How to manage public concerns over environmenal issues.

[harryopal1]

While South Australia is still dealing with the impact of an algal bloom, now nearly a year on, government and the public service have been at work to fix things. Early in the piece the state Premier had declared that the bloom was not of concern regarding health and declared it non toxic. In March he was caught out and had to admit that yes, the bloom is toxic and potentially hazardous for human health. Not to mention the fishing industry going into a nose dive. Now it has been shown that the members of the public service were told not to use the word "harmful" when referring to the bloom.

Public servants asked to remove word 'harmful' about SA algal bloom, FOI reveals

Emails released under FOI laws and obtained by the SA Liberal Party show government workers were removing the word "harmful" from communications about the algal bloom in SA waters, with one team leader labelling it "bizarre".

www.abc.net.au

Perhaps they were inspired by the Russian government which has warned media outlets that they must not use the word "war" when referring to the conflict with Ukraine. Instead they should talk of "special operations." Now it is a criminal offence to post negative stories about the Russian military. An opportunity there for the SA government to warn media that negative stories about the algal bloom might be libellous with an implied suggestion that government has somehow failed.

 

[serious_fun]

Can the government be taken to court if there's evidence that harm was caused by the misleading comments? Of course, it may take years for evidence to appear, and then more time for litigation.