GERARD HENDERSON’S MEDIA WATCH DOG

ISSUE – NO. 758

12 December 2025

* * * *

* * * *

Media Watch Dog to go on what some journalists call a “Well-Earned-Break” + Happy Christmas/Hanukkah to avid readers

As avid readers know, The Sydney Institute’s Media Watch Dog is one of the few publications in the English-speaking world – the small staff of which take holidays. Unlike many journalists who declare that they are taking a W.E.B. or Well Earned Break.

And then there is the ABC TV Media Watch program which is into V.L.W.E.Bs – as in Very Long Well Earned Breaks. This year Media Watch presenter Linton Besser and his dozen or so comrades at the taxpayer funded Media Watch are taking a 10-week long W.E.B. Which amounts to 20 per cent of the year. Nice W.E.Bs if you can get them. It’s the difference between socialist and capitalist media watch watchers. It seems that the taxpayer funded comrades at Media Watch find working for 48 or even 46 weeks a year is a bit too much. Meanwhile Sky News’ The Media Show will take a break for four weeks – it ends for the year on 19 December and commences in 2026 on 23 January.

This is the last MWD for 2025 – it is expected that publication will re-commence on Friday 23 January 2026. God willing – or, perhaps, unwilling.

MWD is put together with the help of a very small but highly-skilled full-time/part-time/casual staff.  Lotsa thanks to Lalita Mathias, Paige Hally, Nick Phillips and Felix Hahn. Plus Anne Henderson – Ellie’s (female) co-owner.

Thanks also to the avid readers who draw MWD’s attention to material.  Everything is read and as much as possible is used. And a special thanks to the Mysterious Mr M – who acts as a proofreader while leaving the odd John-Laws-Style-Deliberate-Mistake in MWD to keep avid readers alert. Gerard Henderson regrets the death of John Laws at 90 years of age. Hendo only met Lawsie once and he believes that they got on well. In spite of the exit from this world of “The Man with the Golden Tonsils”, MWD will continue to run its hugely popular “John Laws-Style Deliberate Mistake” segment next year – when necessary.

Once upon a time, dogs and others died. Now it seems that they merely “pass”.  As avid readers are only too well aware, Nancy (2004-2017) still runs courtesy classes for MWD with a little help from the American psychic John Edward. Jackie (2017-2023) still helps out with the Flann O’Brien Gong for Literary or Verbal Sludge segment – also with the assistance of your man Edward. And then there is Ellie who assists on a weekly basis (date of birth unknown – her mother walked the streets).

Gerard Henderson and the (small) Sydney Institute Team wish avid readers Happy Christmas/Happy Hanukkah and so on – and urge all to Keep Morale High!

When Media Watch Dog resumes in 2026 it will feature a series of awards for the Best of the Worst Media Contributions in 2025. MWD is in the process of deciding on a judging panel who will commence work at Gin & Tonic Time on New Year’s Day. Here’s hoping this is what it will look like:

THE LATEST

  • Melissa Clarke gives Senator Lidia Thorpe a free kick

Through 2025, many an ABC presenter has interrupted and challenged a right-of-centre interviewee. Media Watch Dog has in mind Sarah Ferguson (7.30) and Sally Sara (ABC Radio National Breakfast) and more besides.

On Monday 8 December, Melissa Clarke told RN Breakfast listeners (if listeners there were) that Ms Sara was on “a break” and that she would be presenting the program for the week. Now Ms Clarke is something of a MWD fave since she was once filmed at the top of ABC’s 7 pm News Bulletin finishing second (or was it third?) in a road race in Hobart (or was in Launceston?).

But MWD digresses. On Friday 12 December, Ms Clarke interviewed Independent Senator Lidia Thorpe from Victoria. Senator Thorpe identifies as Indigenous.

Melissa Clarke did not challenge any of Senator Thorpe’s claims – nor did she interrupt. Not even once – as Lidia Thorpe made the following assertions about Indigenous deaths in custody.

Namely (i) that “Aboriginal people are dying in custody “due, in part, to racist police”, (ii) that State governments are “allowing or killing our people in custody”, (iii) that “prison guards” in the Northern Territory are “holding back asthma pumps to children who are having asthma attacks” and (iv) that the Victorian government is perpetrating violence against the Aboriginal community.

Melissa Clarke did not challenge any of Senator Thorpe’s claims or ask for supporting evidence. That’s “news” on the taxpayer funded public broadcaster.

  • Niki Savva compares Israel to Hamas – and bags The Australian without mentioning she worked for it

 Niki Savva’s Earthquake: The election that shook Australia (Scribe, Australia) runs to 424 pages. But only half of it consists of any fresh material.  The first half titled “The Columns” consists of recycled copies of Savva’s columns in The Age and Sydney Morning Herald between 5 August 2021 and 15 May 2025.  The second half covers the 2025 Election.

In her Introduction, Comrade Savva bags “the Murdoch press” which she claims creates or nurtures “the fatal flaws that eventually destroy the very people they [sic] are desperate to promote”.  Elsewhere she refers to “the Murdoch mob”.

What Savva does not mention in the text of Earthquake is that, between the end of 2007 and mid-2021, she wrote a weekly column for The Australian before moving to Nine newspapers. Apparently without being destroyed by the “Murdoch mob”. Well done eh?

In her final chapter titled “When I’m gone”, Savva writes this:

The Middle East war, prosecuted ruthlessly, indiscriminately, and cruelly by the Netanyahu government, which seemed intent on matching or exceeding the barbarity of Hamas, along with the continuing reluctance of the [Coalition] opposition led by Peter Dutton and then Sussan Ley to condemn Israel’s government, continued to test social cohesion.

What a load of absolute tosh. Savva is saying that Israel’s defensive war against Hamas – after Hamas brutally attacked southern Israel on 7 October 2023 – is “intent on matching or exceeding the barbarity of Hamas”. Despite Hamas’ conscious decision to murder children, women and men and to kidnap civilians.  And there were the actions of Hamas’ rape and torture.

In her detestation of the Benjamin Netanyahu-led government, the author overlooks the fact that the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) attempted to minimise civilian deaths and casualties by giving warnings of intended air strikes and some ground attacks. This was not a practice of the allies in the Second World War with respect to the bombing of German cities in their just war against Hitler’s Nazi regime.

Also Savva blames the Dutton/Ley-led Coalition for the alleged challenge to social cohesion in Australia. But she fails to mention in this section of Earthquake, the violent acts of anti-Semitism in Australia before and after October 7. Including the fire-bombing of the Adass Israel Synagogue in Melbourne which could have led to multiple deaths. Can You Bear It?

  • ABC’S Justin Stevens protects Sarah Ferguson from gentle criticism by the ABC’s managing director Hugh Marks

The Hansard of the Senate Estimates Environment and Communications Legislation Committee on 2 December is now available.

When discussion turned to ABC TV 7.30 presenter Sarah Ferguson’s controversial interview with Opposition Leader Sussan Ley on 17 November (re which see MWD 21 November), the following exchange took place between Liberal Party Senator Sarah Henderson and ABC managing director/editor-in-chief Hugh Marks:

Senator Henderson: It was a very aggressive interview. I haven’t seen any other interview by Ms Ferguson that was so aggressive. Was there any counselling of Sarah Ferguson or any action taken after that interview and after complaints were lodged?

Mr Marks :  — Mr Stevens, Ms Ferguson, the team and I did a review recently of 7.30 where the matter was discussed. I think we all feel that there were ways where that particular interview could have been different. I don’t think anyone would shy away from that.

But not long after Justin Stevens, ABC Director News soon qualified his managing director’s remarks by saying this:

Mr Stevens : At the risk of Mr Marks’ earlier comments being mischaracterised, I’ll make it is abundantly clear that that specific interview [by Sarah Ferguson] has not been subject to any form of review in that sense. The 7.30 program is a priority for the organisation. We regularly discuss with the EP, the presenter—

This is an example of the ABC as a staff-run collective.  Hugh Marks’ view of the Ferguson/Ley interview was not mischaracterised.  He said that the interview “could have been different”.  But  Stevens sought to protect Comrade Ferguson from criticism by re-interpreting what his managing director had said. Can You Bear It?

[No, not really – now that you ask. By the way, I thought that Senator Henderson and Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price did very well in Senate Estimates. As I recall, last week you covered Senator Price’s request to Hugh Marks that he name one conservative presenter, producer or editor at the taxpayer funded public broadcaster. The response by ABC managing director was to state that Senator Price had asked the wrong question. Enough said. – MWD Editor.]

  • Tony Wood’s End-of-the-World-Is-Nigh moment

Tony Wood, The Grattan Institute’s energy program director, appeared on ABC TV’s News Breakfast on Tuesday 9 December and received another soft interview. Quelle Surprise!

Co-presenter Bridget Brennan asked Tony Wood what was causing price fluctuations in the energy market – meaning energy price increases.  The following exchange took place:

Bridget Brennan: ….What’s going to be the long-term outlook for our energy prices as we make this massive transition?

Tony Wood: I think the word “massive” is right. I think that the issue is here we are fundamentally changing our, almost all of our economy, to deal with one of the most – the biggest crisis humanity has ever faced, almost really, in terms of climate. And so to do that was always going to be, it was never going to be cheap and easy. It was always going to be harder, and there was going to be some costs involved. And we’re now finding that to be the case.

What Tony Wood is saying is that all Australians will have to pay more money for renewable energy which is supposed to be cheaper than fossil fuel produced energy.

Then he went into eco-catastrophist mode by stating that this  is the “biggest crisis humanity has ever faced in terms of climate”.  Somewhat hyperbolic to be sure.  Even the likes of Bill Gates and Tony Blair have warned about not exaggerating the likely impact of climate change.  In any event, Australia alone cannot affect the climate. Moreover, the possibility of a nuclear war is a much bigger threat to humanity than climate change. The question is – why exaggerate? And there’s another question: Can You Bear It?

[I have yet another question – why did Comrade Brennan not challenge your man Wood’s hyperbole? – MWD Editor.]

As avid readers are aware, the late Nancy (2004-2017) did not die. In modern terminology, she merely “passed” on to the Other Side. Hence MWD has been able to keep in touch and seek Nancy’s advice about behaviour, courtesy and all that – with the help of the American psychic John Edward of Crossing Over fame who has a direct line to the recently departed. Or so it seems. Sadly, MWD missed Mr Edward’s recent visit to Australia which – believe it or not – was publicised on ABC TV’s News Breakfast.

Nine columnist Jenna Price throws the switch to rudeness with reference to Craig Reucassel

While on the topic of Craig Reucassel who presents the Breakfast program on ABC Radio Sydney, this is what Jenna Price said about him in her column in Nine newspapers on 26 November. Or did she? You be the judge. When giving advice to the ABC about restructuring its Sydney programs, Comrade Price had this to say:

But for now, some top tips from a lifelong listener. Move Hamish Macdonald to Breakfast. Sure, the hours are worse but the man is a natural newshound and news breaker. Ditch whatshisface from the Chaser (believe me, you need an actual journalist at that hour of the day) – or move him to a time where he can make jokes and take time.

How about that? Comrade Price only referred to Craig Reucassel as “whatshisface from the Chaser”. She did not mention his name. Sure your man Reucassel is one of The Chaser boys (average age 481/2). In fact most of The Chaser Boys still have gigs on the taxpayer funded broadcaster. There’s your man Reucassel, plus Julian Morrow, plus Dominic Knight plus Chas Licciardello. But Comrade Price – who teaches journalism – was just rude (not funny) with her reference to “whatshisface from the Chaser”. Moreover, avid readers of her column (if readers there were) may not have known what she was on about – or on.

Jenna Price, Off to Nancy’s Courtesy Classes for you.

  • ABC’s David Marr is told by ABC’s Craig Reucassel that no young people are watching the ABC

ABC Radio National’s Late Night Live (aka Late Night Left) presented by David Marr wound up for the year on 4 December.  Its regular commentators on Britain (Ian Dunt) and the United States (Bruce Shapiro) are both left-of-centre types. So is the Australian politics commentator SBS News’ Anna Henderson. Yet another example of the lack of viewpoint diversity at the Conservative Free Zone that is the taxpayer funded broadcaster.

In the last LNL for the year, the ABC’s David Marr interviewed a panel comprising the ABC’s Laura Tingle, the ABC’s Craig Reucassel and the founder of Cheek Media Hannah Ferguson for a whole 55 minutes. Yawn.  Not a conservative among this lot – although Reucassel is not a predictable leftie. But it’s worth staying awake for – since MWD loves it when ABC journalists interview other ABC journalists.

At one point, the following exchange took place:

David Marr:  …does anybody care about the Murdoch press amongst what we call young people?

Hannah Ferguson:  Only to point out how it’s failing. The young, young people aren’t reading the Murdoch press. I mean, actually, that’s not fair. Young people still engage in clicking on tabloid media…

[Interesting. 27 year old Comrade Ferguson who identifies as young, gave a no/yes answer to the question. – MWD Editor.]

Craig Reucassel:  Can I also just point out, just for balance again, that whilst we say no young people are reading News Limited, doing all that kind of stuff. They’re also not watching the ABC, okay?

David Marr:  You’ve saved us about three savage columns [but] I think Gerard Henderson will still have a go at it. I’m sorry, Craig, he will.

Craig Reucassel: Sad to say.

For his part, Ellie’s (male) co-owner has a special relationship with Late Night Live. He gets invited on the program every quarter of a century. He was interviewed by stand-in presenter Vivian Schenker in 1990 and by Philip (“Have I told you I was a teenage communist”) Adams in 2015. Hendo is already preparing for his next scheduled appearance in 2040.

It’s true that Comrade Marr invited Henderson to LNL a couple of weeks ago to discuss his book Malcolm Fraser: A Personal Reflection. But the man with the Pymble accent withdrew the invitation when Hendo declined to discuss what sort of prime minister Fraser would have been if the Dismissal had not taken place on 11 November 1975. The Media Watch Dog scribbler has enough trouble discussing the past without imagining a “future” that never happened.

So it seems that Late Night Live will continue without viewpoint diversity for a while at least.

DOCUMENTATION

  • Gerard Henderson’s letter to Governor-General Ms Sam Mostyn AC re the Dismissal

The Governor-General The Hon Ms Sam Mostyn AC was surprisingly active on the occasion of the 50th Anniversary of the decision of Sir John Kerr – one of her predecessors – to dismiss Gough Whitlam’s Labor government on 11 November 1975.

Ms Mostyn mentioned the Dismissal on the Sky News Australia’s documentary The Dismissal: 50 Years On (which aired on 11 November) and the ABC TV documentary Whitlam Dismissal: 50 Years (which aired on 17 November). The Governor-General also raised the issue at the Museum of Australian Democracy at Old Parliament House in Canberra on 11 November at what was titled “The Dismissal 50th Anniversary Discussion”. On this occasion, Ms Mostyn essentially agreed with journalist Paul Kelly’s assessment of the Dismissal – Dr Kelly is a vehement critic of Sir John Kerr’s actions on 11 November 1975.

On 27 November 2025 Gerard Henderson wrote a letter to the Governor-General concerning her public comments on the Dismissal on the ABC TV documentary which was forwarded by Express Post – it reached Government House on 4 December. MWD appreciates that the Office of the Governor General is very busy. If Ms Mostyn or her office finds time to respond, MWD will inform readers.

Gerard Henderson to Sam Mostyn – 27 November 2025

Dear Governor-General

Belated congratulations on your appointment – our paths have not crossed since then.

It was a great idea to allow cameras into your office for the filming of Sky News’ The Dismissal: 50 Years On and the ABC TV’s Whitlam Dismissal: 50 Years. It’s important for Australians to get a glimpse of historical sites – either in person or on film.

In the lead up to the part of the ABC documentary where you were interviewed, former Labor senator John Faulkner said that “there is no doubt that Kerr did collude with Malcolm Fraser” in indicating to Fraser his intention to dismiss Gough Whitlam. Soon after, the following exchange took place:

Greg Jennett: You have to go back 10 governors-general to re-enter the Kerr era, yet his term still seems indelible today.

Sam Mostyn: Greg, welcome to the Governor-General’s official study here at Yarralumla in Canberra.

Greg Jennett: The seat of power hasn’t shifted in five decades.

Sam Mostyn: I think that Sir John sat in that chair. We think that is the chair that he sat in, and he had a document that he was ready to present.

Greg Jennett: It wasn’t as simple as that on the day though, was it? Because the Opposition leader, he’s already here in the building. What did they do with him?

Sam Mostyn: Yes, so Malcolm Fraser had arrived early. There would have been a lot of scrambling. There are, fortunately, a lot of rooms in this place, and we think he knew what was about to happen. Certainly, Gough Whitlam did not know.

I am not sure what you meant by the statement: “We think he [Malcolm Fraser] knew what was about to happen.” Were you using what is termed the “royal plural” and presenting a personal view? Or were you saying that this is now the official view of the Office of the Governor-General?

As you will be aware, there is a contested account of the events of 11 November 1975 between the late Malcolm Fraser and the late John Kerr.

In his book Matters for Judgment: An Autobiography (Macmillan, 1978), John Kerr wrote that, early on the morning of 11 November 1975, Prime Minister Gough Whitlam “rang to say that nothing had changed as a result of the meeting with the Opposition leaders and he would like to see me immediately with a view to advising a half-Senate election on 13 December … He [Whitlam] said supply was still not available and he intended to proceed with his plan to govern without it … He did not say he could get temporary supply for the half-Senate election.”

Then Sir John wrote: “I next spoke to Mr Fraser who confirmed that the position and the Opposition policy remained the same. I said nothing else to him about the situation.”

No one challenged John Kerr’s account of his phone conversations with Whitlam and Fraser in Matters for Judgment at the time. However, in 1987, a decade later, in Malcolm Fraser: A Biography, Mr Fraser told his biographer Philip Ayres that, having been advised by Fraser that the Opposition was still intent on blocking supply Kerr “proceeded to ask four questions”. They were whether Fraser would accept “four” conditions if he was commissioned as a caretaker prime minister pending a double dissolution election.

This led to the assertion by John Faulkner and others that John Kerr had tipped off Malcolm Fraser on the morning of 11 November that he was intent on dismissing Gough Whitlam provided Fraser accepted the four conditions in advance.

On the release of Malcolm Fraser: A Biography, Kerr emphatically denied that he had asked Fraser whether he would accept certain conditions in their phone conversation at the Opposition leader’s office at around 10 am. Rather, Kerr said that he laid down the conditions when appointing Fraser as caretaker prime minister at Government House at around 1.15 pm later that day.

On 11 November 1987, Kerr issued a statement which I quoted in an article I wrote for The Weekend Australian on 30 January 1988 referring to a handwritten contemporaneous note he made at Government House on 16 November 1975: “This is the sole reference in my notes of 16 November 1975, to the conversation [with Fraser] which took place on the telephone between 10 am and 10.30 am on the morning of 11 November 1975.” Kerr was referring to that part of Matters for Judgment he wrote that in the phone call to Fraser “he said nothing else to him about the situation” beyond asking whether the Opposition was still intent on blocking supply.

In 1987 Fraser was relying on his memory since he had mislaid the note he took on 11 November 1975 on the back of the agenda paper for the Joint Party Meeting at 10 pm on 11 November. According to The Dismissal: In the Queen’s Name (Viking 2015) by Paul Kelly and Troy Bramston, Fraser told Bramston that he had found the note when he began sorting his papers in the 2000s and gave Bramston a copy of it in 2013 – i.e. close to four decades after the Dismissal. The note consisted of 6 points numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 5 [sic]. Not 4 points as Fraser had claimed – until Fraser found the note covering the events of 11 November 1975. So, clearly, Fraser’s memory was faulty

In order to believe Mr Fraser in this instance, it is necessary to ignore the admission in his book Malcolm Fraser: The Political Memoirs (MUP 2010) that his memory was “notoriously fallible”.

It is also necessary to ignore the signature and date on the note which Fraser released for the first time in 2010 Malcolm Fraser: The Political Memoirs as an illustration. The writing on the 6 conditions set out on the top of the note is dramatically different from the signature and date on the bottom of the note which reads “9.55 11 Nov 1975”. Note that the “7” seems to have been written over the “8”. Moreover, Fraser’s signature on the note is dramatically different from a censure motion he signed around midday on 11 November 1975.

I demonstrated all this during my appearance towards the end of the Sky News documentary The Dismissal: 50 Years On. A coloured copy of the Fraser note is on the back cover of my recently released book Malcolm Fraser: A Personal Reflection (Connor Court, 2025). I have enclosed a copy of my book.

It seems clear that Fraser backdated the note when he found it, apparently in the 2000s. Consequently, it is not evidence to support the view Fraser “knew what was about to happen” when he arrived at Government House around 1 pm on 11 November 1975. Yet that is the comment you made to Greg Jennett.

I do not want to be discourteous. However, for the historical record, it is important to point out that there is no compelling uncontested evidence that Sir John Kerr tipped off Malcolm Fraser that he was about to sack Gough Whitlam. Thus, it is important to know whether the view you expressed to Greg Jennett is a personal view or the current view of the Office of the Governor-General.

Yours sincerely

Gerard Henderson

PS: By the way, Mr Jennett made a number of incorrect comments about Sir John Kerr – including the assertion that he went into self-exile in England. Kerr retired in Neutral Bay/Milson’s Point and died in Sydney.

PPS: I have attached a copy of a letter John Kerr wrote to me on 30 October 1987 along with the “Statement by Sir John Kerr” dated 11 November 1987.

A HELEN GARNER MOMENT

On reading the August 2025 issue of Literary Review, Ellie’s (male) co-owner noticed a review by the Australian writer Peter Rose titled “Strange Fits of Passion”. The reference was to Helen Garner’s How to End a Story: Collected Diaries (Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2025).

This 809 page tome carries three volumes of diary entries by Ms Garner recorded between 1978 and 1998. Comrade Rose is in praise of Comrade Garner’s impeccable humour. He cites this entry as an example: “I called P in Paris and heard $29.30 worth of information about her vaginal infection”. All this impeccable humour is available again in The Collected Diaries from W&N for a mere £20.

Helen Garner is in the news again for winning the Baillie Gifford Prize for Non-Fiction. Well done Helen, and so on. But is this the correct prize? Or should the author of the 1977 book Monkey Grip have been gonged for Fiction? You be the judge.

Set out below is Media Watch Dog’s experience with Helen Garner as printed from Issue 568, 19 November 2021. Here we go:

  • Helen Garner’s false memory about The Sydney Institute’s 1995 Annual Lecture

Thanks to the avid Melbourne reader who drew MWD’s  attention to Helen Garner’s How To End A Story: Diaries Volume III 1995-1998 (Text Publishing, 2021) which has recently been released.   This third volume of Ms Garner’s diaries continues the familiar tale of life in her particular Vale of Tears.  The trials and tribulations which confront the Melbourne-based writer are never more evident than, when early in her latest tome, she confronts a difficult pencil-seller in a street market.  Go to Page 4 of How To End A Story  and feel Comrade Garner’s pain:

At the street market I bargain with a tough-looking bloke for a bunch of battered pencils in a rubber band. He wants five bucks. “Whaaaat? It’s only some dirty old pencils.” He draws one out, reads the legend on its side, and says, in a strong accent, “Zese pencils come from America.”

“So? Three bucks.” He looks at the pencils, hits me with his hard Eastern European gaze: “No. Five.” I shrug and walk away, defeated.

The seller wanted $5 for a set of American pencils.  The writer wanted to pay $3.  The seller, with the “hard Eastern European gaze”, refused to drop his price.  So the inner-city writer  walked away defeated.  Can there have been so comprehensive a defeat since Napoleon’s retreat from Moscow circa 1812? – MWD hears readers cry.

But MWD digresses.  Here’s Helen Garner’s “recollection” of the occasion when she gave The Sydney Institute’s Annual Lecture on 8 August 1995 – it can be found at Pages 5-6 of How To End A Story:

A stoush breaks out over which newspaper shall run an edited version of the lecture I’m giving at the Sydney Institute.  My agent accepted a deal with the Australian weeks ago, and though Fairfax is offering more, “we are women of our word”, as she puts it.  But the guy at the Institute wants Fairfax to have it and goes into a frenzy; even his wife calls me: “But Helen! If it goes to the Australian we won’t have any publicity!” I give the lecture.  Next morning the Australian  runs the short, agreed-on version. Okay – that’s done.  Then I pick up the Herald  and there I am all over the front page: unable to bully or bribe me, Fairfax sent a reporter to the event with a tape recorder and they’ve run a huge, ragged, clumsy transcript, full of illiterate mishearings: “shake the dust of this from your feet” becomes the “the dust of our self-defeat”; “the dancing force” becomes “the dancing horse”.  Thus they’ve shafted the Australian  and got what they wanted for nothing.  Shell-shocked. I don’t care about the money. A deal’s a deal.  In fact I got such colossal coverage that I’m probably going to have to emigrate….

Really. Now here are the facts about Helen Garner’s “recollections” – along with a Dramatis Personae.

  • “The guy at the Institute” is Gerard Henderson – aka Jackie’s (male) co-owner.
  • “His wife” is Anne Henderson – aka Jackie’s (female) co-owner.
  • It is true that Helen Garner’s literary agent accepted a deal to sell the publication rights to her 1995 Sydney Institute Annual Lecture to The Australian. No one at The Sydney Institute had anything to do with this negotiation.
  • At the time, Gerard Henderson wrote a weekly column for the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age. He was advised by The Age’s editor Michael Gawenda that Fairfax (the then owner of The Age and the SMH) wanted to bid for rights to publish Garner’s speech.  Henderson passed on this information to Garner’s literary agent – along with advice that The Age was prepared to pay a large amount for the speech. That’s all.
  • Gerard Henderson did not care which newspaper published extracts from the 1995 Sydney Institute’s Lecture. The assertion that he went “into a frenzy” is just, well, bollocks. He doesn’t do frenzy.  The only concern that the Hendersons had about the Dinner was the attendance – and it was sold-out well in advance of any negotiations between Helen Garner’s literary agent and any newspaper.
  • Anne Henderson has never spoken to Helen Garner on a phone – before or after the 1995 Annual Dinner. The claim that Anne told Helen: “But Helen! If it goes to the Australian we won’t have any publicity” is pure mythology. The dinner was already booked out and The Sydney Institute did not need any publicity.
  • As Helen Garner and her literary agent were advised, The Sydney Institute’s Annual Dinner is an on-the-record event. How could this not be the case? After all, there were some 650 people at the event on 8 August 1995 – which was held at the (then) The Regent, Sydney.
  • The Age’s editor, Michael Gawenda, bought a ticket and attended the event. Unbeknown to The Sydney Institute staff, some Age/SMH staff recorded the Lecture and either dictated or forwarded the speech to The Age.  Whereupon, it was reported on the front page of both The Age and the SMH  the following morning.

This was unfair to The Australian – but only contributed to the publicity around Helen Garner’s controversial book The First Stone.  So, she had no reason to be aggrieved – and she expressed no displeasure at the time.

Until the publication of How To End A Story: Diaries 1995-1998 [in 2021], The Sydney Institute had no idea that Helen Garner was upset with her appearance at The Sydney Institute in 1995. After her talk, she provided a copy of her speech for publication in the Spring 1995 issue of The Sydney Papers.  Helen Garner even provided a postscript which was published – it contained a clarification concerning one critic of The First Stone.

Clearly in her Diaries for 1995 – published a quarter of a century after the event –  Helen Garner has a clear “recollection” of an occasion that never happened.

And yet this piece of fiction has helped Comrade Garner win the Baillie Gifford Prize for the How to End a Story: Collected Diaries – and a cool $100,000.

Verily, A Helen Garner Moment.

A person standing at a podiumAI-generated content may be incorrect.

Helen Garner at The Sydney Institute’s 1995 annual lecture

As Media Watch Dog readers are well aware, Nine’s Shane Wright has risen without trace (as the late Kitty Muggeridge once said about the late David Frost) to become the senior economics correspondent for The Age and Sydney Morning Herald – not having published anything of note apart from newspaper articles and columns plus the occasional essay. Even so, you would expect a person in such an elevated position to know about the international energy market.

It’s only a few years since your man Wright ridiculed anyone who said that coal had any future as a part of energy supply – even in such markets as India, China and Indonesia. He declared on ABC TV Insiders on 11 June 2017 that “coal is like candlesticks” and compared those who said that there is still a demand for Australian coal exports with members of the Candle Makers Union circa 1870 who (allegedly) argued the case for candles over electricity. Now read on.

  • AEMO concedes coal is here to stay for the next quarter century

Avid readers will recall it was only last week that MWD brought another update on Mr Wright’s ill-conceived prediction about the impending end of coal. That involved a warning by the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) that the east coast grid could see disruptions if the Eraring coal-fired plant in NSW went offline as planned in 2027.

This week, AEMO released the latest draft edition of its Integrated System Plan (ISP), essentially its best estimate of how Australia’s energy transition is going and how the Albanese government’s carbon goals could be met.

The latest version concedes that coal power is now expected to remain a part of Australia’s energy mix until 2049, in line with the announcement made by the Queensland government earlier this year.

On the renewables front, there are also significant changes from previous editions of the ISP, with a shift away from wind power. This will come as no surprise to those following Australia’s renewables rollout, as various wind projects have been beset by spiralling costs and delays. This leaves Australia’s path to net zero even more reliant on solar power and the battery capacity necessary to keep the lights on when the sun isn’t shining.

Insiders viewers in 2017 who believed the pronouncement of the would-be prophet Shane Wright would be shocked to learn that coal is now expected to still be powering homes in Australia in 2049 over a quarter of a century later. But it would seem ending Australia’s use of coal power is easier to do on the Insiders set than in reality.

This overwhelmingly popular segment of Media Watch Dog usually works like this. Someone or other thinks it would be a you-beaut idea to write to Gerard Henderson AC (aka Always Courteous) about something or other. And Hendo, being a courteous and well-brought-up kind of guy, replies. Then, hey presto, the correspondence is published in MWD – much to the delight of its avid readers.

There are occasions, however, when (the late) Jackie’s (male) co-owner decides to write a polite note to someone or other but does not receive a response. Nevertheless, publication of this one-sided correspondence still takes place in MWD. For the record – and in the public interest, of course.

  • ABC management asleep-at-the-wheel concerning the lack of viewpoint diversity on ABC TV’s Whitlam Dismissal: 50 Years by Greg Jennett

As pointed out earlier in Media Watch Dog, Hugh Marks (the ABC’s recently appointed managing director and editor-in-chief) conceded at the Senate Estimates Environment and Communications Committee on 2 November that the ABC news and current affairs should have more “town hall” outlets. By which he means, MWD assumes, a greater diversity of views on its programs.

Mr Marks – under close and highly competent questioning from Liberal Party MPs Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price and Senator Sarah Henderson in Senate Estimates seemed to indicate that the ABC was looking at a revamped Q+A. As was pointed out in last week’s MWD, Q+A was put down by ABC management because it was oh-so-boring due primarily to lack of viewpoint diversity. Work that out if you can – it’s not clear why ABC management would want to disinter the corpse of Q+A to rise from the dead since its end was not mourned. But there you go.

Attached below is an email sent to Justin Stevens, the ABC Director News, covering the ABC News’ documentary Whitlam Dismissal: 50 Years which ran on the ABC News Channel on 11 November. It was written and presented by Greg Jennett – the executive producer was Emily Smith.

Whitlam Dismissal: 50 Years was all but devoid of viewpoint diversity and was essentially a hostile attack on the late Sir John Kerr’s actions on 11 November 1975 along with his reputation. A copy of the email to Justin Stevens was forwarded to ABC chair Kim Williams, Hugh Marks, Greg Jennett and Emily Smith. Now read on – s’il vous plaît.

 

Gerard Henderson to Justin Stevens – 9 December 2025

Good afternoon Justin

I do not expect that you will reply to this – I know how busy you are. However, I believe that you and Hugh Marks should be aware of an example where ABC presenters/producers are in denial about a program’s lack of viewpoint diversity.

As you will be aware, after I wrote to Greg Jennett about an error in ABC TV News’ Whitlam Dismissal: 50 Years, Emily Smith (the documentary’s executive producer) replied to me making the following claim:

The documentary is a great piece of work by Greg Jennett which will have value for audiences for many years to come, it’s important to us that it doesn’t include any ambiguities.

In fact, Whitlam Dismissal: 50 Years is all but devoid of viewpoint diversity. Greg Jennett interviewed eight individuals. Here’s a breakdown:

• 4 interviewees were antagonists of the former Governor-General Sir John Kerr. Namely, Ken Begg, Richard Whitington, John Faulkner and Patricia Amphlett.

• 2 interviewees were critical of John Kerr and/or his decision. Namely, Governor-General Ms Sam Mostyn and Peter Baume.

• One interviewee was a journalist/observer at the time who did not make political comments. Namely, Leigh Hartcher.

• And one, only one, interviewee was supportive of John Kerr’s decision. Namely, Scott Ryan.

Greg Jennett, who wrote the script, was also critical and dismissive of John Kerr.

In short, Whitlam Dismissal: 50 Years was all but totally one-sided. There were 6 antagonists or critics of Kerr and one supporter. And Emily Smith maintains that this was “a great piece of work by Greg Jennett”. Really.

On another point, the amended version of Greg Jennett’s erroneous claim about Kerr’s (alleged) exile now reads as follows:

After the Dismissal, Kerr would be spurned, scorned and ridiculed. In the years that followed he chose to live in England. He returned to Australia, where he remained defensive until death in 1991

This is a subjective – and hostile – judgment not supported by evidence. In other words, it is not an example of a great piece of journalism. I am not aware that Greg Jennett spoke to anyone – including members of Kerr’s family – who knew Kerr. The suggestion that Kerr was “defensive” is the script writer’s opinion. And the implication that Kerr was universally “spurned, scorned and ridiculed” is a substantial exaggeration. It overlooks the fact that he had many friends and supporters.

All of this could have been avoided if the program had produced some significant viewpoint diversity.

Best wishes

Gerard Henderson

PS: If ABC management has viewed the Sky News Australia documentary The Dismissal: 50 Years On it would be aware that the documentary provided considerable viewpoint diversity. Supporters and critics of Kerr were equally heard.

 

* * * *

Until next time – in late January 2026

* * * *