3 ms·

In summary, you are saying that controlled burns were reduced and they would have helped, it's just that the protests against them weren't significant? Also se

In summary, you are saying that controlled burns were reduced and they would have helped, it's just that the protests against them weren't significant? Also seems like the Australian media supported the protestors: http://joannenova.com.au/2020/01/abc-deleting-facebook-posts-on-how-protesters-stop-prescribed-burns-more-worried-about-climate-change-than-wildfires/ http://joannenova.com.au/2020/01/abc-deleting-facebook-posts...

bjowen 7y ago
That’s a claim you should not read uncritically, given where it is published — the site is a “climate skeptic” page, and the claim it is trying to advance is that the national broadcaster is being manipulated, or at the centre of a vast left-wing conspiracy, that has inexplicably ruined the country, despite having apparently not convinced its audience to vote for a left-wing party. Here’s the thing: the reportage of the protest was on a local-news Facebook page maintained by the national broadcaster and was not reported more widely at the time (September 2019). You can find the post cached, it doesn’t read as being in favour or opposition to the protest. But it did contain the names and faces of the (two) protesters. The planned burn zone is in the one of the current fire-affected areas - although probably not the massive ones you’ve been reading about, 500 miles away. The article posted asks whether the area of the planned burn “has now been completed by Mother Nature” alongside screen grabs of the cached article, and you can see the tenor of the comments section what sorts of feelings that provokes. It’s pretty reasonable to assume that the post was deleted to protect two protesters from harassment.
- akvadrako 7y ago
  Protecting the protesters could certainly be one of the reasons to take it down. But that shows they are sympathetic to their cause, when really they did a horrible thing. I don’t think that makes the article less on point.
  - Intermernet 7y ago
    Hang on, what "horrible thing" did they do?
Intermernet 7y ago
Controlled burns were reduced because controlled burns weren't viable in many areas. This had nothing to do with any activists, but everything to do with the fact that there wasn't a viable time to do these burns in many areas. EDIT: I just read the link you provided. Do you honestly not see how unreliable that source is? They are basically an anti ABC hate farm. Do some independent fact checks and get back to me.

bjowen 7y ago

That’s a claim you should not read uncritically, given where it is published — the site is a “climate skeptic” page, and the claim it is trying to advance is that the national broadcaster is being manipulated, or at the centre of a vast left-wing conspiracy, that has inexplicably ruined the country, despite having apparently not convinced its audience to vote for a left-wing party. Here’s the thing: the reportage of the protest was on a local-news Facebook page maintained by the national broadcaster and was not reported more widely at the time (September 2019). You can find the post cached, it doesn’t read as being in favour or opposition to the protest. But it did contain the names and faces of the (two) protesters. The planned burn zone is in the one of the current fire-affected areas - although probably not the massive ones you’ve been reading about, 500 miles away. The article posted asks whether the area of the planned burn “has now been completed by Mother Nature” alongside screen grabs of the cached article, and you can see the tenor of the comments section what sorts of feelings that provokes. It’s pretty reasonable to assume that the post was deleted to protect two protesters from harassment.

akvadrako 7y ago
Protecting the protesters could certainly be one of the reasons to take it down. But that shows they are sympathetic to their cause, when really they did a horrible thing. I don’t think that makes the article less on point.
- Intermernet 7y ago
  Hang on, what "horrible thing" did they do?

Intermernet 7y ago

Controlled burns were reduced because controlled burns weren't viable in many areas. This had nothing to do with any activists, but everything to do with the fact that there wasn't a viable time to do these burns in many areas. EDIT: I just read the link you provided. Do you honestly not see how unreliable that source is? They are basically an anti ABC hate farm. Do some independent fact checks and get back to me.