[LINK] Journalistic due diligence and ethics.

[David Boxall]

Perversions perpetrated by those at war with climate science are one 
thing; lazy journalism is quite another.

> When and (sic) environmental lobby group claims that a major government policy is based on junk science, shouldn't journalists ask questions?
<http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3458728.htm>

Holmes generously describes the Australian Environment Foundation as 
sceptics, yet Dr Marohasy sees fit to implicitly threaten him.
> It appears Media Watch is contemplating asserting or implying that my professional judgement and integrity as a scientist has been influenced or corrupted by personal financial gain.
In my experience, such behaviour is consistent with guilt.

> We are saying that journalists too easily swallow, and pass on without challenge, highly controversial claims put forward in the name of science, by organisations whose agendas aren't obvious from their names.

By contrast, /This American Life/ voluntarily published a full 
retraction when it found that one of its reporters had fabricated 
evidence 
<http://theconversation.edu.au/what-this-american-lifes-retraction-can-teach-us-about-the-finkelstein-report-5907>.

> “At all times, we report for our readers and listeners, not our sources. So our primary consideration when presenting the news is that we are fair to the truth. If our sources try to mislead us or put a false spin on the information they give us, we tell our audience.”

-- 
David Boxall                    |  My figures are just as good
                                |  as any other figures.
http://david.boxall.id.au       |  I make them up myself, and they
                                |  always give me innocent pleasure.
                                |                     --HL Mencken