“As a result of hail and other weather damage, insurance premiums for solar facilities are skyrocketing, in some cases up by as much as 400%. In addition, policy coverage is being capped at as little as $10-15 million, requiring system developers to obtain multiple policies to try to cover their projects.”
Wind and solar have been growing as a share of US electrical power generation over the last two decades. State and federal mandates and subsidies have driven the expansion of renewables because of their inherently dilute and intermittent nature. But it’s clear that renewable electricity sources have a third strike: they are fragile and prone to weather damage and destruction.
Twenty-three states now mandate Net Zero electricity by as early as 2035. Their aim is to replace coal- and gas-fired power plants with wind and solar generators. Wind and solar have grown from near zero in 2000 to 14.1% of US electricity generation in 2023 (10.2% wind and 3.9% solar).
Weather Risk
Wind and solar systems are located on ridge lines, on plains, and offshore, and are exposed to weather forces that usually don’t affect building-housed coal and gas generators. In addition, these systems require about 100 times the land area of traditional generators to deliver the same average electricity output, increasing the chances of storm damage. Damage incidents are rising as more and more systems are deployed.
In May 2019, a massive hailstorm in West Texas destroyed 400,000 solar modules of the Midway Solar Project, about 60% of the facility. The project was only one year old. The system was rebuilt, costing insurers more than $70 million.
On June 23, 2023, the Scottsbluff solar system was destroyed in western Nebraska. Baseball-sized hail falling at up to 150 miles per hour smashed most of the 14,000-panel system. The system had only been operating for four years of its 25-year lifetime and had to be completely rebuilt.
Solar loss insurance claims from hail damage now average about $58 million per claim. Hail damage claims have increased to account for about 54% of solar insurance loss claims. Analysis by Iowa State University shows that severe hail (greater than one inch in diameter) can occur for 20 to 30 days per year in Great Plains states, a wide area of the country stretching from North Dakota to Texas and Colorado to Indiana.
“Fighting Jays Solar” became operational in July of 2023, 40 miles northwest of Houston, Texas. Less than one year later, on March 15 of this year, hail destroyed much of the system, with repair costs estimated to be hundreds of millions of dollars. The system had not yet completed full construction.
Hail is not the only weather hazard facing solar installations. This fall, a tornado associated with Hurricane Milton destroyed much of the Lake Placid Solar Plant in Sylvian Shores, Florida. The facility had only been operating for about five years.
Insurance and Liability Ahead
As a result of hail and other weather damage, insurance premiums for solar facilities are skyrocketing, in some cases up by as much as 400%. In addition, policy coverage is being capped at as little as $10-15 million, requiring system developers to obtain multiple policies to try to cover their projects.
The federal government has been promoting the installation of wind systems off the US East Coast. Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, South Carolina, Rhode Island, and Virginia are constructing or planning offshore wind systems. But offshore wind must operate in one of the world’s harshest environments, buffeted by wind, waves, lightning, and salt spray that is very corrosive to man-made structures.
To date, most offshore wind systems have been deployed in China, Europe, and Vietnam. These systems are prone to weather damage. Turbines deployed in Asia coastal areas suffer typhoon wreckage. Eighty percent of the turbines installed in Europe’s North Sea have required repairs due to weather damage.
The London Array, east of England, the world’s largest offshore wind system, required extensive repairs after only five years of operation. Danish wind operator Ørsted needed to repair undersea cables to offshore wind systems in the North Sea at a cost that exceeded $100 million.
But turbines sited off the US East Coast must survive brutal weather, more severe than offshore turbines in Europe. Tropical storms, hurricanes, and nor’easters periodically traverse the coastal sites planned for new offshore wind systems.
For example, historical data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration shows that 26 hurricanes and 51 tropical storms passed through New Jersey coastal waters during the last 170 years, or almost five storms each decade. Wind installations will be vulnerable to these weather systems.
In 2018, Hurricane Maria passed over Puerto Rico, ripping blades from many turbine towers. East Coast wind systems will likely suffer the same fate.
Wind systems are designed to try to protect wind towers and blades in high winds. When winds exceed 55 MPH, a braking system brings the rotor to a standstill to try to avoid turbine damage. Tower blades are also “feathered” or oriented so that they no longer catch the wind.
But near the eye of a hurricane or tropical storm, violent winds can change direction instantaneously and powerfully, too fast for damage-prevention systems to react. The result will be destroyed blades and damaged towers.
Conclusion
In July, a 351-foot-long offshore wind blade splintered and washed up on the beaches in Nantucket, Massachusetts. Beaches were closed and clean-up crews collected six truckloads of fiberglass and plastic debris from the single destroyed blade. Wind operations were temporarily shut down.
Residents, beachgoers, fishermen, and local businesses posted signs, complained to the press, and spoke out at board hearings. But this was just one turbine blade. Image the outcry when a whole offshore system is destroyed by a hurricane, producing mountains of beach debris at Myrtle Beach, Virginia Beach, Atlantic City, or Long Island?
Media headlines claim that weather is becoming more extreme because of human-caused climate change. But to solve the problem, it’s proposed that we install more and more wind and solar systems, which are fragile and vulnerable to violent weather. Incidents of weather destruction of wind and solar installations will continue to rise.
A governor targeting one of the most popular entrepreneurs in the country and hurting his citizens to do so is unappealing to Americans in today’s environment. It will be even less appealing in 2028.
Presently, California is taking significant steps to reinstate its electric vehicle (EV) rebate program. This initiative comes in response to the potential loss of all the federal tax incentives under the incoming Trump administration, which should help resolve the Biden-created market distortions.
Newsom clearly plans to “Trump-proof” California.
California Gov. Gavin News intends to exclude Tesla from the rebate program in a move that apparently targets Musk as “Enemy Number 2” in the progressives’ war on wrong-thinking Americans.
Tesla may be excluded from Gov. Gavin Newsom’s proposal to enact new electric vehicle tax credits if President-elect Donald Trump kills a federal rebate program for EV purchases, according to the governor’s office.
Newsom announced plans this week to reintroduce an electric vehicle rebate to replace the $7,500 federal rebate President-Elect Donald Trump has threatened to eliminate. However, under Newsom’s plan, the California rebate would exclude makers like Tesla, California’s largest electric vehicle manufacturer helmed by Newsom’s political antagonist Elon Musk.
The governor’s proposal could include a market share cap, and Tesla accounted for more than half of new EVs sold in California in the first three quarters of 2024, according to the California New Car Dealers Assn, the Los Angeles Times reported.
I suspect that the move is Newsom’s play to remain as relevant as he can, in order to sustain any presidential ambitions that he has for 2028. This is a rather hilarious move, as Newsom is happy to take credit for all of Musk’s many successes.
Gavin Newsom is claiming credit for Elon Musk’s success. This has to be one of the dumbest statements ever made in history. pic.twitter.com/IuErhXxNtw
“It’s one of the reasons guys like Elon Musk and others have become so damn successful,’ Newsom said in October. ‘It’s because we’ve set price signals, we’ve created markets, we’ve created opportunities for investments. We’re the number one manufacturer for a reason. We continue to be the envy of the world.”
Musk had a pithy response to the move: “This is insane“.
Musk, whose company is the only one that actually manufactures EVs in the Golden State, clearly felt singled out and slammed Newsom’s proposal. ‘Even though Tesla is the only company who manufactures their EVs in California! This is insane,’ he wrote on X. A Musk fan posted a video to the social media site showing Newsom actually gloating about being responsible for Musk and Tesla’s riches.
Even though Tesla is the only company who manufactures their EVs in California!
Dan Ives, senior analyst at Wedbush, said Newsom’s proposal could set off a “Game of Thrones battle” between the Democratic governor and Musk, the world’s richest person.
“This is clearly a political move of Newsom and California towards Musk which now has a front seat to the Trump White House and will be a key player in ultimately getting these federal tax credits wiped away among a myriad of other things on the federal front,” Ives said.
The Wedbush analyst said Newsom’s proposal runs the risk of Musk deciding to move more jobs from Tesla’s Fremont, Calif., plant to its Austin, Texas, Gigafactory.
Now, I would like all the subsidies to end…even for Tesla. However, targeting an individual company and its owner is not a good look for a person who aspires to be the leader for all Americans.
Furthermore, it runs the risk of Tesla manufacturing to a friendlier state. Tesla is one of the largest employers in Fremont, with a staff of over 20,000. Those people fund the businesses, the schools, and the state of California.
The loss of tax dollars from all the other firms leaving the state means California is currently facing a significant budget deficit. The Legislative Analyst’s Office projects a $68 billion deficit for the 2024-25 fiscal year.
A governor targeting one of the most popular entrepreneurs in the country and hurting his citizens to do so is unappealing to Americans in today’s environment. It will be even less appealing in 2028.
Sure, the taxpayer funded $A1.1b a year Australian Broadcasting Commission makes mistakes, we all do. I’ve made some biggies myself. That’s why the ABC promotes a Complaints system and has Fiona Cameron, the Ombudswoman, to keep itself honest.[1]
A year ago — a Friday, I think — I turned on ABC News Morning while I fetched my opposite-sex partner its coffee and a slice of premature Christmas cake. TV host Casey Briggs in Canberra did a live cross to accomplished court reporterElizabeth Byrne. Liz was covering the defamation case by Bruce Lehrmann against Network Ten and its TV star Lisa Wilkinson. [The five year saga of Brittany’s rape allegation against Lehrmann when both were late-night in their Minister’s vacant office, is continuing in multi-million-dollar court feudING.The saga also helped instal a new federal Labor government under PM Albanese]
Casey asked Liz about the absent Brittany Higgins. Liz replied, ‘She and Bruce Lehrmann left a few days ago to start a new life in France. But no doubt they’ll be watching on to see how this pans out.’
Casey then did her wrap: ‘Elizabeth Byrne in Canberra. Thanks for the update.’
In this naughty world, I was uplifted to discover from the ABC that Brittany and Bruce had reconciled after such a rocky start. Amor vincit omnia, as Virgil wrote and Caravaggio painted.[2] In my imagination I saw the couple in their dressing gowns and slippers in Brit’s payout-funded $A700,000 chateau at Lunas, Dordogne. They are googling court updates while breakfasting on bowls of creamy coffee with tartines. Brittany strokes their puss Clover while Bruce bats away their adorable cavoodle Kingston, who is trying to sneak a croissant. Birds twitter from their chateau’s little lake.
Sadly, I found it was all an ABC mistake. Liz meant to say Brittany was Dordogne-bound with ex-journo David Sharaz, now her husband, and not with Bruce Lehrmann, the ex-Lib staffer who ate a $361 tomahawk steak on Channel Seven’s expense account.
Rather than toughing it out, the ABC put a note about Liz’s “slip of the tongue” on its Corrections page, to get Brittany, Bruce and David into their proper alignment.
If you’re wondering where this essay is going, it’s about the ABC’s determination to maintain its Trump Derangement Syndrome in the face of my barrage of complaints. But first some background.The ABC 2023-24 Report categorised the 8,394 complaint issues about content as Investigated (60%), Rejected (90%), Resolved, e.g. with a correction (8%) and Upheld, a lowly 2%. This contrasted with 7% upheld in 2022-23. The “Uphelds” refer particularly to bias, unfairness and other violations of ABC codes and practices. Ombudsman Cameron says the sharp drop from 7% to 2% merely reflects the surge of complaints about Gaza items, of which 94% were rejected.
The complaints system dodges around the ABC’s main villainy of bias by omission, which is difficult to complain about. For example, every evening 7pm TV News shows distressing footage – sourced from and pre-vetted by Hamas in Gaza – of civilian casualties (especially kids) writhing beneath Israeli airstrikes. This is the ABC’s “genocide” narrative. Virtually never does the commentary explain that the casualties stem from Hamas’ human-shield strategies which puts its munitions and command posts in kindergartens, UNWRA depots and hospitals.
I also noticed that when the Cbus super-insurance chicanery story broke, ABC items failed to mention that ALP national president Wayne Swan chairs Cbus. That wouldn’t happen if the Liberal’s national president was on a corresponding hot-seat.
I’m a connoisseur of the ABC Corrections system, having employed official Complaints procedures for more than a decade. I’ve won some, lost many: the ABC’s not for turning.
Apparently, I’m an outlier. The ABC’s surveys in 2023-24 found 72% of adults believe the ABC is doing a good job of being accurate and impartial on news and current affairs. (The recent annual reports don’t mention approval tumbling from 77-78% in the 2013-16 era).[3]
In some defeats I stood like a Spartan at Thermopylae: page 136 of my well-thumbed 2023-24 ABC Annual Report has me vainly appealing from ABC to ACMA to Commonwealth Ombudsman Iain Anderson.[4] Iain killed me off within just 24 hours, perhaps to pre-empt the High Court.
What was that about? The ABC put a lowly “M” (Mature) classification, as for Midsummer Murders, on its pornographic At Home Alone Together comedy series during Covid lockdown. To shelter the innocent minds of today’s teenagers, I demanded the ABC reclassify the series to MA15+ (most stringent)[5]. Episode 9 featured a stylised illustration of a kneeling woman being penetrated by three men anally, vaginally and orally. Other jokes involved defecating during coitus in a hotel corridor, raping a woman from behind with a two-metre penis and “glory holes” where men invite fellatio through toilet cubicles’ walls. The ABC in its 2021 annual report (p31) described its Home Alonemisogyny and depravity as “humorous and insightful”, showcasing “the creativity and ingenuity of local talent”. Rejecting my complaint, the ABC, ACMA and the Commonwealth Ombudsman all agreed the “M” classification wasfine and dandy.
What goes on, ABC-wise, is that global warming shrieker Bill Hare of Climate Analytics in 1983 earned a B.Sc (Hons) from Murdoch Uni. To big him up, the ABC calls him “Dr” Hare.
Each time I complain, the ABC agrees that Bill isn’t “Dr” Hare just because woke Murdoch U gave him an honorary doctorate in 2008 for being “The best climate lobbyist in the world.” (Link expired). Management then agrees to notify their 2000 journos but no-one cares and Hare B.Sc (Hons) pops back on-air as “Dr” Hare. I got the ABC’s latest grovel in February, and then just last month Jo Lauder of chief David Anderson’s new climate-crazy unit[6] is calling him “Dr” Hare again. Sheesh.Now for the Trump Derangement saga. One factor inciting flagship 7pm TVNews and 7.30’s Sarah Ferguson to let rip against Trump and his supporters is the deranged tone set by chair Kim Williams, who promotes canards about Trump like drinking bleach to cure Covid – repeating the lie by Joe Biden.[7]
At the National Press Club on November 27, Williams replied to AB staffer Jane Norman about why the ABC wasn’t chasing the type of huge audience of American podcaster Joe Rogan (who endorsed Trump in the election). Williams’ response was strange, given he refuses to hear Rogan’s podcasts:
“I think people like Mr Rogan prey on people’s vulnerabilities, they prey on fear, they prey on anxiety, they prey on all the elements that contribute to uncertainty in society and they entrepreneur (sic) fantasy outcomes and conspiracy outcomes as a normal part of the social narrative. I personally find it deeply repulsive and to think that someone has such remarkable power in the US is something I look at in disbelief. I am also absolutely in dismay that this can be a source of public entertainment when it is really treating the public as plunder for purposes that are really quite malevolent.”
In reality, Rogan has won his 19 million subscribers through friendly three-hour chats with interviewees of all political and cultural persuasions. The ABC’s chairman is exposing his (a) ignorance (b) elitism and (c) malevolence. Staffers would get his gist that anything defamatory is OK about the Rogan-Trump axis.
Meanwhile the Ombudswoman Fiona Cameron is stewing over my appeals against the ABC’s 7pm News and 7.30. Their Trump Derangement got the better of the ABC’s impartiality legislation, editorial policies, practice notes, guidances, special in-house training courses on impartiality and insincere demands by Kim Williams to ditch their biases or get out.[8]
Fiona’s dilemma is that the bias breaches are so egregious, and their justifications to me so absurd, that she must call them out, otherwise this “Ombudswoman” experiment since 2022 is down the toilet. And then Minister Rowland, the Opposition, Senate committees, the federal Transparency Portaland the Human Rights Commission[9] will want scalps.
On the other hand, how can she throw 7.30’s $400,000-plus princess Sarah Ferguson (and Trump/Russia “Story of the Century” hoaxer) under Quadrant’s bus (see here), along with News Director Justin Stevens and all his pooh-bahs of the 7pm News?
Fiona achieved a commendable benchmark turnaround time of 11 days last year. The clock ticks as the ABC braces for an Ombudsman-led inflexion point.
I lay out verbatim here my original complaints, the ABC’s idiotic replies, and my appeals to Fiona and ACMA. This is pure gold for future ABC historians.
7PM’s DERANGEMENT
Complaint to ABC, October 8 – Bias on Flagship 7pm TV News
Your newsreader said, “Trump spoke for more than 90 minutes repeating falsehoods about immigration and his political opponents.” The broadcast provided no further information about the purported “falsehoods” hence the accusation is mere abuse. It is not the job of ABC 7pm News to abuse politicians the ABC does not like.
Please direct the ABC News team to post on the item’s iView section its evidence that Trump lied, if not, post an apology for abusing him and violations of ABC policies including:
Aiming to equip audiences to make up their own minds is consistent with the public service character of the ABC… The ABC takes no editorial stance other than its commitment to fundamental democratic principles.
The compilers of the policies hadn’t contemplated that the ABC itself would run vendettas against right-of-centre politicians. On “Standards”, they say, Commentary should not be presented as the editorial opinion of the ABC… Do not unduly favour one perspective over another.
ABC Ombudsman’ Fast Response
October 10, 2024:
We have reviewed the relevant content and consider that it was both accurate and newsworthy to note that former US President Trump had repeated ‘falsehoods about immigration and his political opponents’ during his speech. Mr Trump’s false claims made during the recent presidential debate have been extensively fact-checked and reported by respected media outlets, for example here and here.
While we have decided not to uphold your complaint on this occasion, please be assured that your concerns are noted and have been shared with the relevant program area…
Yours sincerely,
James Investigations Officer, ABC Ombudsman’s Office.
We acknowledge Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Australians and Traditional Custodians of the lands where we live, learn and work.
The ABC Ombudsman on October 10 rejected my complaint re non-impartiality in the ABCTV 7pm flagship News of 7pm Sunday 8 October, contrary to the ABC’s charter. I now appeal to you to reverse that decision, find my complaint justified, and inform the ABC accordingly.
My correspondence with the Ombudsman is furnished below, along with further particulars in my informal response to the Ombudsman, from which you are welcome to draw further detail…
The Ombudsman’s response merely asserts again without evidence that Trump lied, i.e. the Ombudsman continues to defend the breach of the ABC’s impartiality charter. The ABC’s breach in a News item (as distinct from a Comment item) is particularly extravagant and egregious in implying that a great deal if not most of Trump’s speech was a conglomeration of “falsehoods” about immigration and his opponents.
“Anna” at ACMA, October 22:
Your enquiry has been escalated to the relevant line area for an expert response. Should the line area require additional information they will contact you directly. As this enquiry requires an expert response, it may be some time before you receive a reply.
That’s it on that one so far.
FERGUSON’S HATE SPEECH
Complaint to ABC – 7.30’S bias
September 3: On August 13, interviewing Nancy Pelosi, Sarah Ferguson made the following comments:I want to come back to the battle that you’re [Nancy Pelosi] engaged in to keep Donald Trump out of the White House. He’s clearly taken America to a dark place… Donald Trump poisoned American politics in a new way…This comment violates numerous aspects of ABC impartiality requirements and Guidance Notes. By expressing such views, Ms Ferguson should recuse herself from any further coverage of the contentious US Presidential election.Apart from violating the impartiality charter, her comments violate Guidance Notes including4.5 Do not unduly favour one perspective over another.The highest level of impartiality is required of news and current affairs content in relation to controversial and/or significant matters of public debate. Using language or music that is emotive, hyperbolic or inflammatory, which unduly colours perception of the issues or individuals that are the subject of the story.3. Open-mindednessIn both the process of making content and in the final product you should be able to demonstrate that you approached the story with an open mind.Were questions appropriate and relevant, seeking to elicit answers without pre-judgement to help audiences make up their own minds?…As defined in the impartiality principles the ABC ‘takes no editorial stance other than its commitment to fundamental democratic principles including the rule of law, freedom of speech and religion, parliamentary democracy and non-discrimination.’ These values motivate much of our content and in many cases define its newsworthiness.But that does not mean that ABC journalists can make judgements based on their own personal values or interests. This is the distinction at the heart of the difference between analysis and opinion as it’s understood at the ABC.” Please arrange for the following, in accordance with the above guidelines:1. Bar Sarah Ferguson from further on-air dealings with Trump and Harris in an election context2. Ensure the ABC provides balance over time by arranging a 7.30 stand-alone interview with a prominent supporter of the Republican case on the election, within a week or two given the tight timeline to the November vote. [This didn’t happen]3. Insert an apology on the August 13 iview archive and related ABC content drawing on that interview, to the effect that the interviewer regrettably displayed bias.
By November 24, I’d got no reply so I sent a hurry-up, reminding them of ABC targets for prompt responses. The 7.30 team the very next day sent this weirdly undergraduate email:
Thank you for watching 7.30’s interview with US Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi and for sharing your feedback.
The question framing on former President Trump reflects broad analysis of his behaviour as President and its impact on politics. The two metaphors used were “poison” and “dark place” (poison is defined as a substance that could kill an organism).
The peaceful transfer of power in a democracy is fundamental. In 2020, President Trump sought to overturn the results of the Presidential election – he pressured state officials and Congress not to accept the votes of the American people. Leading up to and on January 6th 2021, he encouraged his supporters to interrupt the certification of the election, an elaborate plan had been laid to produce a false result, certifying him as the winner. It came very close, police and rioters died, 467 rioters have been incarcerated. The impact of those violent events continues to disrupt US politics profoundly.
When Nancy Pelosi’s husband was beaten on the head with a hammer by an intruder who was looking for Nancy, the Trump campaign mocked Paul Pelosi.
There has also been coverage of the ways in which Donald Trump’s rhetoric and actions have changed American politics.
Writing in the Financial Times, Peter Spiegel said “much that has occurred in the US since Trump has appeared on the political scene has been so unprecedented that even the lessons of American history may no longer provide a reliable guide”
The New York Times has recently investigated the former President’s rhetoric at major rallies:
A recent study by UCLA has found theFormer President Donald Trump’s use of violent vocabulary in speeches has increased over time, and is now at a higher level than any other U.S. major party presidential candidate analysed. The study compared his speeches to past and present politicians and foreign dictators.
In addition, the former President’s divisive rhetoric has been a focus of recent reporting by NBC:
Bob Woodward, one of the most respected analysts on American presidential power since Nixon, described what he saw in Trump as “darkness”. Trump is cruel, Woodward wrote, eager to use fear. In Woodward’s book “Peril”, Trump described his own effect on people, “I bring rage out, I always have.”
Ms Ferguson has extensive experience reporting on US politics since the Clinton administration, including reporting on former President Trump. In researching and preparing for this interview she relied on material sourced from across the US political spectrum to inform her approach and the questions for the former Speaker. In the context of the interview, Ms Ferguson’s use of the terms “poison” and “dark place” was fair and based on authoritative and extensive reporting of Mr Trump and his presidency.
This was a wide-ranging interview, canvassing many different topics on the occasion of the publication of Ms Pelosi’s memoir. The Biden decision was discussed along with details of Pelosi’s career featured in the memoir, including issues related to the Asia Pacific. Ms Ferguson was professional and respectful and conducted an engaging interview that provided the audience with a broad understanding of the interviewee’s significant career.
We don’t accept your characterization of the interview.
Itook up their invitation to appeal to the ABC Ombudsman if dissatisfied, which I certainly was, I was livid. I emailed her [abbreviated]:
November 26 : The key [7.30] passage is
In the context of the interview, Ms Ferguson’s use of the terms “poison” and “dark place” was fair and based on authoritative and extensive reporting of Mr Trump and his presidency
I now appeal to you against the ABC’s response, knowing you will apply an objective lens to the matter.
The response is manifestly inadequate and boils down to 7.30 wanting to get into political argumentation and self-justification about Ms Ferguson’s violation of ABC impartiality and guidance notes.
It is a simple matter to do a thought experiment whereby a 7.30 presenter were to say, substituting “Trump” for “Biden”:
I want to come back to the battle that you’re [J.D. Vance] engaged in to keep Joe Biden out of the White House. He’s [Biden’s] clearly taken America to a dark place … Joe Biden poisoned American politics in a new way…_
Would anyone in the ABC for one second suggest this is fair and impartial and non-partisan coming from an ABC host, and is not a policy violation? Or somehow legitimate because it’s purportedly true?
I could summons endless political arguments and rationales to justify those imagined “Biden” statements, that’s how partisan politics operates. Whatever my view might be about Biden, and Ms Ferguson’s view might be about Trump, impartiality is required of ABC and its presenters, not browbeating of audiences with tendentious personal opinions.
7.30 personnel, including Ms Ferguson, are welcome to their personal views on Trump and American politics but their post-hoc justifications for airing them are just as tendentious. [I then detail 7.30’s response errors and absurdities]
To cap it off, the American voters have delivered their remarkable victory for now President-elect Trump…A strange outcome for a candidate whom Ms Ferguson claims to have “poisoned” American politics and “taken America to a dark place.”
There is one big thing at issue here: was it proper for an ABC presenter to use language about “poison” and “dark place” concerning a politician she personally dislikes, given ABC legislation, editorial policies and guidance notes requiring impartiality and fair dealing?
[I cite numerous “impartiality” citations from the ABC’s 2024 annual report, e.g. “P26:Impartiality training sessions were held for all News staff in accordance with the ABC’s Editorial Policies…”]
Could you please let me know, for publication, what your considered judgement is on my complaint and 7.30’s response?
Tony Thomas’s latest book from Connor Court is Anthem of the Unwoke – Yep! The other lot’s gone bonkers. $A34.95 here
[1] ABC Managing Director David Anderson said the appointment of Fiona Cameron to the role will help the ABC maintain the strong bond of trust and confidence with audiences. “The ABC Ombudsman will be key to us maintaining the high standards Australians know and expect from the ABC,” Mr Anderson said.
[3] Annual Reports, 2013-16. These on-line surveys currently range from 5000-9000 respondents. I’d like to see an independent assessment of their validity before I believe the 72% “impartiality” approval.
The Commonwealth Ombudsman notified the ABC that it finalised one matter in which it
decided an investigation of the complaint was not warranted in the circumstances.” P136.
Settled in January 2021, my appeal should have featured in the ABC 2021-22 annual report, which says instead (p119)– as does the 2022-23 report (p133):
Commonwealth Ombudsman:
The Ombudsman’s office did not notify the ABC of any investigations into the ABC’s handling
of complaints that it commenced or finalised during the current reporting period.
I assume the reference in the 2023-24 report – which as you can see does not mention any date – is catch-up by Mr Iain Anderson on his mistake. I don’t want Federal Parliament to make an issue of this.
[5] “Programs classified MA15+ deal with issues or contain depictions that require a more mature perspective. This is because the impact of individual elements or a combination of elements is considered likely to be harmful or disturbing to viewers under 15 years of age. MA15+ is the highest classification category on ABC TV.”
[6] This link records zero output from the climate unit. I wish. But it shows ABC News having created “January 6 Riot” as an entire category of ABC fare.
[7][1] In his Monash oration on 4 September, Kim Williams said, “Remove truth and you get a screaming match that creates and channels anger and hatred. People yelling past each other. Claiming that walls can keep enemies out, that drinking bleach can cure Covid…” This is obvious code for Trump’s views.
The UK is going all out on Net Zero. Here’s a picture above for scale. I think the UK pols still think of themselves as a global power. Sorry, that ship has sailed.
Meanwhile, our resident debunker, the ever factual Willis Eschenbach, wrote a post from two weeks ago that defines just how much the UK can impact global temperatures with this Net Zero madness: Keir Starmer’s Climate Madness
For those of you that are not part of the climate wokerati, the answer won’t surprise you.
