The
Australian,
24 October 2019:
At
the United Nations during his US trip, Scott Morrison said that when
it came to per capita investment in clean energy, Australia spent
more than “anywhere in the world”. Not a lot of ambiguity there.
He repeated the claim last week in parliament, but instead of
referring to clean energy the PM narrowed the description down to
renewables.
Both
claims are false, the latter more so than the first.
The
Australia Institute decided to look into the claim, which was based
on a Bloomberg study which revealed yes, Australia has the highest
per capita investment in clean energy of 14 countries it looked at.
The Prime Minister’s office confirmed to me that was the source for
his UN claim.
Where
to start …
I
suspect most readers, along with the PM, realise that there are more
than 14 countries in the world. Quite a few more actually. You don’t
have to be Einstein to know that. Which means relying on a 14 country
study to make the wild claim that we spend more per capita on clean
energy (we’ll forget when the PM misspoke in the parliament about
“renewables”) than “anywhere in the world” is pretty silly.
Yet that’s what Morrison did, on the world stage. It’s rather
Donald Trump like.
It
turns out beyond the 14 countries in that study there are other
nations that invest more per capita than we do — in clean energy
broadly and in renewables more specifically……
But
if the PM wants to crow about something his government has criticised
in the domestic political setting that’s his choice.
However
it was plain wrong to claim we are first. And unnecessary, given we
do so well despite not being first.
When
I first flagged this inaccuracy by the PM last Friday in a news
package for Network Ten his office were quick to accuse me of being
misleading and complained that when calling out the inaccuracy I
didn’t specifically refer to the report which showed we were number
one.
Never
mind that the PM didn’t refer to the 14 country study either in his
15 minute speech. Apparently I should have done so in my one minute
ten seconds package. Weird to expect me to cite a source the PM
didn’t cite when making a claim the source didn’t make…….
The
next tactic in the PMO complaints was to attack the credibility of
the Australia Institute — which yes we can categorise as a left
leaning think tank. Reminiscent of John Howard’s “who do you
trust” campaign in 2004, I was asked (though it wasn’t really a
question) which organisation do I trust more: the highly credible
Bloomberg which did the 14 country study, or the ideologically
compromised
Australia Institute.
But
the Australia Institute report didn’t contradict the Bloomberg
study. It accepted it, simply pointing out it only examined 14
countries. The criticism for inaccuracy was levelled at the PM, who
misused that study to claim first place over every single country
across the globe, not Bloomberg. So which organisation anyone thinks
is more or less credible just isn’t relevant. It is a red herring.
This
is just one example of the way political spin doctors try and
challenge entirely fair and reasonable reporting and commentary. Or
the way some do, anyway. The funny thing is they become like the boy
who cried wolf when they do so this way. Of course journalists and
commentators make mistakes and misjudgements. Meaning that there is
always a place for the media guardians of a PM or any politician to
(politely) complain or correct.
But
when they do so on flimsy ground, or no grounds like in this example,
they make journalists and commentators instantly cynical of the next
time they whinge, just like the boy who cries wolf.
No comments:
Post a Comment