we’re seeing a world-wide push in the direction of leftist totalitarianism in the developed nations.
The climate is just one smokescreen non-issue thrown up to confuse and frighten people who don’t have critical thinking ability or a taste for the Stalinist system of government; the other big tropes would include institutionalized racism, patriarchal oppression of women, historical injustice toward aboriginal peoples, violence and marginalization of nonstandard genders, mass extinction, global environmental degradation leading to – my personal favorite – planetary destruction, and so on.
While some may make a legitimate claim to their ancestors’ having had a tough time of it at the hands of other groups – in other words, everyone on the planet – let me just hasten to add: that was then and this is now. They’re deliberately avoiding the fact that the western nations have the best human rights record and the best relationship with the natural world by far, have had for a very long time, and are constantly improving that relationship and those rights, just as they avoid the CO2 output of (tellingly IMO) China.
The rest of it is all outright lies and at the very least gross hyperbole, leading to the obvious conclusion that there is something else to their agenda, and I think it’s now clear what that is, especially given the mass campaign of fulminating hysteria in the last couple of years. In other words: get ready for the excrement to hit the air conditioning. And for the children’s sake, wherever you are please vote for the conservative candidate while you can.
Free speech for me but not for thee.
If only a few people were climate skeptics, there wouldn’t be a desire to shut them down. The fact that there are probably a couple billion people who are skeptics should be evidence alone that skeptics may have a point…and should be heard…not shut down. And the fact that leading journalists ….who ironically tout a free press….of all people, don’t see this problem and instead propose shutting half the world out of the conversation…is scary as hell. These are people in power who are so misguided and blinded by their arrogance, not some fringe faction. The irony is everywhere with warmists, including their view that we need to raise prices and put people in poverty now to prevent possible poverty.
The problem with the precautionary principle – which is expressly authoritarian by nature – and which is the notion upon which climate change of an anthropogenic nature and prohibitions on future action and the throttling of contrary views is based is the absolute lack of any demonstable basis for the alarmist claims…however and additionally, while yelling fire in a burning theater (see text of post) would be not only permissable but would be an actual social good – the idea that the government should be able to jail a citizen for distributing leaflets opposing military conscription, at least in the context of the United States, needs to be ripped, root and branch from our public assumptions about the relation between free, sovereign citizens and their government.
Correct.
In fact, it is the ALARMIST SHOUTS that are doing the most harm akin to shouting FIRE in a theater.
Unnecessarily panicking school children…
Causing unnecessary (and to date useless) spending of $Trillions…
Defaming good, once respected Academics…
Whipping useful idiots into frenzy…
Glorifying bad, irreproducible science and fake Nobel Laureates…
The Crazies are definitely in charge.
From the article: “Climate change deniers and those shamelessly peddling pseudoscience and misinformation are perpetuating ideas that will ultimately destroy the planet.”
Real skeptics are not peddling any ideas. Real skeptics ask those who promote the idea of human-caused climate change to provide the evidence they use to reach these conclusions. There’s no pseudoscience or misinformation on the skeptic’s part. Pseudoscience and misinformation are what the alamrmists peddle.
Skeptics just call it what it is and get criticized for it by alarmists because alarmists cannot refute what the skeptics say.
If alarmists had any evidence to show, there wouldn’t be any questions. They don’t, so there are.
A little evidence would shut up all the skeptics, as it should, but there is no evidence.
The path to shutting up the skeptics is clear: Provide some evidence substantiating your claim. Here’s a hint: Skeptics know the difference between evidence and assumptions/speculation/assertions (something alarmists apparently don’t know).
Their argument is weak and censorship is the only way to win. Or so they think.
Just ask Galileo who was convicted of heresy for saying the earth revolves around the sun. For this he was punished. The only problem is other scientists confirmed the truth.
The only problem is if those who would silence speech, once lost very difficult to get it back.