Four Corners:

Sue Spencer, Executive Producer, Four Corners, writes: Re. “4 Corners Sri Lanka documentary provokes mixed response” (yesterday, item 14). It is totally incorrect to say that “Four Corners declined to comment”. Neither myself, supervising producer, Mark Bannerman nor our publicist Rachel Fergus received these questions.

To follow is our response:

  1. What drove Four Corners to air the Killing Fields documentary? Four Corners chose to broadcast the Channel 4 documentary as we believed it presented serious allegations and evidence of war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by forces of the Government of Sri Lanka and the LTTE (Tamil Tigers). It was in the greatest possible public interest to air such a program and we were satisfied that Channel 4 had carried out its investigation with journalistic rigour and scrutiny.
  2. How did Four Corners respond to concerns from a) the Sri Lankan High Commission and b) the local Sinhalese community? We noted the concerns expressed by both the Sri Lankan High Commissioner and the local Sinhalese community, but told them both that it was in the public interest that this program should be broadcast. Four Corners also made mention of the Acting High Commissioner’s response  to the Channel 4 documentary in Kerry O’Brien’s back announce and where reference was made that her full response is on the Four Corners website.
  3. How does Four Corners respond to claims by the SL Government that one of the videos was doctored, and that the original voices in the video were speaking Tamil? These claims were addressed in the Channel 4 documentary:

    “In this sequence recorded on a mobile phone by Sri Lankan government forces, naked Tiger prisoners are executed with their hands bound behind their backs. Channel 4 News first revealed the existence of this footage and showed extracts late last year. They were denounced as fake by the Sri Lankan government. The footage has since been authenticated by the United Nations, though the Sri Lankan government still refuses to accept that … this programme has obtained shocking new video evidence – never seen before. Another incident, filmed on a mobile phone, in which three bound prisoners — including at least one woman — are executed … We have had this footage analysed by experts who say it shows no signs of manipulation and appears to depict genuine executions. Metadata encoded within the video indicates it was recorded on the 15th May 2009, in the last few days of the war.”

The 2011 motor show:

Sinead McAlary, Public Affairs Director, Ford Australia, writes: Re. “Auto makers plug into electric atmosphere at motor show” (yesterday, item 19). On Monday, Crikey ran a story by Sophie Vorrath from Climate Spectator. In it, she asserted that:

“Indeed, the vast majority of the major car makers at the 2011 motor show — with the notable exception of Ford, whose main reference to the future came with the unveiling of its remake of the mythical ‘Interceptor’ model, made famous in the post-apocalyptic Mad Max movies — were showcasing their EV/hybrid prototypes, or concepts, or ready-for-market models.”

Sophie quite obviously didn’t get up early enough in the morning to see Ford’s first and main presentation for the day — or bother actually looking at any models on Ford’s stand. If she had, she would have heard our focus on introducing significant new sustainable technologies that are actually applicable in the Australian market today. These include the rollout of Ford’s global EcoBoost technology which significantly improves fuel economy and reduces emissions; as well as the introduction of a new liquid injection LPG system, which will go on sale in Falcon next month.

Quite apart from all the serious questions around the lack of electrification infrastructure that weren’t raised in the article at all, this article grossly misrepresents Ford’s position and presentation on the day.

Our Mad Max project was a special design project undertaken by our designers in their own time and the two scale model concepts were revealed at the end of the motor show presentation schedule as a little showbiz to end the day. They did not form the basis of our main presentation at all and were clearly there to showcase the design capability that exists in Australia today.

The ABC and Australia Network:

Glenys Stradijot, Campaign Manager, Friends of the ABC, writes: Re. “Has the ABC’s independence finally cruelled its Australia Network chances?” (yesterday, item 9). There was no sound public interest reason for the Government to put Australia Network out to tender at all.

The ABC Act gives Australia’s national public broadcaster the responsibility to provide the nation’s international broadcasting services. The ABC is clearly best suited to represent Australia overseas. It has a long and esteemed history in international broadcasting and a charter that requires it to make programs of integrity that reflect Australian life and culture. Importantly, the ABC is widely trusted for its independence from both commercial and government influence.

None of the 10 biggest international broadcasting services around the world is outsourced. (Lowy Institute report on the contribution of international broadcasting to public diplomacy, 2010).

It would be contrary to Australia’s interests for a service of such strategic importance to be outsourced to an operator driven by commercial imperatives or political agenda, or beholden to foreign interests.

Martyn Smith writes: Re. “NotW scandal: Conroy must play probity card in Oz Network contract” (yesterday, item 4). Regarding Bernard Keane’s and Stephen Mayne’s articles on the Australia Network. It is a shocking waste of public money to force the ABC to compete against Sky news for a contract to provide the Australia Network.

Only the ABC has the breadth and quality of content to provide a comprehensive and balanced service. Only the independent public broadcaster can be relied upon to act in the national interest, as opposed to political and commercial interests.

Furthermore, not one cent of Australian taxes should go to increase the power and influence of Rupert Murdoch who is already a danger to democracy in Australia and across the world. I applaud Senator Conroy’s decision on this matter … no comments on Rudd are needed.

Humphrey Hollins, in Phnom Penh, writes: The Australia network is valued by most of us living in Asia for one thing … sport. We get several AFL, NRL and Super 15 rugby matches every week. As well as any rugby tests involving the Wallabies.

It is rumoured that this year we will not even get to see the AFL finals and that there will be no more coverage of any codes of football after this year. I don’t know how many Asians watch the Australia network but huge numbers of Europeans and Americans watch our football. If Murdoch gets the contract will we get our football back?

We don’t give two hoots how many phones he has tapped.

The Smage:

Tom Osborn writes: Re. “SMH and Age will ‘cease to exist’ within decade: analyst” (yesterday, item 2). Smage to disappear? Where will the wife get her Sudoku fix?

News of the World:

Niall Clugston writes: Re. Yesterday’s Editorial. I’m not shocked about News of the World, but I am shocked about the amount of people who are shocked.

Did anyone ever think that the intimate details that the tabloid media published were obtained ethically?

Did anyone ever think that the sensationalist coverage of crime didn’t magnify its harm?

Are people just naive or are they hypocrites?

Climate change:

Justin Templer writes: Re. “Carbon pricing: the big picture” (yesterday, item 13). In his comment on carbon pricing Martin Jones described cogently and with clear cadence the building blocks of the rationale that tells us that Australia needs to act to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. And he correctly concludes that carbon pricing must be correctly assessed or run the risk of being “merely politics, not policy”.

The trouble is that getting climate change stabilisation measures across the line requires politics, not just policy. It is the assumption by academics that logical argument must ultimately win that is leaving them open to accusations of arrogance and even ridiculous charges of fascism.

This is the argument they need to counter, and in its simple state it has great cogency. My figures might be a bit rubbery, out-of-date or just plain wrong, but the argument should hold in approximate terms:

  • Australia is the fifth highest emitter of CO2-e per capita
  • Our per capita emissions are around 25 tonnes
  • Garnaut global per capita target to stop climate change = 2 tonnes , Greens’ 40% target (end of the binoculars) = 12 tonnes per capita
  • Australian population = 22.5m
  • China and India population = 2,200 million
  • We emit around 1.3% of world greenhouse gases, sixteenth highest emitter
  • The bigger emitters than us are responsible for around 80% of emissions
  • China and India together emit over 20% of greenhouse gases, and growing rapidly

Bottom line — even if we switched off Australia the effect would be minimal. So the selfish argument prevails — why bother? And certainly don’t bother if no-one else is. This is the political argument which must be won.