ABC viewers go dark on Chris Uhlmann after South Australian blackout ‘heresy’

ABC viewers go dark on Chris Uhlmann after South Australian blackout ‘heresy’, by Amanda Meade.

The ABC’s political editor, Chris Uhlmann, has doubled down on his controversial claim last week that South Australia’s heavy reliance on wind generation is linked to the blackout. The former AM and 7.30 host also openly taunted his critics by tweeting his latest analysis with the comment that it “should keep the pitchfork crowd busy for days”.

This is on the Guardian (very PC), so the statewide blackout due to wind turbines will only ever briefly rise to the level of “controversial claim” before it is debunked and/or forgotten by the PC crew (“we don’t talk about that, only deniers say that sort of thing”).

But it is interesting to see what happened to ABC journalist Chris Uhlmann when he strayed just a little bit too far from the grand narrative. Uhlmann is married to a Labor politician in Canberra, so he is part of the new aristocracy who runs the place.

Chris Uhlmann

He got attacked by the usual suspects for stepping out of line:

One of the “pitchfork crowd” was journalist Giles Parkinson, who asked in Renew Economy if Uhlmann was the “new face of the anti-wind lobby”.  “The problem with Uhlmann’s line – apart from revealing his own personal prejudice, or ignorance – was that it was still being repeated as gospel by mainstream ABC new reports, on ABC News Radio and local stations, into Thursday morning.” …

What sparked the ire of Parkinson, Eltham and others was that Uhlmann went on News 24 and radio immediately after the blackout and said that 40% of the state’s power is wind generated and “that has the problem of being intermittent”. In an online piece on the same day he warned that if wind energy goes unchecked “the entire nation might go to black”.

But, unbowed by the critics on Thursday, Uhlmann published a third piece in which he likened himself to a heretic who was being burned at the stake for his views and he accused his critics of being hysterical. …

Asked why, as political editor, he was spending so much time on this issue he said: “These are things that I would have thought a journalist would be interested in. This is an absolute legitimate line of inquiry. I find myself in a position where I have to defend myself from organisations like yours and Crikey.”

hat-tip Chris