Caustic criticism as Jo Nova badgers The Australian

Joanne Nova

Jo Nova gives no quarter as she attacks The Australian newspaper for its coverage of Peter Spencer’s hunger strike against his unjust treatment by his own government.

Jo chastises it strongly for the long delay before it covered Spencer’s strike and its inadequacy since. She compares the paper’s reporting of other hunger strikers, including a sex offender, a serial killer and some asylum seekers, with its reporting of Spencer. The criminals got extensive and sympathetic coverage after a mere few days of their hunger strike. But The Australian waited 26 days (nearly four weeks) to mention Peter Spencer’s strike — as a sideline. They provided no substantive coverage until Day 42 — six weeks after it began — and even then were bitingly unsympathetic.

Jo suggests that “The Australian appears to go out of its way not to report the case of an Australian facing ruin, feeling suicidal and asking for a fair go. Spencer has had it tough within our legal system — even a Justice decreed his case was unconscionable“. She asks:

Could it be that The Australian cares more for our carbon emissions than they do about the lives of our farmers? Do the editors feel that somehow the country is better off if we don’t look too closely at any of the drawbacks of legislation aimed to reduce our carbon output?

Jo obviously did a lot of reading on the coverage and asks about the balance one might reasonably expect from Australia’s flagship newspaper but which is lacking in this series of stories of hunger strikes. It’s remarkable (even striking!) how on the one hand the paper is sympathetic to the criminals and migrants and yet on the other hand distinctly stonyhearted towards an innocent Australian farmer.

Whatever the editors’ motivations, they add a further injustice to Peter Spencer’s already long list of injustices.

4 Thoughts on “Caustic criticism as Jo Nova badgers The Australian

  1. Laugh! Jo Nova ranting about balance. Perhaps she should take a look at her own blog.

  2. Richard C (NZ) on September 17, 2011 at 9:40 am said:

    It must grate on you Dubius, that JoNova not only PROVIDES the balance to an otherwise one-sided debate (as does this and every other CAGW-sceptical blog) but it also provides the science (as do the comments – not everyone is fooled) that debunks CAGW bogosity.

  3. Richard C (NZ) on September 17, 2011 at 9:51 am said:

    Hopefully, Joanne will take on the Sydney Morning Herald’s “Environment” section after she has finished with The Australian e.g. this in “Climate Change”: “Newspaper wages campaign against climate change science”

    The “Newspaper” being (ironically), The Australian.

  4. Richard C (NZ) on September 17, 2011 at 10:40 am said:

    Graham Lloyd, Environment editor The Australian, defends the papers position:-

    Robert Manne in denial of his own set of rules

    “More offensive is Manne’s judgment that readers of a serious newspaper cannot be trusted with exposure to the alternative viewpoints of contrarians.”

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/robert-manne-in-denial-of-his-own-set-of-rules/story-e6frg996-1226138325105

    Deltoid cheers on Manne:-

    Robert Manne vs The Australian

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/robert_manne_vs_the_australian.php?utm_source=networkbanner&utm_medium=link

Leave a Reply

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

Post Navigation