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But in the era of climate change, this conventional approach is out of date.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.
Funny, you never see Mosher or Stokes comment here calling out such authoritarian nonsense as that spouted by Muller. They must, therefore, agree with him. Isn’t that how the logic goes?
Those who want to shut down debate have always claimed to be doing so to prevent harm. These are the old arguments being made for the same old reasons. What is of interest is that there isn’t more push back from outside the skeptic community. That’s concerning and creepy.
They wouldn’t be trying so hard to gag you, if they weren’t deathly afraid of what you might say.
“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.”
And that’s exactly what the Supreme Court did with its appalling ‘fire in a crowded theatre’ ruling. It was used to censor anti-war protests, not those calling for war.
Speech that was clearly and blatantly intended to be protected by the First Amendment.
These people are metaphorically shouting “FIRE” in a crowded theatre then quietly under their breath saying “sometime in the future…”
Media impartiality on climate change is desirable according to a high profile climate scientist who wants the US to return to the Paris climate accord. That scientist is Dr. Roger Pielke Jr., generally called a denier by almost everyone to the left of the New York Times who mention his name.
Great Allan! So relevant to current day climate science scam.
The quotes of Vladimir Lenin:
https://www.azquotes.com/author/8716-Vladimir_Lenin
“Truth is the most precious thing. That’s why we should ration it.”
“We can and must write in a language which sows among the masses hate, revulsion, and scorn toward those who disagree with us.”
“There are no morals in politics; there is only expedience. A scoundrel may be of use to us just because he is a scoundrel.”
“Free speech is a bourgeois prejudice.”
“The press should be not only a collective propagandist and a collective agitator, but also a collective organizer of the masses.”
“People always have been and they always will be stupid victims of deceit and self-deception in politics.”
“It is, of course, much easier to shout, abuse, and howl than to attempt to relate, to explain.”
“Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.”
“Give me just one generation of youth, and I’ll transform the whole world.”
That is a very lame case for censorship. It can’t be robust science with criticism banned. It can’t be science.
What is published has to be restricted so as to not waste readers time but that is already used to censor criticism. Now anything political correct can be “robust”. We have the stupidity of blaming Australia’s recent bushfires on climate change running rampant on the supposed trusted media, even though the half a degree of warming since environmentalist pushed to reduce fuel-reduction burning (even the IPCC only highly confident that at least half was due to emissions) is blatantly of little consequence and the propaganda is highly likely to have motivated at least one arsonist to light a destructive blaze. If anything is akin to shouting fire in a theatre, it’s that.
Well, it should be no surprise that leftists would bang on about squelching free speech like this. For one thing, the previous U.S. federal government made significant inquiries in the same direction back in 2016.
See for instance, the following articles from March 2016:
https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/hans-von-spakovsky/attorney-general-lynch-looks-prosecuting-climate-change-deniers
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3485864/Attorney-General-Loretta-Lynch-considered-taking-legal-action-against-climate-change-deniers.html
The west really does need a revolution – just not a Marxist one. We need to drag these bastards out of their ivory towers and whip them through the streets. Then we can take on Antifa and extinction rebellion. Leaders who refuse to enforce the rule of law because of political sensitivities need to be removed from office. I do NOT want my son to grow up in a regime where multimillionaire “socialists” rule from behind mobs of zombies. He’s smart and motivated and deserves better then to see his earnings taken by force and given to crusty hippie imbeciles and junkies.
There is a much stronger case for censoring anti-vexers and “HIV-deniers,” at least in widely read or “popular” media, because what they say does cause immediate and severe harm to those who choose not to vaccinate or adopt safe-sex practices—and not only to them, but to those around them. Not only that, but their arguments REALLY are weak, scientifically. (Although there is some plausibility in some of their contentions, a topic I don’t want to get into.)
But global warming heretics aren’t causing any immediate harm, unless the rising rate of asthma is attributed to it, which is a stretch. Other “harm” claims like increased wildfires are only marginally true—mostly because of increased fuel loads due to global greening. (Say, is that fact something that should be censored?) Most of the current-harm claims are great exaggerations or even inventions.
What is preventing a reduction in CO2 levels is the high cost of renewables, when all things are considered, which the 3rd world and the 2nd world have recognized. Those countries aren’t building coal power plants because of what climate heretics in the West are saying about the science of global warming.
The only way to cut CO2 emissions would be to offer those countries advanced (safe, low-waste, inexpensive) nuclear plants. Because greens have dragged their feet or opposed funding such system for decades, it’s now too late to make a dent in the rising trend of global emissions. But that’s not the fault of climate heretics, who have mostly favored nuclear power.
Nice job justifying provaxxer censorship and medical fascism.
Which vaccine has benefits for other people?
Can the evidence be verified?
Canada mandating Government “approved” media is in the pipes. All independent media will be silenced. This will also apply to any media skeptical of Canada’s failed model based Co2 policies. Here we see some ex-RCMP buffoons getting owned by the Owner of Rebel Media. He is being prosecuted for writing a book critical of the “liberals”.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4VsvabEP-k&feature=emb_logo
Most people outside of Canada don’t realize about 97% of media is funded by Trudeau and are in his pocket. Those not on the take are going to be bankrupted by endless Court Battles. Just imagine if US media had to be “approved” by Adam Schiff or Chuck and Nancy…
Email to Dr. Denis Muller under the heading “ethics and physical meaning”
+++++++
Dear Dr. Muller,
Climate model air temperature projections have no physical meaning.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feart.2019.00223/full
The entirety of consensus climatology rests upon false precision. There is no science in any of it.
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abstract/10.1260/0958-305X.26.3.391
Your declaration that, “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.” is insupportable. Your evidence consists of spurious inferences deriving from completely unreliable climate models.
Yours is an argument from authority, Dr. Muller; nothing else.
It is you who violates ethics in your call to censor; to force an end to the debate you do not understand and cannot win on the merits.
Patrick Frank, Ph.D.
….
++++++++++
Dr. Mullre’s research profile shows Diploma/MA in Pubic Policy and a PhD-Arts from the University of Melbourne, which requires an 80,000 word thesis focused on some qualitative aspect of the Humanities.
Just the education needed to pronounce righteously on scientific debate and to adjudicate the necessity of censorship.
Pat The Conversation receives funding from the University of Melbourne and this same university is hosting the annual Marxist Conference.
An article from 2013 stated that 39 universities and the CSIRO were supportive of The Conversation. I don’t believe that all are Australian universities as currently 35% of their readership is from overseas.
Queensland University of Technology last week had a student union stall at which they were promoting Marxism. The IPA (Institute of Public Affairs), a right leaning organisation requested that they set up a stall run by their youth arm of the movement and were declined.
These universities are violating the tenure agreement, Megs. The faculty of public universities get tenure in return for which their scholarship is politically unbiased.
The violation of the agreement is so egregious and widespread, that the universities should forfeit their pubic funding.
Removal of their bottom line is the only way to get their attention.
I propose a new term, rational dismissives>/b> … to counter the latest term, climate dismissives.
Those who describe people with rational skepticism about human caused climate change as climate dismissives are rational dismissives.
Perhaps alternate terms might be gray-matter challenged, thought-dismissives, intelligence lacking, or, more heavy handed, brain dead, clue challenged, quality-of-life dismissives.
The SMH and the Age were sold to Channel 9 by Fairfax, recently. The thing is within that bundle of properties was 2GB and it’s equivalent in Melbourne, who employed Alan Jones, Steve Price, Ray Hadley, Andrew Bolt……..
Which is saying the owners of these properties have stuff all interest in either of side in the ‘Culture War’, and are just looking at stirring the pot to sell advertising. Just shovel out what people want to hear. That’s where the bucks are.
I’m possibly the first scientist (or even the first person) to be permanently banned from The Conversation. Soon after Cory Zanoni was appointed as chief moderator in January 2014, there was a short exchange of emails that confirmed my account was locked. A couple of years ago I tried an unlock with Misha Ketchell, Editor and Executive Director, who self-describes thus “Misha has been a journalist for more than 20 years. In previous roles he was a reporter at The Age, founding editor of The Big Issue Australia and editor of Crikey, The Reader and The Melbourne Weekly. He also spent several years at the ABC where he was a TV producer on Media Watch and The 7:30 Report and an editor on The Drum.”
By way of contrast, I have been a scientist for 50 years, with a performance record that can be seen as modestly high. One gets that way by delivering the scientific goods, by being factually and demonstrably right more often than wrong.
It is difficult for me to comprehend how The Conversation has grown to be considered authoritative when it lacks appreciation of the value of free speech. Then, I read the biographies of the employees to find the strong socialist/leftist dominance that appears to be a trendy way for some to flourish in these days of post-modernist rubbish. I have yet to see post-modernism justified by the usual guideline of contributing to societal benefit in any clear way, such as by a financial benefit:cost analysis. Geoff S
Eric,
What is the difference between the conversation’s policy and the new one at Wattsupwiththat which was
described as:
“This coming week, WUWT will no longer be an open commenting system, it will require registration to comment. I’ll give 24 hours notice, and it will likely be next Monday. Many, many, websites that allow comments require this, and it has become clear to me, that we need to go that direction too. Doing so will help keep the quality of conversation elevated, and will only require a one-time registration that will take about two minutes to complete. It will stop the trolls, the impersonators, and the drive-bys and give us a tool for enforcing our commenting policy.”
Both seem to be equally restrictive on free speech. But then free speech rights do not extend to comments on a
privately owned website.
Register and get free speech on WUWT.
Your analogy is stretched to breaking, Isaak
“Both seem to be equally restrictive on free speech.”
In practice WUWT is not restrictive of free speech, other than personal attacks on occasion.
If you are polite at WUWT, and abide by the rules, your conversation about Human-caused Climate Change won’t be censored, regardless of what position you take, for or against. Your conversation may be ridiculed, depending on its content, but it won’t be censored.
Not sure what point you’re making here. This Muller is calling for journalists to censor skeptical viewpoints and to make such censorship a requirement and “ethical” standard across the board, not describing a policy for his site. Seems different as night and day to me. Maybe in your quest to tar Anthony with the same brush you forgot what this whole thread is about?
It already happens in Australian media. Contrary views are actively banned.
Tiger,
Anthony has a commenting policy that he is free to enforce and furthermore he perfectly free to make
whatever commenting policy that he wants since he owns the website and thus gets the final say. The owners of “the conversation” website are similarly free to make and enforce their own commenting policy. Neither Anthony’s policy nor the conversations violate the idea of free speech since there are plenty of alternatives places where your voice can be heard. Just as newspapers are free to choice which letters and ads they print so are websites free to choose which comments they allow.
I W,
Beg to differ. The Conversation is/was partly funded with taxpayer money through government support. They assume they have an extraordinary power, the power to censor the usual public.
Anthony’s site, WUWT, is a private site, nothing to do with government funds.
There is a large, important difference. Geoff S
Geoff,
The owners of all websites have the freedom to choice whether or not to allow comments. That is not censorship. If a ISP took down a particular website then they could be interpreted as
censorship but disallowing comments when they are plenty of other forums for expressing your views doesn’t count as censorship.
Any anyway the debate is pointless since the Australian Constitution does not contain any mention of “freedom of speech” so you don’t have that right in Australia or by extension on an Australian website.
iW,
Then you condone silencing of some who know of “clear and present danger”and condone consequent suffering imposed on the general public.
At The Con we have a leftist group of Arty types who know bugger all about science, censoring some who do.
The reason I wanted to be able to contribute articles and make comments grew from the numerous mistakes that The Con was spreading in ways related to shouting Fire! in a theatre. I am not into chattering class gossip motivation.
Every person has a duty to try to correct wrong. No person has a duty to block this.
Yours is an immature bundle of weak excuses and distortion to try to justify deliberate, harmful and ignorant acts.
Geoff,
Nobody is being silenced. There are no shortages of places where you can express your opinion from holding up a sign at the street corner (I saw someone doing that on my commute today) to posting at different websites. But you don’t have a right to post comments on every single website in existence. If you want to correct wrongs start your own blog (as some people have done in response to this one for example).
Hmm , I have a gun in my hand (for self defence of course) to protect you from what I believe is going to hurt you . If anyone speaks against me holding this gun , I will shoot them so that I can continue to protect you .
Taking protection to the n’th degree .
Canada’s formerly eminent Globe and Mail now has a policy to dismiss any arguments against the climate change dogma. I’ve tried several times to refute articles presenting false arguments for climate change alarm, and they have been rejected every time. Here is their policy:
“The Globe and Mail’s Code of Conduct states that The Globe will seek to provide reasonable accounts of competing views in any controversy to help readers make up their own minds. While true for political points of view, this balance does not apply to non-scientific debates where one side has no factual underpinnings to their argument and in fact science proves them wrong. This includes anti-vaxxers, climate change deniers and others who deny science, medicine and facts.”
IOW:
Anyone who disagrees with us is a big meanie. Don’t allow these people to speak!
Same reason you shouldn’t give the anti-vaxxers a platform.
What the hell is an anti vaxxer?
Which vaccines are useful?
The idea that free dialogue should be censored because of the possibility that harm could stem from the promulgation of an idea that may ultimately prove incorrect is absurd, and certainly not what John Stuart Mill meant.
Using this logic, I could as easily advocate barring advocacy of actions to combat climate change by saying that the resultant expense will impoverish millions around the world, cause mass starvation, etc.
Goodness! Well, I guess that’s why we keep getting genocides: because it’s so very very critical that nobody criticize communists.
A world without debate…yep, that will drive up readership. That explains why these left wing media outlets are all failing, boring and so predictable, no fun there.
Wrong in justice laws, wrong in nature laws too – remains “ethical codes”:
“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.”
There’s already a “union of value” sporting “ethical codes” – NYT knows more:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/13/opinion/german-conservatism-comeback.html
“Media ‘impartiality’ on climate change is ethically misguided and downright dangerous”
http://theconversation.com/media-impartiality-on-climate-change-is-ethically-misguided-and-downright-dangerous-130778
“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.”