|
March 13, 2003
RAW
MEATY BONES vs CATALYST
At 14:51 2/08/2002 +0100, Tom Lonsdale wrote:
Dear Mr Moore,
In response to a request for 'compelling' science stories I
wrote to Owen Craig on 8 March 2002 and again on 11 April
2002. I provided him with a copy of my book Raw Meaty Bones
and http://www.rawmeatybones.com/
web address.
It seems to me that the Raw Meaty Bones stories, whether
taken severally or jointly, meet the criteria laid down by
Catalyst (see February media request below).
Please note that the Law Society Journal and the University
of Sydney Post Graduate Foundation in Veterinary Science have
given the book solid support. In the UK The Sunday Times
commissioned me to write about the issues. In the USA, where
I'm about to begin a four city lecture and media tour,
concerned pet owners have united to bring legal action against
the pet food companies (see http://www.rawmeatybones.com/).
Despite the importance of the issues, five months has
elapsed without a response.
Does this non-response accord with ABC TV Science Unit
policies? When will the ABC TV Science Unit investigate these
matters? When can I expect a reply?
Thank you for your consideration.
Yours sincerely
Tom Lonsdale
'CATALYST' program - ABC TV Science Unit
Catalyst, produced by the ABC-TV Science Unit, has returned
for another series of 20 episodes in the new timeslot of 8pm
on Thursday nights. The first episode went to air last week.
Right now they're searching hard around Australia for
compelling science stories that provide new insight into the
world of science, and are capable of engaging the interest of
a broad audience.
They're still focussing on fascinating, good quality and
groundbreaking science and research, but are also looking for
some additional elements. They want to combine scientific
stories with the classic principles of dramatic story-telling.
This could involve a debate over a particular piece of science
or research, a moral dilemma or ethical issue to explore, a
strong character who's on a mission to achieve a goal, a
political stouch concerning the best way to act on the
scientific solution to a problem, and even exploring conflict
between scientists themselves where appropriate.
In summary: They want to tell a good story and inform and
educate the viewers about the science involved as they go,
challenging them to think more deeply and carefully about
their world and the science behind their lives.
If you've got a good science story, but you're not sure
about the story-telling elements, just give Owen Craig a call
or email your thoughts and he'll chat about the possibilities
with you.
Contact any of the research team by phone, email Owen
directly, or email all of them at once via the Catalyst
researchers' email address catalyst1@your.abc.net.au.
The "Catalyst1" email address is also best for regular media
releases and newsletters.
At 09:27 PM
1/09/2002, Owen Craig wrote:
Dear Tom,
First of all, my apologies for taking so long to respond to
your email to Stefan Moore, CC'd to me, regarding your book -
'Raw Meaty Bones'. As we receive so many suggestions for
stories, it is sometimes difficult to reply quickly to them
all.
I did first look at your book when it was mailed to me for
review, with a form letter, in August 2001. I decided not to
take up the story at that time for a number of reasons.
Chiefly, however, because we tend to try and cover science and
technology stories that are new and groundbreaking. The story
that packaged pet food has a detrimental effect on pets'
health has been well reported since at least 1996.
At around the same time that you sent me a letter in April
of this year (2002) which suggested we take a look at your
book as the basis for a story on Catalyst, I believe we had
telephone discussion about your book. At the time I regarded
that your query had been dealt with via the telephone call and
that no formal reply was required.
We get many hundreds of suggestions for possible stories
each year - both from the public and from the scientific
community - and only very few actually make it on to the show
for a whole variety of reasons. I will, however, take another
look at your book and see if there is something new we can add
to the topic. If we do decide to seek more information, I will
contact you directly.
Thanks again for your story suggestion, and I hope your
upcoming promotional tour in the US goes well.
Best regards
Owen Craig
At 14:49
5/09/2002 -0400, Tom Lonsdale wrote:
Dear Mr Moore,
The correspondence below tells a sorry tale.
i.) It has taken five months and four separate
enquiries to your program to elicit one disingenuous reply.
ii.) I do not share Mr Owen's belief that he spoke
with me on the telephone.
iii.) Mr Owen asserts: 'The story that packaged pet
food has a detrimental effect on pets' health has been well
reported since at least 1996.' The commercial TV stations have
touched on the subject. When has the ABC Science unit (radio
or TV) dealt with this issue, whether superficially or in
depth?
iv.) The book Raw Meaty Bones is about much more
than the detrimental effects of packaged pet foods. It meets
or exceeds your criteria:
They're still focussing on fascinating, good quality and
groundbreaking science and research, but are also looking for
some additional elements. They want to combine scientific
stories with the classic principles of dramatic story-telling.
This could involve a debate over a particular piece of science
or research, a moral dilemma or ethical issue to explore, a
strong character who's on a mission to achieve a goal, a
political stouch concerning the best way to act on the
scientific solution to a problem, and even exploring conflict
between scientists themselves where appropriate.
v.) Mr Owen seems to have been aware of the
detrimental effects of packaged pet foods, at least since
1996. You may be aware that Robyn Williams and Jonica Newby
were exposed by ABC Media Watch (in the case of Newby on three
separate occasions) for alleged improper use of the ABC
airwaves to promote those same detrimental products.
vi.) Jonica Newby was a long time 'consultant' to
the Pet Care Information and Advisory Service, which Stuart
Littlemore told viewers: 'It seems fair to say, is nothing
more than a front for the multinational pet food manufacturer
Mars, through its Australian subsidiary Uncle Bens.'
vii.) Jonica Newby's father, I'm informed, is (was)
a high ranking Mars executive.
viii.) Despite the apparent awareness, since 1996,
of the activities of Williams and Newby they both are now
employed on your program. Simultaneously your program fails
even to extend the common courtesy of responding to
correspondence regarding matters of considerable scientific
and economic interest.
Please advise if the employment of Williams and Newby on
your program has any bearing on whether you will adequately
deal with the pet food scam and the veterinary profession
collusion with the pet food makers.
If your employment of Williams and Newby has no bearing
then please advise when you propose to enter into discussions
to ensure that the ABC Science unit acquits itself of its
responsibilities to the Australian public in respect to the
pet food scam and the veterinary profession collusion with the
pet food makers.
Yours sincerely
Tom Lonsdale
At 02:31 AM
6/09/2002, Stefan Moore wrote:
Dear Mr. Lonsdale,
We have received your email of 6 September regarding
Catalyst's decision not to produce a piece related to the
topic of your book "Raw Meaty Bones".
As Executive Producer of the ABC TV Science Unit I make the
final decision about what stories are covered. You have been
informed by the head of our research unit that Catalyst is not
interested in doing a story about the pet food issue at this
time. That decision remains unchanged.
Thank you for your interest in Catalyst.
Stefan Moore
Executive Producer
ABC TV Science
At 14:30 6/09/2002 -0400, Tom Lonsdale
wrote:
Dear Mr Moore,
Thank you for confirming the attitude behind the conduct of
the ABC TV 'Science' Unit.
It seems reasonable to expect the ABC, at the very least,
to present both sides of an important issue. Where one side of
an issue is known to be harmful to the interests of the
community then it would be reasonable for the ABC to take
sides with the community.
In this instance, concerned with multinationals obtaining
influence and poisoning the community's animals, the ABC
'Science' Unit has sided with the multinational corporations.
The alternative view does not get an airing -- although your
researcher Mr Craig says the issue 'has been well reported'.
ABC viewers and ABC management deserve the opportunity to
form their own opinions on this important topic. Please supply
contact details for the head of the ABC.
Yours sincerely
Tom Lonsdale
PS. The dictionary defines poison as a substance that when
introduced into or absorbed by a living organism causes death
or injury -- commercial pet foods, the diet of most pets,
poison three ways. | 
