ABC television’s Media Watch program on September 11 took Channel Seven to task for 'taking sides' in the debate over the proposed national radioactive waste dump in northern SA.

The story was initiated by the federal department of industry, science and resources, which sent Media Watch information and misinformation about the proposed dump and Channel Seven’s coverage of the issue.

Channel Seven initiated a media campaign against the proposed dump called the "I’m with Ivy" campaign. Channel Seven enlisted the support of 80 year old Ivy Skowronski, who gained some notoriety last year for her involvement in a campaign for stronger punishment of home invaders.

The "I’m with Ivy" campaign involved a website (no longer active <http://www.imwithivy.on.net>), a petition (signed by 125,000 South Australians), and a rally in Adelaide on August 16. The dump proposal has featured on Channel Seven’s Today Tonight program in SA at regular intervals.

Media Watch portrayed the “I’m with Ivy” media campaign as ratings-driven populism. Presenter Paul Barry said, “There's no doubt that I'm with Ivy is a recipe for ratings success. 80 year-old granny rallies the masses to fight a nuclear war. And clever old Channel Seven has been right on top of the story.”

Barry quoted a letter from Senator Nick Minchin, the minister for industry, science and resources, which said, "Channel Seven is ignoring all the facts in its hysterical campaign against the Federal Government ... which is I believe motivated more by concern about its ratings than the national interest."

No doubt ratings have motivated Channel Seven. No doubt Channel Seven would not launch a media campaign if the villain was a commercial sponsor rather than the federal government.

"Now no one likes nuclear waste but people ought to be told the facts. That was Channel Seven's job", Barry asserted. A shame, then, that Media Watch got its facts wrong.

Barry asserted that "The waste is low-level ... stuff like gloves, lab coats and medical equipment, currently stored in Hospitals and Universities around Australia".

However, government literature makes it quite clear that short-lived intermediate level wastes will also be dumped in SA along with low-level waste. The intermediate-level wastes include dismantled nuclear reactor components and much else besides from the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, which is by far the single largest generator of radioactive wastes in Australia (excluding uranium mines, where waste is stored on site).

Failing to mention ANSTO’s role as the major radioactive waste producer obscures the political dimensions of the push for a national dump, i.e. removing waste from the reactor plant in the Sydney suburb of Lucas Heights in order to reduce political opposition to the plan for a new reactor.

Before the September 11 Media Watch story, I sent a Media Watch researcher information demonstrating that the government intends to use the same site in SA for a store for long-lived intermediate level wastes, including wastes arising from the reprocessing of irradiated fuel rods from the Lucas Heights reactors. That material was ignored by Media Watch.

I also offered to send Media Watch a catalogue of government lies in relation to the proposed dump, but this offer was not taken up.

Barry asserted that "It [the waste] would certainly be safer buried in the outback than it is now." However, there is substantial disagreement as to the pros and cons of centralised storage, and even greater debate over the pros and cons of underground dumps as opposed to above-ground storage. Media Watch was made aware of these debates but chose to ignore them.

Facts and factoids

Yes, people "ought to be told the facts" as Media Watch asserted. No doubt Today Tonight has got some of its facts wrong, it has been selective in choosing which facts to present, and it has been unaware of some of the relevant facts about the proposed nuclear dump. These criticisms also apply to Media Watch.

Moreover, decontextualised factoids are the bread and butter of the commercial media. Clearly, “telling the facts” isn’t enough.

Media Watch berated Channel 7 for “taking sides”. In so doing Media Watch reinforced the dominant ideology in the commercial media - the myth of objectivity, which in its day-to-day formulation involves journalists scrambling around to get “both sides” of a story.

All sorts of biases are wished away by the myth of media objectivity, not least biases arising in the choice of stories and the choice of sources. We get Liberal and Labour on the political issue of the day, we get Packer and Murdoch cronies pontificating on media regulation, and so on.

The bias implicit in this ideology of objectivity was exposed by Sharon Beder in her 1997 book Global Spin: "Journalists who accurately report what their sources say can effectively remove responsibility for their stories onto their sources. The ideal of objectivity therefore encourages uncritical reporting of official statements and those of authority figures. In this way, the individual biases of individual journalists are avoided but institutional biases are reinforced."

The commercial media frequently take partisan positions. The differences with “I’m with Ivy” campaign were that the partisanship was open, and the commercial media took a progressive stance for a change. (In addition to commercial imperatives, Channel Seven’s “I’m With Ivy” campaign was motivated partly by its experience covering a protest at the Beverley uranium mine in northern SA on May 9, at which police viciously attacked the media, anti-nuclear activists, traditional owners and children.)

The difficulties with the myth of media objectivity were neatly summarised by Jeff Cohen in the October/November 1989 issue of Extra!, the magazine of the US-based organisation Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (http://www.fair.org/extra):

"There is a notion - widely believed in the mainstream media - that while there is propaganda of the left and propaganda of the right, there is no such thing as propaganda of the center. In this view, the center doesn't produce propaganda, it produces straight news."

"If, for simplicity's sake, we define the left as seeking substantial social reform toward a more equitable distribution of wealth and power, and we define the right as seeking to undo social reform and regulation toward a free marketplace that allows wide disparities in wealth and power, then we can define the political center as seeking to preserve the status quo, tinkering with the system only very prudently to work out what are seen as minor glitches, problems or inequities."

"It is a strange concept to many in the media. They can accept that conservatism or rightism is an ideology that carries with it certain values and opinions, beliefs about the past, goals for the future. They can accept that leftism carries with it values, opinions, beliefs. But being in the center - being a centrist - is somehow not having an ideology at all. Somehow centrism is not an "ism" carrying with it values, opinions and beliefs."

It’s anyone’s guess why Media Watch chose to attack anti-nuclear activists and others campaigning against nuclear dumping in SA. Perhaps Barry et al. are trying to portray themselves as “balanced” in order to avoid the axe from ABC managing director and former Liberal Party member Jonathan Shier.

Whatever the reason, Media Watch indulged in some cheap populism that has not only given the federal government some ammunition in its campaign to dump nuclear waste in SA, but also reinforced conservative media myths.

Media Watch has failed to respond to numerous phone calls, letters and emails from anti-nuclear activists since its September 11 program.

Jim Green to Media Watch, 14/9/00.

Dear Media Watch,

A few questions in relation to the critique of the “I’m with Ivy” media coverage by Channel 7.

Media Watch criticised Channel 7 for taking sides, for failing to present ‘the facts’. It seems to me that Media Watch also took sides in the debate, and that Media Watch was selective in its presentation of facts, plainly wrong with one of your ‘facts’ and misleading or misguided with other assertions. Just to give a couple of examples:

----- Mr Barry asserted that “The waste is low-level ...”, yet government literature makes it quite clear that short-lived intermediate level waste will also be dumped in the unlined trenches in SA. This was a clear error.
----- I sent you notes, with references to the relevant government documents, demonstrating that the government clearly intended/intends to use the same site in SA for a store for long-lived intermediate level waste, including wastes arising from the reprocessing of spent fuel. (I also offered to send you a catalogue of government lies in relation to the proposed dump and in hindsight, you should have taken me up on the offer.)
----- ANSTO (Lucas Heights) is by far the single largest generator of radioactive waste in Australia (excluding uranium mines, where waste is managed on site), yet Mr Barry mentioned only “stuff like gloves, lab coats and medical equipment, currently stored in Hospitals and Universities around Australia.” That misleading statement has been made repeatedly by the federal government - and now by Media Watch - to obscure the political dimensions of the push for a national dump, namely removing waste from Lucas Heights to reduce political opposition to a new reactor, which will produce waste at greatly increased rates, which will be dumped in SA, ad infinitum.

Mr Barry asserted that “It (the waste) would certainly be safer buried in the outback than it is now.” Yet there is substantial disagreement as to the pros and cons of centralised storage, and even greater debate over the pros and cons of underground dumps as opposed to above-ground storage. I will not go into the details, you can find the arguments spelt out e.g. in the 1996 Senate Select Committee report ‘No Time to Waste’, or on my website, which also has references to relevant scientific literature such as that from Prof. John Veevers from Macquarie University and from nuclear engineer Mr. Alan Parkinson.

The use of the term ‘outback’ evokes images of unpopulated regions, it is insensitive to Aboriginal dispossession (and opposition to the planned dump), outstanding Native Title claims, concern in towns such as Andamooka which are adjacent to proposed dump sites, concern along transport routes (as expressed by numerous local councils) etc.

Anyway I’d be grateful for answers to the following:

1. Do you concede that Media Watch took sides in the waste debate, and that Media Watch was selective in in its presentation of facts?

2. Why did the program not acknowledge scientific disagreement on the pros and cons of various radioactive waste management options?

3. Will Media Watch redress some or all of the errors and misleading statements in the 11-9-00 story, such as the false assertion that the dump is for low-level waste only, and if so, how?

Jim Green

Dear Dr Green,

Thanks for your email. Our apologies for the late reply.

Since you make a number of points I have responded by inserting answers to  your queries into the text of your email.

>Dear Media Watch,
>A few questions in relation to the critique of the Im with Ivy media coverage by Channel 7.

>Media Watch criticised Channel 7 for taking sides, for failing to presentthe facts. It seems to me that Media >Watch also took sides in the debate,and that Media Watch was selective in its presentation of facts, plainly
>wrong with one of your facts and misleading or misguided with otherassertions. Just to give a couple of >examples:
>
>Mr Barry asserted that The waste is low-level ..., yet governmentliterature makes it quite clear that >short-lived intermediate level wastewill also be dumped in the unlined trenches in SA. This was a clear error.

This is not an error. It is a commonly accepted abbreviation. The waste  dump you refer to will hold short lived intermediate and low level waste.  The short lived intermediate waste you refer to is a small proportion of the total and all major reporting on this issue (including Today Tonight) has regularly referred to the dump as a low level waste dump. Media Watch is aware of the nature of waste to be held and believes that the terms it used were appropriate.

> I sent you notes, with references to the relevant government documents,demonstrating that the government >clearly intended/intends to use the samesite in SA for a store for long-lived intermediate level waste, >includingwastes arising from the reprocessing of spent fuel. (I also offered to sendyou a catalogue of >government lies in relation to the proposed dump and inhindsight, you should have taken me up on the >offer.)

No decision has been made on the location of the long lived intermediate level waste dump. Speculation that the intermediate level waste dump will be co-located with the low level dump is a potent argument against the dump but it is an aspect of the broader debate not relevant to our story.

> ANSTO (Lucas Heights) is by far the single largest generator ofradioactive waste in Australia (excluding >uranium mines, where waste ismanaged on site), yet Mr Barry mentioned only stuff like gloves, lab coats
>and medical equipment, currently stored in Hospitals and Universitiesaround Australia. That misleading >statement has been made repeatedly bythe federal government - and now by Media Watch - to obscure the >politicaldimensions of the push for a national dump, namely removing waste fromLucas Heights to reduce >political opposition to a new reactor, which willproduce waste at greatly increased rates, which will be >dumped in SA, adinfinitum.

Again we were referring to the material to be dumped at the low level waste dump that is planned for South Australia and is the subject of the I'm With Ivy campaign.

>Mr Barry asserted that It (the waste) would certainly be safer buried inthe outback than it is now. Yet there is >substantial disagreement as tothe pros and cons of centralised storage, and even greater debate over the
>pros and cons of underground dumps as opposed to above-ground storage. Iwill not go into the details, you >can find the arguments spelt out e.g. inthe 1996 Senate Select Committee report No Time to Waste, or on my
>website, which also has references to relevant scientific literature suchas that from Prof. John Veevers from >Macquarie University and from nuclearengineer Mr. Alan Parkinson.

The International Atomic Energy Agencysays that near surface disposal of low level and short lived intermediate waste is "a realistic and practical method for the safe isolation of such wastes and for achieving the protection of human health and the environment subject to appropriate regulation".

>The use of the term outback evokes images of unpopulated regions, it isinsensitive to Aboriginal dispossession >(and opposition to the planneddump), outstanding Native Title claims, concern in towns such as Andamooka
>which are adjacent to proposed dump sites, concern along transport routes(as expressed by numerous local >councils) etc.
>
>Anyway Id be grateful for answers to the following:
>
>1. Do you concede that Media Watch took sides in the waste debate, and that
>Media Watch was selective in in its presentation of facts?

The Media Watch story examined the behaviour of Today Tonight which not only took sides in the debate over the waste dump, but actively organised a campaign against the dump. In doing so we presented aspects of  the debate that had been downplayed by Today Tonight to illustrate the imbalance of their reporting. Our program is not about nuclear waste options; it is about the media and journalism.

>2. Why did the program not acknowledge scientific disagreement on the pros and cons of various radioactive waste management options?

As above. Our story is about media behaviour. It is not a comprehensive re-examination of the legitimate issues raised by the debate over the dump.

>3. Will Media Watch redress some or all of the errors and misleadingstatements in the 11-9-00 story, such as >the false assertion that the dumpis for low-level waste only, and if so, how?

Media Watch does not believe that any correction is necessary.

The issues surrounding the waste dump are hotly contested as are "the facts".  At the risk of harping on my major point, our program was not intended to address the core of that debate. It focused on the inappropriate behaviour of Today Tonight.

Media Watch stands by its view that a current affairs program should not compromise its journalism by organising public campaigns on controversial issues, then reporting on them and using its "pro-South Australian" stance as a promotional activity.

Yours sincerely
Peter McEvoy
Executive Producer

Dear Mr McEvoy,

Thank-you for your email of October 12 regarding the proposed waste dump. It raises several questions but I will limit myself to just one.

You say, “Our program is not about nuclear waste options; it is about the media and journalism.” You further state that, “Our story is about media behaviour. It is not a comprehensive re-examination of the legitimate issues raised by the debate over the dump.”

Why then did Media Watch assert on the September 11 program that “It (the waste) would certainly be safer buried in the outback than it is now” with no acknowledgment whatsoever of the scientific debates over the pros and cons of burial and the pros and cons of centralised storage?

That assertion clearly had nothing to do with “media and journalism” or “media behaviour” and while nuclear agencies and their representatives in the IAEA might agree with the assertion, within the broader scientific community there are substantive debates.

Thanks in advance for your reply,
Jim Green

Dear Jim,

The comment you refer too was included as an example of what Today Tonight chose to leave out.

The point as you remember is that rather than pursue its role with some balance and objectivity Today Tonight chose to establish and fund a campaign, then report on it. As well their reporting failed to reflect the debate over the pros and cons - instead it pushed one side, and then embellished it with green slime.

The comment has a point in our story on the media and journalism is that it highlights the legitimate points of the debate that Today Tonight failed to include.

Regards
Peter McEvoy

Dear Peter,

Media Watch’s assertion on the September 11 program that “It (the waste) would certainly be safer buried in the outback than it is now” was not a “legitimate point of the debate” but an unsubstantiated assertion, keenly contested in the scientific community.

Your attempt to confuse the issue only does Media Watch further discredit.

Even if you do believe that dumping radioactive waste in unlined trenches on Aboriginal land in South Australia is a satisfactory policy, it is outside of Media Watch’s brief to be saying so.

I’ve got another story suggestion: uncritical media parroting of government lies and government propaganda in relation to radioactive waste.

Yours sincerely,
Jim Green