News Corp's Climate Campaign

ABC Media Watch

Economists, journalists and an ex-prime minister critical of News Corp coverage of Labor’s climate change policy.



TRANSCRIPT
But now to climate change, where after weeks of mass protest in Britain by hundreds of thousands of people in what’s been dubbed the Extinction Rebellion, the UK Parliament has declared a climate change emergency. It’s unlikely to come into effect unless Labour wins power.
But even the Bank of England is now threatening dire consequences if Britain fails to act:

Climate change could wipe out $20 trillion of assets, Bank of England warns
- The Telegraph (UK), 15 April, 2019

So, with an election in Australia just two weeks away, how is the media here — and the Murdoch media in particular — covering the issue?
Spin through a few News Corp front pages and its determination to ridicule climate action and keep it to a minimum could not be clearer:

APRIL FUELS DAY
- The Courier-Mail, 1 April, 2019

CARBON BILL’S GREEN WHACK
- The Daily Telegraph, 1 April, 2019

Our carbon cut apocalypse
- The Australian, 21 February, 2019

And last week this campaign continued, with alarming new predictions on the front page of The Australian about the cost of Labor’s climate plans:

Price carbon cuts? Yes you can
GDP loss $264bn
Jobs lost 166,500
The wholesale electricity price in 2030 could be as much as 50 per cent higher …
- The Australian, 2 May, 2019

And on News Corp’s Sky After Dark the usual suspects naturally took up the refrain:

ANDREW BOLT: … it’s $264 billion, to be precise. A quarter of a trillion dollars by 2030.
RITA PANAHI: … where is the rest of the media in pursuing this? $264 billion was the best-case scenario, Andrew. It could be upwards of $542 billion, the cost to the economy.  
- The Bolt Report, Sky News, 2 May, 2019

As with several previous attacks, this latest News Corp barrage relied entirely on modelling by one economist, Dr Brian Fisher, who has worked extensively for the Minerals Council of Australia, which would lose heavily if Labor’s policy were implemented.
A fact noted by Labor leader Bill Shorten:

BILL SHORTEN: This fellow and his report remind me of the doctors that big tobacco companies used to roll out in the ‘70s and ‘80s to say that smoking was healthy for you. We do not – we will file this report under P for propaganda.
- ABC News Channel, 2 May, 2019

Fisher’s apocalyptic forecasts were also attacked by left-wing think tank The Australia Institute:

“The last time Australians saw Labor’s climate policies in action, emissions went down 2%, the economy grew by 5% and employment increased by 200,000 jobs."
- The Australia Institute, 2 May, 2019

And they were dismissed by a cavalcade of carbon experts, including the ANU’s Professor Warwick McKibbin, who costed our Paris commitments for the Coalition government in 2015, so should know what he’s talking about:

The impact of @AustralianLabor’s #climate proposal would be a “small fraction" of the economy by 2030, says #ANUexpert @WarwickMcKibbin ...
- Twitter, @ANUmedia, 2 May, 2019

And McKibbin was backed by a host of others, including Professor Frank Jotzo, director of the ANU’s Centre for Climate Economics and Policy:

… Brian Fisher's 'modelling' of emissions targets uses absurd cost assumptions. An abatement cost curve like this would have looked very high 20 years ago, now it's simply ridiculous.
- Twitter, @frankjotzo, 2 May, 2019

Meanwhile, Melbourne University’s climate law expert, Tim Baxter, rejected the modelling, and tweeted:

Literally *no one* I know (and I know a lot of people moving in this space) has any respect for Brian Fisher's work.
Can the media *please* stop reporting it as if it is reliable?
- Twitter, @TiminMitcham, 2 May, 2019

Now if you’d run a front-page story based entirely on Fisher’s work — as The Australian had done — you should surely pass such criticisms on to readers.
But The Oz did not think them worth a mention.
Although it did run another front-page story about an egg attack on Fisher’s house, which included the criticisms from Shorten, and quoted Fisher saying:

“... I’m not claiming to have all the facts, I just wanted to get some sort of economic discussion going.”
- The Australian, 3 May, 2019

Fair enough.
Just a shame The Australian didn’t make that clear the day before.
Of course, the media should ask what Labor’s climate policy will cost. And if Labor can’t give a figure, by all means publish other people’s forecasts. However extreme.
But have a discussion, hear both sides, don’t claim it as gospel.
The media’s duty is to report fairly and responsibly, especially when the Bank of England is talking climate catastrophe and the UK parliament has declared a climate emergency.
But time and again News Corp has failed to do that.
Last week, after reading The Australian’s front-page scare, Kevin Rudd — a casualty of the climate wars — tweeted:

There will be a special place in hell reserved for Murdoch Sr, Murdoch Jr (Lachlan) and the Murdoch media for their decade long campaign of climate change denial ...
- Twitter, @MrKRudd, 2 May, 2019

We’ll see in about two weeks time how much effect News Corp’s campaign has. But whether it succeeds or not, the Murdoch media’s intentions have never been clearer.

Links

• The Media Is Failing On Climate Change – Here's How They Can Do Better Ahead Of 2020
• The Media Has Failed Spectacularly On Climate Change
• Why Is The US News Media So Bad At Covering Climate Change?
• News Corp Launches Offensive Against Labor's Climate Policy Amid Glowing Budget 2019 Previews
• Australian Headlines Are Designed To Scare People Into Not Acting On Climate Change
• 11 Things Climate Change 'Dismissive' People Say On Social Media
• Here Are Two Big Things That Were Wrong With Climate Change Coverage In 2018
• Vaccinate Public Against Science Misinformation, Researchers Urge
• How The Fossil Fuel Industry Got The Media To Think Climate Change Was Debatable