My “eight-cents-a-day” is clearly hard at work.
Hard at work providing a platform where everyone and anyone who wishes to express their opinions, regardless of what perspective those opinions may provide, is free to do so. The linked op-ed appearing in what can only be described as a heavily conservatively biased media outlet describes this transparency admirably. That one individual has thus far deigned not to offer some kind of apology to another for what appears to be spurious allegations of defamation, is entirely between those two individuals, and nothing whatsoever to do with the provider of the medium in which this supposed defamation occurred.
There is an amusing furphy pervading online mediums these days, especially when interlocutors engage each other, however fleetingly, over divisive issues. That furphy revolves around an increasingly vague notion of ‘defamation’. One person’s perspective of an issue, against another’s perspective, often winds up devolving into logical fallacy. It’s the standard human action-reaction to being challenged in a non-personal environment over closely held and often personal beliefs. Climate change is one such issue. Anthropogenic influence into the process of climate change is far from conclusive at the present time. There are heavy scientific weightings toward the high likelihood of human industrialisation being a principal impactor on global climate change, indeed, the scientific journal Nature, which rates a mention in the aforesaid piece, has recently published research into dramatic increases in precipitation in the northern hemisphere which is claimed to have a validity heretofore unprecedented, and thus far unchallenged by denialist elements.
Defamation over social media, weblogs or even SMS & email is an area of law fraught with side tracks and matters of irrelevance. There are valid areas of complaint for defamation and also valid areas of rebuttal. Quite frankly, ad hominem, red-herring and strawman challenges by one party to another of cherished world views is hardly grounds for defamation. If one is in any way, shape or form confused about what may or may not constitute defamation, five minutes spent in the Twitter hashtag #auspol will confirm categorically that defamation is as broad a playing field as is the subject matter.
Frankly, as a quick Google of “Stephen McIntyre ABC” conclusively proves Mr McIntyre is not lacking literary, nor moral support from those either of his ilk, or as in the case of Bolt, logically fallacious innuendo approaching libel. Australian Climate Madness blog owner, succinctly & anonymously named just ‘Simon’ in his own polemic piece contributes additional irrationality with….“Groupthink at work YET AGAIN at Their ABC, paid for by Your Taxes.”(emphasis mine) Clearly, Mr ‘Simon’ is another of the privatise-the-ABC-so-Murdoch-can-buy-it mob.
McIntyre’s own internet outlet – ClimateAudit_dot_org – is also not the most peer-reviewed of definitive texts on the issue of Climate Change, being entirely devoted to disclaiming whatever science it’s author happens across, because he simply doesn’t believe in the probabilities of anthropogenic climate change. The entire “we-hate-you-Auntie” bleat by Hendrickx, supported by the masters of flying monkeys from the Murdoch stable is merely another tired case of pot calling kettle black and all various shades in between.
Get over it guys! The ABC is doing what the ABC does. Provide a platform for discussion and debate where both sides of any issue can meet on neutral ground. Don’t like it, then I’m afraid you’ll have to lump it.