Opinion and fact: ministerial expertise, cancers, cars and climate

He argued in an opinion piece in The Australian that attempts to focus climate change responses on carbon reduction were similar to "primitive civilisations offering up sacrifices to the gods".

Newman's piece draws heavily on published research in order to ground his opinions in facts - an effective activity that any student essay-writer does as a regular part of learning assessment. However, what he fails to articulate is a study of his resources and whether or not they are, indeed, expert or biased themselves.

Newman cites the work of "Perth scientist" David Archibald, particularly referring to his book The Twilight of Abundancewhich argues that climate change is not an effect of carbon emissions but the result of shifts in solar activity. What Newman neglects to do is point to the fact that Archibald's fact are not only from a fringe perspective published in an unverified form, but that the author himself was apparently a former CEO of oil and mining exploration companies".

In Newman's case, then, opinion is articulated as fact by following the conventions of citation, in order to make an absurd argument about climate change and an even more ridiculous claim that likens contemporary models of climate action and responsiveness to "primitives" (indeed) fearfully attempting to appease their gods. Perhaps part of the responsibility of Newman, and one all opinion writers (perhaps myself too) should be following, is to consult all sides of the story, to carefully and slowly work through the different knowledges and make judgments based on expertise in order to come to a balanced, informed and informative opinion.

News Cycles, Immediacy and Ignorance

Part of the issue at stake here is the shift towards not only the twenty-four hour news cycle but to the intensification of immediacy in responsiveness. It is, seemingly, less acceptable for a minister, senior commentator or politician to state that further fact-checking and consultation with experts is needed.

Rather, the cycle operates with the assumption that there is a public demand all politicians and policy leaders know and understand every possible fact there-and-then and must have a position on those facts in order to appear as persons of 'integrity'.

Instead of bucking against that system and offering to consult their expert advisers, their departments, parliamentary research officers (etc.), Abetz and Hockey effectively buy into the system of immediacy in such a way as to participate in the "dumbing down" of information and fact, making "opinion" (and ideologically-driven opinion) the central component of all public debate, and pushing "expert opinion" and "informed opinion" to the sidelines, as if expertise and "being informed" are an archaic practice belonging only to dusty halls at a de-funded university.

While opposing the culturally-developed norms of contemporary political and news communication is not an easy task, politicians and opinion-leaders continue to be in substantially strong positions to do so.

Without undertaking some audience research, it would be difficult for this writer to know for sure, but one might make an educated guess that the public and the contemporary audience may well appreciate an opinion leader or politician who offers to go and check some facts, who says "I am still in the process of being informed on this complex issue" and who gives dignity to the government departments, researchers and expert consultants by stating that they are the people to whom she or he needs to return before saying anything further (digging a deeper hole, as John Hewson recently put it).

The problem with relying on the immediacy of hype and spin to cover poor research and a lack of engagement with quality research is that audiences are increasingly aware of how it works, as television comedies such as BBC's The Thick of It and ABC's Utopia demonstrate.

Combined with an intelligent network of commentary and response, opinion leaders and politicians become the least effective in leading the communication of ideas, the discussion of important issues and the effectiveness of public debate.