Not the ABC - surely

Sweating on a successful conviction of "The Swindle " .
Robin Williams and Tony Jones conducted a panel review of the film "The Swindle" after ABC management insisted that Robin Williams stop worrying about whether the story should be put to air - since when have journos become to be guardians of science debate ? . It would have been in the ABC 's interest to let someone more objective run the discussion . Are we to assume then that certain well known sections of the ABC have became a fundamentalist church of scientological principles ( guardians of the moral code ) in its own right?
This could have been an ABC "night of nights" -instead it raised more questions than answers . It was nonethe less a most solemn and serious occassion in ABC church history . The panel for the affirmative were not identified, the subject of the debate(accusations against the film and the accused ) unstated and thus skirted around. ) Any unbelievers or members of the panel in doubt about the guilt of the opposition ( if there was one - there turned out to be 1 ; was only 1 of 8 ) weren't allowed to put questions or respond in kind . No, I am not talking about Keith Allen (in Robin Hood) --yes we are talking about the castle and what has just happened inside it .
Unlike the film , the over the hours wanderings skipped all around the key question ( is C02 implicated as the key componenet in global warming) A question the ABC accusers never properly put to the accussed never properly present .


All these journos had to do to shore up their water tight story was to have a panel of scientists talk ( like they did on the film ). 4 on each side .This basic reporting competency they did not fulfil. Even easier, if they were concerned about coverups ; All they had to do was to make sure they asked powerful questions and knew the answers to the key questions before they were put . Its even easier than you think when you have that sort of control position and you get to say whose talking , when and on what questions . It was nothing like a debate. Maybe ABCTV don't have such things anymore- !
So how many earth scientists were there on the panel - total of 1 and he was not cooperating with the chanting . And how many were on the affirmative side - the rest ?

What do we expect of our dear auntie - In a post modern age , as Phillip Adams reminds us that its OK according to him " we make up our own meaning"- even on science facts ; anyone it seems is entitled to talk about science and praxis - esp when they agree with the bloke who wants one side of the story to be heard.
Result - It was a discussion of lower than secondary school standard .
even if there was an adjudicator he didn't have the films question up frontthere to keep tham honest ( at least the film stuck to the question - "is CO2 the key problem in global warming?")

The sense of panic and fanaticism was obvious . Its the sort of panic that question controllers get when .... they haven't got all the arguments together . Like the poor science lawyers they are , R&T didn't know the answer to many related question before they were raised - -thus more questions than answers came from what might have been an ABC night of nights . -
Tony and Robin Williams had a powerful opportunity . They controlled the questions ; they had all the power ? To be convincing you have to be convincing . The show wasn't . Even the leaders got distracted from the debates premise .
Both leaders failed the first test of good debating - They failed to control the agenda , they got too involved in the subject themselves and they had no adjudicator .

Projecting ones's own sense of panic onto the agenda is less than convincing; The program of over 1 hour was not a process worthy of OUR public broadcaster whose responsibilities are to report others , not defend the once united faith of the old huddle.