GERARD HENDERSON’S MEDIA WATCH DOG

ISSUE – NO. 705

1 November 2024

* * * *

* * * *

  • ABC BREAKFAST CHANGE – NO CHANGE AT ALL

There was lotsa excitement on Radio National Breakfast on the morning of Friday 1 November (aka All Saints’ Day). RN Breakfast presenter Patricia (“Please call me PK”) Karvelas told listeners (if listeners there were) that there would be an exciting moment at 7.30am. And so it turned out to be:

Patricia Karvelas: Now is the time to make an announcement about how the program will move on in 2025. …  I can share with you that Sally Sara will be the new host of Radio National Breakfast. Sally … massive congratulations.

Sally Sara: Thank you. Thank you, Patricia, and yeah, I’m very grateful for the chance to join the Radio National Breakfast team. And also, you know, I must, it’s important to publicly acknowledge all of your hard work on the program … it’s a pretty gruelling shift on RN Breakfast, so I want to congratulate you on that.

Patricia Karvelas: I really appreciate that Sally, but we’re talking about you. What can audiences expect from the program in 2025, what’s changing?

And so, it continued as mutual back-slapping praise was passed around. But here is Media Watch Dog’s thought-for-the-day.

What’s the point of replacing a left-of-centre ABC presenter (as in PK) with a left-of-centre ABC presenter (as in Comrade Sara)? Sure, Breakfast will start at 5.30 am from 20 January 2025 with ABC journalist Melissa Clark joining as political correspondent and ABC journalist Peter Ryan as business correspondent.

Pardon the French. But surely, this is a case of plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose. A real change would have been to replace Comrade Karvelas with a right-of-centre type. This is how the incestuous discussion concluded:

Patricia Karvelas: Okay, that’s all right. You will kill it and you will smash it and congratulations again.

Sally Sara: Thank you for all that you’ve done. PK, thank you.

The inconvenient truth is that PK lost listeners aplenty in her role as RN Breakfast presenter. Don’t put your money on a surge in ratings under Comrade Sara. And, for the ABC’s sake – let’s hope she doesn’t literally kill it.

EDITORIAL

  • ABC CHAIR KIM WILLIAMS STRESSES THE NEED FOR IMMEDIATE CONTEMPORARY RELEVANCE

The ABC Annual Report 2024 was tabled in the House of Representatives on Tuesday 29 October. The Foreword by the recently appointed Kim Williams is written in a style which indicates that it was drafted, in whole or in part, by him.

Now, the ABC board does not run the taxpayer funded broadcaster on a day-to-day basis. Nor should it.  That is the role of the managing director (who is also editor-in-chief) and senior management.  But Mr Williams and the board have a role in setting the ABC culture and ensuring that the organisation acts in accordance with the ABC Act and the ABC Charter.

What appears to be fresh in Williams’ approach is that the ABC is no longer in a constant state of denial. Sure, the Annual Report runs the line that the ABC “is the most trusted media organisation in our nation” – despite the fact that every night ABC News comes in third in the nation behind Network 7 and Network 9.  Which suggests that Kim Williams and company believe that Australians are so stupid as to watch a news service that they trust less than the one they trust most.  Work that out if you can.

However, Mr Williams at least recognises that the ABC has its problems.  The ABC Annual Report 2024 indicates that the ABC’s audiences across television, radio and online continue to decline.  This is more so the case with television and radio.  The audience decline is most marked in the important 7pm news bulletin slot. ABC Radio audiences also continue to decline with ABC Radio National losing 4.5 per cent of its audience share in one year. The ABC’s combined national audience reach declined in 2024 by 3.5 per cent compared with 2023.

Clearly, Kim Williams accepts the need for urgent attention to be given to the declining audience.  The chair’s report had this to say:

In order for the Corporation to serve the nation well in this era dominated by dramatic change, I and my board colleagues believe it is imperative to aim over the course of the next few months to develop an invigorated sense of purpose for contemporary relevance at the ABC which is drawn from the Charter and the other core elements of the ABC Act. We are of the view that we must consciously reference these primary instruments that artfully describe the ABC remit in terms to meet today’s needs ensuring we are well aligned in determining the right priorities to serve Australians well. This will require a cultural renewal in many settings at the ABC and a determination to thoughtfully review our performance with a keen eye on our never ending obligations to the community and the many audiences contained within it. The ABC is, after all, owned by all Australians.

This is an acknowledgement that the ABC immediately needs to assess the contemporary relevance and engage in cultural renewal.

Well, at least the ABC is no longer in denial. However, in Media Watch Dog’s view, the organisation will continue to be deficient in cultural relevance and in need of cultural renewal until it ceases to be a conservative free zone and embraces viewpoint diversity within its staff and across its television, radio and online programs. Kim Williams has told the ABC journalists to desist from being political activists. But he is yet to publicly recognise the need for viewpoint diversity.

One of the problems within the ABC is that it has lost many of its traditional viewers/listeners who are of a conservative disposition.  How else does the ABC explain the Sky News audience? – much of which has come from disillusioned one-time ABC followers.  This has had two consequences.  First, ABC audiences have declined. Second, ABC audiences increasingly consist of leftist or left-of-centre types, many of whom cannot bear to hear conservative views on the ABC.

Media Watch Dog wishes Kim Williams all the best in his endeavours.  He is correct to point out that the ABC is owned by Australians.  The next step is to ensure that it ceases to be a conservative free zone.

  • Q&A BORING FOR AUSTRALIA (TO BORROW A MALCOLM MUGGERIDGE SAYING)

While on the topic of the ABC’s need for contemporary relevance and cultural renewal, consider the Q+A television program.  There was a time when the program, which commenced in May 2008, had a degree of viewpoint diversity. Sure, it was invariably a leftist stack but the occasional conservative got a seat on the five person panel.  This is rarely the case these days. Many conservatives have been “cancelled” by the ABC while some others do not see the point of accepting invitations to appear on politically unbalanced panels before a hostile audience dominated by the sneering left.

As a result, Q+A has become increasingly boring. It even took a number of what journalists like to call a Well Earned Break – or WEB – this year.  Most recently between 16 September and 21 October. Despite the conflict in the Middle East, the forthcoming Australian election, and the focus on the United States presidential election on 5 November and more besides.

The Q+A which aired on Monday 28 October was just boring. It was presented as a Health Special – with a focus on GP access, Ozempic, Vapes and Medical Misogyny. A bit like a television version of Radio National’s Health Report by Norman (“I’m Australia’s most trusted doctor”) Swan.

The Health Minister Mark Butler appeared on the panel.  Fair enough.  But the Shadow Minister Anne Ruston was not there. Monique Ryan, the Teal for Kooyong, was a panellist, but she has scant influence in the House of Representatives.  The Coalition was represented by, wait for it, Bronnie Taylor – the former NSW Minister for Health. And then there was Johann Hari (the Scottish writer who specialises in addiction) and Preeya Alexander (a Melbourne-based general practitioner and author).

All important. But most very dull. And there was virtually no disagreement on the panel or between presenter Patricia Karvelas and the chosen ones.  If this is the best ABC management can do at a time of real news in Australia and overseas – no wonder ABC TV continues to lose audiences.  Ellie’s (male) co-owner was going to comment on your man Hari’s view on Ozempic which, apparently, he has taken – but was unable to do so because of a medical condition which presents as Zzzzzzzzz.  Can You Bear It?

  • THE [BORING] SATURDAY PAPER GOES ALL ANAL IN FANGING DEPUTY PM RICHARD MARLES

While on the topic of Boring, did anyone read the lead story in The [Boring] Saturday Paper on 26 October?  As Media Watch Dog readers are well aware, TSP is the only newspaper in Australia which contains no news. It goes to print in Melbourne on Thursday evenings and arrives in inner-city coffee shops on Saturday mornings where it is read by sandal-wearing leftist luvvies.

Here’s a pic of the front page of TSP on 26 October.  Yep, that’s it. It ran a photo of a man from the waist down over the caption “Defence Minister Richard Marles during a visit to Timor-Leste earlier this year”.

Presumably The [Boring] Saturday Paper – publisher Morry Schwartz, editor-in-chief Erik Jensen – was trying to make a point. But what point?  The hips-down photo served as an illustration for TSP’s lead story by Jason Koutsoukis titled “Is Richard Marles more than ‘two boots sticking out of Albo’s bum’”?

Your man Koutsoukis’ piece was sub-headed “Colleagues deride the defence minister as vain and too enthusiastic about the trappings of office – but his factional power makes him a possibility to succeed as prime minister”.   The piece commenced with criticism of Minister Marles by such sources as “colleagues”, “a former ally”, “a Labor source” and “another Labor source”.   Here’s what the latter had to say:

Another Labor source notes Marles’s talent for currying favour and ingratiating himself with those in positions of power above him. “He has all the sincerity of a lap dance”, the source says.  “If ever you can’t find Richard,” another source says, “just look for two boots sticking out of Albo’s bum. He’s like a homing pigeon.”

How about that?  It would seem that Comrade K regards a comment by an anonymous source that Richard Marles has two boots sticking out of Prime Minister Albanese’s backside as serious political analysis suitable for Page One of The Saturday Paper. Can You Bear It?

[Er, no. Not really – now that you ask. I’m sure that Gerard Henderson AC (aka Always Courteous) would not have run such crudity in his Weekend Australian column. But, then, Hendo was well brought up.  Perhaps Erik Jensen and his comrades at The Saturday Paper should be compelled to attend the late Nancy’s (hugely popular) Courtesy Classes.  I can arrange a booking with a little help from John Edward of Crossing Over fame.  Just a thought. – MWD  Editor.]

  • SHOCK/HORROR – COMRADE PETER FITZSIMONS WARNS THE WORLD – HE WILL NEVER READ THE WASHINGTON POST AGAIN

Avid Media Watch Dog readers have requested an update on The Thought of Peter FitzSimons who has not appeared in this blog for some weeks.  What’s he up to? – the MWD family wants to know.  And has The Red Bandannaed One – who wore a red rag on his head for a decade until it was sent to the laundry where it was lost – found another head cover? And more besides.

Well, it seems that Comrade (“look at me”) Fitz has entered the Cancel Culture Soviet.  Witness the post that he put out on X (per courtesy of Trump fave Elon Musk) on 26 October:

You see, Comrade FitzSimons threw a tantrum when it was revealed that The Washington Post – proprietor Jeff Bezos – will not be endorsing Vice-President Kamala Harris over former president Donald J. Trump in the US presidential election on 5 November.

Now, The Washington Post is a left-wing newspaper which has railed against Trump for over a decade.  And Washington DC votes over 90 per cent.  Moreover, it is not clear if voters take any notice about which candidate is endorsed in newspaper editorials.  As Bezos put it in the Washington Post on 28 October:

Presidential endorsements do nothing to tip the scales of an election. No undecided voters in Pennsylvania are going to say, “I’m going with Newspaper A’s endorsement.” None. What presidential endorsements actually do is create a perception of bias. A perception of non-independence. Ending them is a principled decision, and it’s the right one. Eugene Meyer, publisher of The Washington Post from 1933 to 1946, thought the same, and he was right.

Jeff Bezos is correct.  The presidential election will not be determined by The Washington Post’s  editorial. As to Fitz’s decision to cancel his subscription – does anyone give a toss?  And here’s another question – Can You Bear It?

  • IRISHMAN O’TOOLE ARRIVES LATE AT AFR LUNCH, FANGS TRUMP, QUOTES YEATS AND DEPARTS WITH SQUID SALAD HALF-EATEN

While on the topic of Saturday newspapers – did anyone read “Lunch with the AFR” segment in The Weekend Financial Review on 26-27 October 2024?  Julie Hare interviewed Irish-born writer Fintan O’Toole who was in Sydney to deliver a lecture at the University of Technology, Sydney (UTS) on the topic “Democracy and Certainty in the Age of Trump”.

Your man O’Toole, a Trump antagonist, received a soft interview from Sarah Ferguson on ABC TV’s 7.30 program on 26 September. This was referred to in Media Watch Dog on 27 September.  In this interview, O’Toole went unchallenged when he said that former President Trump takes pleasure in “punishing the other side…that includes almost everybody who is not a white Christian man”.  What a load of absolute tosh.

But MWD digresses – once again.  Hare did lunch with Professor O’Toole (for a visiting professor he is) at the Bar & Café in inner-city Ultimo.  O’Toole turned up “late, soggy and flustered”.  [You don’t say. MWD Editor].  Then the waiter did not turn up at the table and the AFR journalist headed to the counter.  Eventually the waiter took the order – a squid salad for him, fish tacos for her.  Total cost was a lousy $44 and, apparently, no tip was left.  And they ran out of time and with meals only half eaten. [Do we need to know all this fine-dining sludge? MWD Editor].

While drying out his flustered self – the Irish author got stuck into Donald J. Trump. Quelle Surprise!  This is what he had to say before the squid salad arrived – spoken by an Irish writer who, according to the AFR journalist, doesn’t do small talk:

There is something genuinely new about [Donald] Trump and [Boris] Johnson. You know, the left wing used to think it owned comedy. It was the only thing to resist fascism. Diaries from the Warsaw ghetto are full of humour. It was the only thing they had left because the fascists don’t understand it. I’m not saying Trump and Johnson are fascists, but playing the clown is very much their schtick. Comedy is no longer something which is the opposite of power in our culture. It’s a sort of buffoonery as tyranny.

Very clever, don’t you think?  But what does it mean?  The learned professor went on fanging Donald Trump and J.D. Vance – but managed to run the oh-so-predictable quote from W.B. Yeats about how the best have all conviction while the worst are full of passionate intensity. Groan. This quote is so familiar it now resides in Cliché Land. And then it was off to the next Thought of O’Toole moment – sponsored by UTS – attacking Trump, to be sure.  Has the visiting Irishman no other topic?  Can You Bear It?

A FRAN KELLY MOMENT

  • IN WHICH A SELF-CONFESSED LEFT-WING ACTIVIST GOES INTO A COMBATIVE INTERVIEW WITH AN AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE

As avid Media Watch Dog readers know, ABC journalists channel words from the Eagles’ song Hotel California. In that ABC types can check out of the taxpayer funded public broadcaster anytime they like – but they can never leave.  And so it came to pass that not long after Fran Kelly stepped down as the presenter of ABC Radio National Breakfast to much acclaim and an enthusiastic au revoir – she soon returned as the presenter of ABC Radio National Saturday Extra. After a well-earned break, of course.  In short, resigning from a senior journalistic position at the ABC is very much a revolving door experience.

But MWD digresses.  It was Hangover Time on Saturday 26 October when, while walking Ellie, the said Ellie’s (male) co-owner switched on RN Breakfast. Just in time to hear the segment advertised as “American Conservative Union’s (ACU) Matt Schlapp on US election”.  Matt Schlapp, chairman of the American Conservative Union, worked for a time in the administrations of President George W Bush and President Donald J Trump.

It was not long before Fran (“I’m an activist”) Comrade Kelly threw the switch to activism and took on the conservative Schlapp in what she later conceded was a “combative” performance.  Others might say a hostile performance.

The row commenced after Kelly claimed Donald J. Trump had “said in his first day in office, if he wins, it will be quote a day of retribution.”  She asked, “is that a promise you approve of – retribution to public officials?”  Schlapp responded that, in his first day in office, President Joe Biden “rescinded 90 executive orders which opened up the Southern border to all this illegal immigration”.  Kelly said that Trump was referring to government staff and officials and quoted the former president as saying that he’s going to sack Special Counsel Jack Smith.  Whereupon Schlapp replied that “Jack Smith can’t be sacked, because he’s a career official at the Department of Justice”.

Schlapp said that it was President Joe Biden and Vice-President Kamala Harris who tried to impoverish Trump over the last four years and “put him in prison”.  He added that two of Trump’s former officials “are in prison” – naming Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro. The (combative) interview continued:

Fran Kelly: ….if you break the law, you go to court, and if the courts rule, you go –

Matt Schlapp: What law?

Fran Kelly: Now, Donald Trump is not in prison –

Matt Schlapp: What law did Steve Bannon or Peter Navarro break? I’d love you to explain that to me.

Fran Kelly: Well, I can’t bring that to mind right now. But talking about Donald Trump and this notion of a hit list, is that something, you know, that’s a loaded word.

Matt Schlapp: I’ll answer your question –

Fran Kelly: But does the conservative movement have a list?

Matt Schlapp: I’ll answer your question – but let me just help you understand. Steve Bannon, Peter Navarro, are in jail because they didn’t answer to the subpoena from the J6 Congressional Committee. [The United States House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th attack on the United States Capitol]. Hunter Biden was subpoenaed by a Congressional committee twice, and he didn’t show up and he didn’t go to jail.

 Fran Kelly: Well, he’s [Hunter Biden’s] before the courts now, so –

 Matt Schlapp: ….Well, not for that.

 Fran Kelly: No, but he is before the court. So that kind of shoots that other theory down, doesn’t it?

 Matt Schlapp: Only for other crimes. But he’s [Hunter Biden’s] not in front of the court for having snubbed two subpoenas.

 Fran Kelly: Okay.

By now it had become evident that Kelly was out of her depth.  She did not know why Bannon and Navarro had gone to prison.  And she seemed to believe that the fact that Hunter Biden was facing the possibility of prison time for tax evasion and filing false returns was of similar seriousness as refusing to give evidence to a Congressional inquiry which was dominated by Democrats.

The combat continued – with yet another example of a leftist activist journalist believing what they want to believe.

Fran Kelly: ….John Kelly, as I say, former chief of staff to Donald Trump, former general, is on the record, and he’s saying that Donald Trump thinks Hitler did some good things. And this week, we read that Donald Trump told John Kelly he wants his generals to be more like Hitler’s generals. Does that trouble you?

Here’s another example of a journalist believing what they want to believe:

Matt Schlapp: Well, I don’t believe a word of what John Kelly’s saying. And my wife worked alongside General Kelly, and she’s taken to Twitter, and so have a lot of people that worked with John Kelly, saying that he’s making this up …that these things didn’t occur. And why does it just get reported a few days before election day? Because it’s all politics. It’s not because he [John Kelly] has a true moral problem with Donald Trump, it’s because he has a political –

Fran Kelly: Those comments from John Kelly about Hitler “did some good things”. They’ve been on the record for a while. But let’s, let’s move on. Let’s talk about –

Matt Schlapp: That doesn’t mean they’re truthful –

Fran Kelly: No, but I’m saying they haven’t come out in the days before the election –

 Matt Schlapp: — In America — if I could, if I could be clear. Australia has a great tradition of letting people speak in their media outlets. So, if you, if you don’t mind, I’d like to answer that question. That just because somebody has a problem with Donald Trump doesn’t make the claim true. And what happens in America is that the media is piling on everything they can do because they’re, quite frankly, somewhat panicked that Donald Trump is doing well.

Fran Kelly: Well, you know, I can see why you believe that. But we’ve got the former Chief of Staff and a former general, John Kelly, saying that. We’ve got the former Secretary of Defense, James Mattis, saying that Donald Trump makes a mockery of our Constitution. We’ve got the National Security Advisor, former National Security Advisor to Donald Trump, John Bolton, saying he’s unfit to be president. We’ve got Mark Milley, a former general, saying it’s fascist to the core. I mean, you have these are people who were selected by Trump, very senior, highly regarded people –

Matt Schlapp: And what do they all have in common? They were also fired by Trump and the second –

Fran Kelly: Well, they all worked closely with him.

Matt Schlapp: Yeah.  Well, a lot of people who work closely with him, like my wife, are head over heels supporting him….

How about that?   Comrade Kelly wanted to state her view and then “move on”.  Convenient, eh?  But Schlapp is experienced enough to respond to a hostile interviewer. But there was more.

Fran Kelly mentioned that “a New York jury found that Donald J. Trump had sexually abused E. Jean Carroll”. But she did not state that this was a jury in a civil trial in Democratic stronghold Manhattan when Ms Carroll sued the former president.

Fran Kelly then moved the discussion to 6 January 2021 and all that:

Fran Kelly:  What happens if Donald Trump loses this election? How likely is he to dispute this result, and do you think he should, and are we likely to see a repeat of the violence of January 6?

Matt Schlapp: Well, that’s up to the Democrats. I mean, they’re the ones who’ve put more violence on the streets in our society. If you –

Fran Kelly: Well, they weren’t involved in the January 6 riots —

Matt Schlapp: If you followed the Black Lives Matter violence that happened all throughout our country, which caused more property damage than all the hurricanes over the course of the decade –

Fran Kelly: Okay, let me, me just ask this, because we’re almost out of time —

 Matt Schlapp: If I could just finish this –

Fran Kelly: If Donald Trump loses. No, no, no. I need you to answer the question. If Donald Trump loses –

Matt Schlapp: I’m happy to –

Fran Kelly: How likely is he dispute the result?

Matt Schlapp: I’m giving you my time, I’ll answer every question, I’ll give you all the time you want. It was Hillary Clinton in 2016 who didn’t accept the results of the election. So, if you’re going to ask me about Donald Trump, I also get to ask – will Kamala Harris accept the results if she loses the election? Because Hillary Clinton did not.

Fran Kelly: Well, Hillary Clinton didn’t – has accepted the results. She won the popular vote, she didn’t win the – what, if Donald Trump loses, would you, and would he too dispute the result?

Matt Schlapp: I will do what I did last time. If I think that there are election problems, I will talk about those election problems. If I think Donald Trump lost the election, I will accept the results.

Fran Kelly: Do you think he lost the last one?

Matt Schlapp: I thought there was a lot of election fraud – and I believe that Donald Trump did prove that he had enough votes to overturn the outcome. But the courts in the United States of America did not agree. And so Joe Biden became the president. And when he was sworn in, he became my president too.

Fran Kelly: Matt Schlapp, thank you very much for joining us.

Matt Schlapp: Thank you. Thanks for giving me your time.

It would seem that, in her evident hostility, Fran Kelly overlooked the fact that the United States presidential elections are not determined by the popular vote – but by the Electoral College.  Likewise, in Australia with respect to the House of Representatives – which determines who will become prime minister.

After a break for the 8am News Bulletin, Fran Kelly had this to say:

Fran Kelly: And if you want to know more on how the conservatives are seeing the election, I’ve done a bonus interview with Noah Rothman who’s the senior writer at The National Review.  I can assure you it’s not as anywhere near as combative as that [with Matt Schlapp] – it’s actually full of information. You can hear it on the ABC Listen app.

So, there you have it.  Even Comrade Kelly acknowledged that her interview with the conservative Matt Schlapp was “combative”. As might be expected from an activist left-wing journalist on the payroll at the Conservative Free Zone that is the ABC. Moreover, it’s self-indulgent and unprofessional for The Saturday Extra presenter to imply that the Noah Rothman interview was “actually full of information” as distinct from the Matt Schlapp interview.

DOCUMENTATION

  • LESSONS FOR DR NORMAN SWAN FROM THE COMMONWEALTH GOVERNMENT’s COVID REPORT

It has been some time since MWD gave an update on the ABC’s favourite doctor Norman Swan. During the COVID-19 pandemic Swan was a constant presence on ABC TV and Radio. Generally, these appearances consisted of Dr Swan giving gloomy predictions about upcoming COVID surges (which often never occurred) or calling for ever harsher lockdowns. So, what is Dr Swan up to, now that COVID is no longer the biggest news story in the world?

Well, despite never having published a book prior to the pandemic, Dr Swan churned out two while acting as the ABC’s COVID guru. First, So you think you know What’s Good For You? in 2021 – and then the confusingly titled So you want to Live Younger Longer? in 2022. Both books, which were published by Hachette, bore the claim on the cover that Your Man Norman is “Australia’s most trusted doctor”. This despite the fact that Dr Swan, who appeared as the doctor in residence on Network Ten’s The Biggest Loser, has not practised medicine in decades.

In 2024 Swan published the third of his somewhat condescendingly titled books, So you want to know What’s Good for Your Kids?, once again published by Hachette. In a departure from his previous tomes, this one claims on the cover to merely be written by “one of Australia’s most trusted doctors”. It does not specify which other doctors have arisen since 2022 to challenge Dr Swan for his title of most trusted.

This week saw the publication of the Commonwealth Government COVID-19 Response Inquiry Report by public servant Robyn Kurk, epidemiologist Catherine Bennett and economist Angela Jackson. The report details at great length the loss of public trust caused by poorly explained and over-the-top restrictions, as well as the costs of lockdowns falling disproportionately on vulnerable groups. In particular the report reveals the mental health toll on children and the strain put on families by the closure of schools. Dr Swan, whose love for harsher lockdowns was so great he once stood on a major road in Sydney during lockdown and complained that the existence of light traffic was a sign of not enough restrictions, should read the report.

Swan, who admitted in a 23 May 2021 interview with Michael Koziol of The Sydney Morning Herald that he “probably did cause some vaccine hesitancy”, should take note of the following from the report on page 306:

We heard that across the pandemic, but particularly during the vaccine rollout (see 3.4 Vaccination communications impact), there was a large amount of conflicting information being shared with the public, including different views expressed by people seen as health experts. There was a proliferation of ‘armchair experts’, including reputable scientists who were providing opinions outside their areas of expertise. This confused members of the public who found it hard to identify which ‘expert’ was qualified to comment.

You don’t say?

* * * *

Until next time.

* * * *