The unfortunate juxtaposition of these two articles, not just on the same day, but literally next to each other on the front page, provides a perfect illustration of two things. Firstly, the ABC’s continuing gaslighting of the Australian public about our gas supplies and prices; and secondly that it’s not an accident.
For the gaslighting charge, before I discuss article #1, I’ll just refer to two previous, recent articles which have suffered from similar omissions and commissions: Blackout? Don’t Worry, the ABC Will Gaslight You, and ABC Gas Gaslighting Again. For a general discussion of how the ABC frequently uses supposed “balance” to hide a biased narrative, see also How the ABC Lies With Balance, however the technique mostly used here is simply omission of important facts, together with obfuscation by complexity.
Article #1 is ostensibly the ABC’s guide for the general public to the ACCC’s July interim report on gas supply arrangements in Australia. Article #2 is an expert analysis of the current situation, together with an exploration of the government’s options. The first article is written by a political reporter, not a business or industry expert, and the two articles are clearly not companion pieces, despite being published almost simultaneously.
In brief, and obviously in my opinion:
- Article #1 does a terrible job of summarising the ACCC interim report
- Article #1 lacks clarity on the most important point, and completely fails to mention several relevant and critical issues
- In all cases the effect of article #1’s failings is to shield foreign fossil-fuel companies, and the former government
- While Article #2 isn’t a summary of the ACCC report, it does an excellent job of clarifying what Article #1 should have made clear
- While both articles are about fossil-fuels, neither even mentions climate change or global warming
- Knowing what’s in Article #2, no competent news editor should have published Article #1 as it stands
Just to prove it’s possible, here’s my top-level summary of the ACCC report:
Foreign-Owned Fossil-Fuel Companies Are Exporting Over 80% Of Our Gas For Windfall Profits While Creating Artificial Domestic Scarcity—Price-Fixing And Price Gouging And Bankrupting Local Industry, Because They Can And The Coalition Has Let Them.
There are five important points in that pseudo-headline that aren’t covered anywhere in the entirety of ABC article #1, let alone its headline.
But let’s start with its headline:
NOT ENOUGH GAS…
Nowhere in the headline, or in the opening paragraphs is it clearly stated that the shortage is due to one thing, and one thing only: the choice, by foreign-owned fossil-fuel companies, to export so much gas that there will not be enough left for domestic supply.
Although it’s ostensibly an article about the ACCC interim report, the simple reality of the situation is wrapped in paragraphs of vague talk of “substantial volumes required for the domestic market next year to avoid a shortfall” and complicated graphs. It’s only nine paragraphs into the article that we read:
The ACCC has partly pointed the blame at liquefied natural gas (LNG) exporters.
The article never explains where the rest of the blame should rest, but continues with vague language about “encouraging” exporters to increase domestic supply. Furthermore, although both the ACCC report and article #2 have no problem actually naming the companies responsible, article #1 is strangely reticent in publishing names such as APA, Chevron and Shell, hiding them behind phrases like “LNG exporters”.
Did The Journalist Read The Same Report?
If you actually read the report, or even scan the Table Of Contents, you’ll wonder whether article #1 is even about the same document. Here are some excerpts from the report that do not rate even a mention in the article:
You’d think that uncompetitive behaviour by the gas producers would be relevant to an article about supply, demand and price. But there’s no mention. How about this:
You’d think that bad-faith behaviour by the gas exporters would be relevant to an article about supply problems, caused only and directly by exporters’ choices about how much to export? Or how about price-gouging by suppliers, charging the domestic market even higher prices than overseas, while artificially limiting supply? Surely the ABC would think that’s relevant to the Australian public?
Apparently not. What about this, then:
Apparently the ABC doesn’t think that suppliers’ selling practices, or failure to comply even with a voluntary code of conduct is important or relevant. Perhaps this bit is important:
No mention in the ABC article of monopoly pricing by foreign-owned fossil-fuel companies who control our supply. The ABC article, supposedly explaining the contents of this report, mentions only that the blame is “partly pointed at LNG exporters”.
Personally, I’d be expecting one of two headlines, possibly both:
“ACCC finds monopoly pricing by foreign-owned gas pipeline operators”
or
“ACCC takes no action for seven years on monopolistic behaviour”
However, we see neither.
‘Partly pointed’ Or ‘Completely Responsible’?
Article #1 fails to clearly explain that its headline “Not enough gas” is the direct result of decisions by foreign-owned fossil-fuel companies to export that gas, rather than supply it to the starved Australian market. It also completely fails to mention the ACCC’s numerous and clearly stated concerns about the anti-competitive and bad-faith behaviour by the players who control this critical supply.
The latter part of the article considers the ACCC’s strong urging that the government uses its in extremis powers to force the fossil-fuel companies to vaguely approximate the behaviour that everyone else expects would be an unconditional requirement of their social license. Again, although the article is ostensibly providing context and analysis as well as condensation, it completely fails to point out that the current “dire” situation is the simple product of two things: industry behaving badly, and the former government totally failing to provide appropriate controls to stop things from getting this bad in the first place.
Instead it chooses to conclude with vague statements like:
The ACCC has also pointed to supply issues being resolved in the medium to long term through the expansion of gas projects in the Gippsland Basin, the south-west pipeline in Victoria and further progress on LNG import terminals.
The expansion of gas projects? Does anyone else find this bizarre? We export over 70% of our considerable gas production; in fact in 2019 we were the world’s largest exporter of liquified LNG, but according to the ACCC and echoed without question by the ABC, the solution is to produce even more gas… It’s entirely unclear why, absent any change in government controls, the currently price-gouging, anti-competitive, monopolistic foreign companies will simply not export even more.
Which brings us to climate change; or rather, it doesn’t. Neither ABC article contains a single mention of climate change or global warming.
Climate Change? Sorry, This Is About Fossil Fuels
You might think this is surprising, given the prominence of the topic during the recent federal election and its dominance in headlines since, not to mention of course the existential threat it poses to all of us. As one of the world’s largest exporters of both coal and liquified LNG, you might expect that a discussion of gas use and export would consider that. Not the ABC.
The ACCC report barely mentions it either, but it does mention it, as well as climate policy, but not the ABC. Unfortunately the ABC has a poor history on this topic as well, as I’ve previously discussed in Silent Denial and …Whatever You Do, Don’t Mention The Climate Change.
However, despite article #1’s many strange omissions, that’s not the biggest problem.
The Biggest Problem
The biggest problem is that article #2, immediately next door, contains a simple, clear and unambiguous explanation of all of the information missing or obscured in article #1.
It’s not credible that a competent editor could read both articles and decide to publish article #1 in its current form. It fails as a simplified version of the ACCC report—as can easily be seen by the omitted material—and it fails to place even the basic facts in context or with any clarity. It further ignores or camouflages a multitude of sins by foreign fossil-fuel companies and skirts around the core issues addressed in the report.
You don’t achieve “balance” by publishing two articles, one of which does an excellent job of explaining the key issues, while the other does a terrible job of even summarising an ACCC report on the same topic.
So I have to ask: should an ABC News editor know this:
Should an ABC News editor know that we export over 70% of our gas, and that decision rests solely with foreign-owned companies who have just enjoyed the windfall profits above?
Should an ABC News editor know that over 95% of fossil-fuel companies in Australia are foreign-owned, pay little or no tax while enjoying taxpayer subsidies?
Should an ABC News editor know that the state of the current electricity generation market and the regulations governing fossil-fuel production, export and domestic retention are all the result of nine years of Coalition inaction on renewables and climate change?
Should an ABC News editor endeavour to better inform the Australian public about why there is “Not enough gas” than by publishing article #1, purportedly an explanation of the ACCC interim report, while omitting any mention of non-competitive, monopolistic and bad-faith behaviour clearly called out in the report?
Of course they should, and in my opinion the fact that they haven’t, while publishing article #2, can only be deliberate.
infinite8horizon - peter d barnes 