GERARD HENDERSON’S MEDIA WATCH DOG – ISSUE NO. 229
13 JUNE 2014
The inaugural issue of “Gerard Henderson’s Media Watch” was published in April 1988 – over a year before the first edition of the ABC TV Media Watch program went to air. Since November 1997 “Gerard Henderson’s Media Watch” has been published as part of The Sydney Institute Quarterly. In 2009 Gerard Henderson’s Media Watch Dog blog commenced publication.
- Stop Press: Linda Mottram Runs Line Blaming PM for Prostitution; 7.30 Henry Waxman Errors; The (Boring) Saturday Paper
Out-Scooped by MWD
- A News Breakfast Special Featuring Bruce Guthrie, Scott Burchill, Jonathan Green, Katharine Viner & Gael Jennings
A NOTE OF THANKS FROM THE EDITOR –
LOTSA MWD CRITICISM LEADS TO READERSHIP BOOST
Lotsa thanks to leftists Nick Dyrenfurth (and The Age) along with Chris Feik (and The Age plus The Sydney Morning Herald) for their critiques of Media Watch Dog. This has led to huge increase in the already huge readership. Never before in the history of mankind has so much been written about Media Watch Dog by so few, for so many.
BRAND NEW ENDORSEMENTS FROM THE GUARDIAN AUSTRALIA’S KATHARINE MURPHY & MIKE (“I’LL POUR THE GIN”) CARLTON
“Without in any way wanting to breach anyone’s human rights or free speech – why do people write emails to Gerard Henderson?”
– Katharine Murphy, Twitter, Friday 6 June 2014, 4.33 pm
“[Gerard Henderson is] an unhinged prick”
– Mike Carlton, Twitter, Thursday 12 June 2014, 9.12 am
● LINDA MOTTRAM AIRS (UNCHALLENGED) CLAIM THAT TONY ABBOTT IS FORCING YOUNG WOMEN INTO PROSTITUTION
ABC managing director and so-called editor-in-chief Mark Scott was in London this week participating in a discussion on the future of the taxpayer funded public broadcaster. Nice Mr Scott tends to repeat his stock everything’s-okay-with-Aunty spiel wherever he goes. So there was no London surprise.
This time Nice Mr Scott used his audience to dismiss all criticism of the ABC with his all too familiar refrain that the ABC’s critics are absolutely simplistic. As reported by AAP, the ABC’s managing director had this to say:
At times I’ve felt in Canberra that they’re not quite attuned in the way our audiences are attuned to the breadth of ABC content. There’s a focus on a handful of programs, a handful of broadcasters that seems to dominate the debate … At times I think the focus is too narrowly on political programming and political coverage.
Fancy that. It’s a pity that Nice Mr Scott was not listening to the ABC Radio 702 this morning when Mornings with Linda Mottram presenter concurred with a caller who suggested that Prime Minister Tony Abbott is driving young women into a life of prostitution. Perhaps he might have understood why, according to the polls, numerous Australians believe that the ABC is unduly hostile to the Coalition parties. Let’s go to the transcript:
Linda Mottram : Let’s chat to Jo who’s on the line. You own a lingerie store, Jo. Good morning.
Jo : Hi Linda. Look I was waiting on this because I really felt compelled to tell you of my experience that I’ve had through the week and it’s becoming more common now what’s happening. I own a lingerie store and I had a young girl come in through the week, sheepishly walking around the store. She would be no more than twenty, twenty one. Anyway we got to the end of the conversation and I had to serve her and I served her some nice lingerie but it couldn’t be black because she’s not allowed to wear black. And I said, “Oh, he doesn’t like black?” and she said “No, I’m an escort”.
And she was explaining to me how hard it is to get a job number one, how difficult it is to go to uni and find that she needs money. So we started talking
about – well, what sort of money are we talking about? She said “I can earn $110 in half an hour”.
Linda Mottram : Wow.
Jo: And she’s going to build that up because she’s only young and she’s only a novice at it.
But my concern is – I’m a mum and I was talking to my other co-workers as well. Our daughters, are they being pushed into, not my daughter, well hopefully
not my daughter. And are they being pushed into with what the new government’s actually forcing these young kids to do. Into prostitution.
Linda Mottram : Interesting, interesting point. And you say this isn’t the only case you’ve seen?
Jo : Not at all and its growing. Her friends are all doing it.
Linda Mottram : Goodness
Jo: She has to survive.
Linda Mottram : Yeah, yeah, yeah, you need money.
Jo : Exactly right. I don’t ask too many questions because she said people judge, so I didn’t ask about – I really felt: “Well, what does your mum think, what
do your people think about it?” But I couldn’t do that because she wanted to talk and I didn’t sort of want to bring that side of it into the conversation.
But it’s happening and the escort agencies pay for trips overseas, pay for accommodation. And she sees this as a real benefit to her because she can go to uni and she can earn some good money and also pay for her lingerie.
Linda Mottram : Goodness gracious
Jo : Yeah but my concern is, you know, what the Abbott government is doing. And, you know, we do have a lot of kids come in say, “Do you have any jobs? And I’m finding more kids coming in asking if we have any employment in the store. And that’s on the increase as well.
Linda Mottram : Yeah well, thanks for the insight Jo – much appreciated.
Goodness, gracious – as the saying goes. The fact is that, in its nine months in office, the Abbott government has not increased university fees or reduced benefits payable to tertiary students. Moreover, there had been no increase in unemployment.
Linda Mottram, should know this. Yet, in her role as presenter, she went along with Jo’s suggestion that the Abbott government is “forcing young kids into prostitution” and that this is “what the Abbott government is doing”.
And the same Nice Mr Scott wonders why the ABC is criticised for the hostility to the Coalition evident in such programs as Mornings with Linda Mottram. [You must renew your “A Linda Mottram Moment” segment next week. – Ed]
● SARAH FERGUSON’S HENRY WAXMAN HOWLERS
Stand by for an interruption-free-zone on Monday’s 7.30. Last night, 7.30 presenter Sarah Ferguson announced that Hillary Clinton would be her special guest next Monday. How exciting – especially since Ms Clinton holds no official position in the United States and the next presidential election is over two years away.
Ms Ferguson has developed an expertise in interrupting Abbott government ministers and requiring that all her guests – except for the loquacious Clive Palmer – do not repeat themselves. See MWD passim.
In any event, let’s hope that Ms Ferguson’s introduction to Ms Clinton on Monday is better than the one which preceded her oh-so-soft interruption-free interview with US Democratic Congressman Henry Waxman last Wednesday.
This is how Mr Waxman was introduced:
Sarah Ferguson, Presenter : Democrat Congressman Henry Waxman has been one of the biggest players in US climate policy for decades. He steered landmark clean air bills through
Congress and in 2009 almost secured a national emissions trading scheme for the US, a bill that was narrowly defeated by House Republicans.
His home state of California, the eighth largest economy in the world, has had its own emissions trading scheme in operation for 12 months…. After an illustrious 40-year career in Congress, Henry Waxman is about to retire…. Henry Waxman, welcome to 7.30.
And this – thanks to an avid MWD reader – is the factual story about the US Congressman who bagged Australia and Canada on 7.30 :
Henry Waxman’s Bill was called the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (also known as the Waxman-Markey Bill). It was introduced into the House of Representatives on 15 May 2009 and passed with amendments on 26 June 2009. The Bill passed 219 to 212. Eight Republicans joined with the Democrats in favour of the Bill and 44 Democrats joined with the Republicans to vote against it. It is incorrect to say the Bill was narrowly defeated by House Republicans because it narrowly passed – with the support of eight House Republicans.
Henry Waxman’s bill was never voted on in the Senate. In July 2010 Democrats announced that comparable climate change legislation would not be proceeded with in the Senate because they did not have the votes to pass any such bill.
So everything was correct about Sarah Ferguson’s introduction to Henry Waxman. Except, alas, the facts. Here’s hoping for a better performance on Monday.
[Here’s a thought. Why does not Nice Mr Scott get the expensive ABC Fact Checking Unit to check the taxpayer funded public broadcaster’s “facts” before
they go to air? – Ed].
● HENDO OUT-SCOOPS SECCO OF THE (BORING) SATURDAY PAPER
Mike Seccombe used to write for the truly boring The Global Mail – an online free website which was funded by multi-millionaire businessman Graeme Wood. Mr wood dropped his support and The Global Mail folded.
So Mike Seccombe moved to the truly boring The Saturday Paper – a weekly publication of the inner-city left, by the inner-city left, for the inner-city left – which is funded by multi-millionaire businessman Morry Schwartz.
Of late, Secco has been trying to get a copy of the Review of the Premier’s Literary and History Awards which was presented to the Premier of News South Wales on 22 November 2011. Gerard Henderson chaired the review. The other members of the panel were Peter Coleman, Shelley Gare, Ida Lichter and Michael Sexton. No members of the review panel were paid.
It seems that Secco has asked lotsa people in and outside government for a copy of this report. But he did not ask Hendo. So, in case anyone is interested [I doubt it – Ed], a copy of the Review of the Premier’s Literary and History Awards is available here. [If your man Secco regards such matters as news, no wonderThe Saturday Paper is just so boring – Ed].
● GUY RUNDLE’S CRAZY CONSPIRACY THEORY ABOUT VIRGINIA HAUSSEGGER
Guy Rundle is Nancy’s favourite Marxist comedian. Once upon a time, the product of fashionable Brighton Grammar School in Melbourne used to get some of his opinion pieces run in The Sunday Age. He now describes The Age as containing “yards of boring in-house prose”. [He’s not wrong here
These days, the former editor of the Marxist Arena Magazine, which in Rundle’s day used to consist of kilometres of boring in-house prose, writes under the title of “Crikey writer-at-large”.
Last Wednesday, your man Rundle threw the switch to conspiracy theory. You see, ABC journalist Virginia Haussegger received a gong in the Queen’s Birthday Honours List. Guy was not a happy guy and this is what he had to say:
Who’s this in The Age op-ed pages? Oh hai, Virginia Haussegger, journalist and campaigner, newly gonged in the Queen’s Birthday Honours List. The move was a sly one by the Abbott government. They don’t like women much, and they like bloody feminists even less, but they know they’ve got to have one or two in the lists.
Haussegger fits the bill perfectly — ostensibly for her UN campaigning on issues such as rape in war, but largely for a single article she wrote in 2002, entitled (for once the sub was not taking the piss) “The sins of our feminist mothers”. Published at a time when The Age’s op-ed pages were a lively arena of debate – not yards of boring in-house prose.
Clearly, Crikey’s writer-at-large does not have a clue about how the Australian Honours System works. Prime Minister Tony Abbott makes decisions with respect to the award Knight/Dame Order of Australia. All the remaining awards are decided by the Council of the Order of Australia, which is serviced by the Australian Honours Secretariat at Government House. The Council meets twice a year and makes recommendations for awards to the Governor-General.
The idea that the Abbott government spends its time handing out gongs to a particular kind of feminist – for an article she wrote over a decade ago – is just a crazy conspiracy theory. From Crikey’s writer-at-large. Can you bear it?
● MIKE CARLTON’S BARREN SLUDGE – BROUGHT TO YOU BY THE SMH
Nancy’s (male) co-owner was delighted, absolutely delighted, to learn that Mike Carlton abandoned his threatened one-man strike and filed his column for last Saturday’s Sydney Morning Herald after all. As documented in MWD Issue 228, Mike (I’ll pour the gin”) Carlton had fired off an odd angry email to Fairfax Media one morning last week claiming not to have been paid for his labours and threatening to spike himself.
As it turned out, your man Carlton’s column was very similar to the draft notes which Nancy intercepted and suggested as possible topics if he did decide to earn his reported $2500 last week for his column. See last week’s MWD.
And so it came to pass as Mike Carlton:
▪ referred to the Coalition as “Tory” – a term of abuse used in Australia by the Green/Left set to demean the Liberal Party. Conservatives in Australia have never referred to themselves as Tories.
▪ mentioned “Tory toads”.
▪ described Andrew Bolt as “Melbourne’s village idiot”.
▪ linked broadcaster Alan Jones – who was only cited as “The Parrot” – to the one-time US senator Joe McCarthy.
▪ described the Abbott government (in Manning Clark terminology) as “a gang of punishers and straighteners…run by the sort of bossy former private school prefects who enjoy enforcing dress codes at golf clubs”. [Strange. I thought Mike Carlton was a product of Sydney’s Barker College, a private school with a strict dress code – Ed]
▪ referred to Tony Abbott as a “campus bully”.
▪ wrote about himself (again) and his late father (yet again) and banged on about the Catholic Church (again, again) while depicting himself as an atheist (ditto, ditto).
And the Sydney Morning Herald pays $2500 a week for such barren sludge. Can you bear it?
What a great status on the “OKComrade” Facebook page by The Guardian Australia’s Van Badham who is researching an article on the “OKComrade” dating site. Nancy’s (male) co-owner does not understand why today’s comrades need to go on-line to find a comradely date. What’s wrong with such traditional leftist pick-up joints at the ABC headquarters in your local capital city, the Green Left Weekly office or (for Victorians) any social science department at La Trobe University (“Proudly one of Australia’s top 500 Big Polluters”)?
In any event, here’s how Comrade Van Badham pitched her approach:
“Hi there, I’m Van and I’m a Melbourne-based crusading left-wing labour journalist who identifies as an Anarcho-syndicalist/libertarian communist in a Machajski/Hoffman/Deutschle tradition and I’m looking to write an article about this site by going on some dates with straight male comrades aged between 30 and 45. Could you help me out?”
LEFTIST VAN BADHAM IN ACTION
Here’s hoping it all works out well.
Meanwhile Nancy has been motivated to pitch for conservative dogs to date – for research purposes, of course.
Hi there, I’m Nancy and I am a Sydney-based crusading right-wing conservative kennel dweller who identifies as a defender of the status quo in a Burkean/Millian/Thatcherite tradition and I’m looking to write an article about this site by going on some dates with straight male conservative canines aged between 4 and 6. I’m also hoping to pick up a shag or two (or, indeed, three along the way). Could you help me out?
CONSERVATIVE NANCY IN ACTION
Both Michael Rowland and Jonathan Green (Aunty’s man for every program) bade Nancy’s (male) co-owner a healthy “Hello Gerard” on the ABC 1 News Breakfast program on Thursday 5 June. Which encouraged MWD to look back over some moments on the program’s “Newspapers” segment in recent times.
● BRUCE GUTHRIE
▪ 19 May. Bruce Guthrie engages co-presenters Virginia Trioli and Michael Rowland in a discussion of narcissism, mirrors, make-up and the like. Plus selfies. [I thought this segment was about the content of the daily newspapers – Ed].
The discussion turned to Tony Abbott, the opinion polls and all that. Soon your man Guthrie is busy plugging his newsletter The New Daily – which gives away its material for free and is financially supported by the trade union dominated superannuation funds industry.
BG told the ABC audience that, wait for it, The New Daily had that very morning published a piece by Simon Longstaff of the self-proclaimed St James Ethics Centre to give us all a lecture on ethics. Dr Longstaff (for a doctor he is) declared that Tony Abbott should resign for breaking an election promise.
Neither La Trioli nor Young Mr Rowland were so rude to mention that Dr Longstaff never wrote, in a newsletter financed by the superannuation industry fund, that Julia Gillard should have resigned for breaking her carbon tax promise or that Paul Keating should have resigned for breaking his income tax promise.
Bruce Guthrie went on to assert that Rupert Murdoch will decide whether Tony Abbott can “tough it out”. Really. According to BG, the United States based Rupert Murdoch will determine the outcome of the 2016 Australian election. Despite the fact that Murdoch’s News Corp controls only newspapers in Australia and has a significantly smaller reach than the taxpayer funded ABC – which is into television, radio as well as online printed news and opinion and has a large presence in every State and Territory.
BG continued with reference to that morning’s Daily Telegraph :
…if we look at The Daily Telegraph in Sydney, which is probably one of the more powerful of the tabloids that’s backing Tony Abbott, it’s calling yesterday’s protestors ferals. Which is an interesting way to refer to your readers.
Well, yes. Except that the Melbourne based Bruce Guthrie is out of touch if he believes that the “feral” demonstrators to whom the Daily Telegraph was referring on 19 May read The Daily Telegraph. The Green Left Weekly, perhaps. But not The Daily Telegraph.
● SCOTT BURCHILL
▪ 20 May. Discussion commences with a comment on Weetbix and Cornflakes and then Scott Burchill speaks about his silk shirt. At the end of his conversation with Virginia Trioli and Michael Rowland, Burchill supports violent demonstrations by radical left wing students against Coalition MPs. According to Burchill, this is “the traditional University way”. Dr Burchill (for a doctor he is) is a taxpayer subsidised academic at Deakin University in Melbourne – with at least one silk shirt and plenty of crappy ones which he usually wears when appearing on News Breakfast on his way to the tip.
▪ 21 May. Simon Breheny, from the Institute of Public Affairs, is today’s guest. Virginia Trioli directs the conversation to Andrew Bolt. This suggests
that there are now two editions of The Bolt Report. There’s the constant commentary on Mr Bolt on the ABC. And there’s The Bolt Report
– i.e. the real thing – on Channel 10 each Sunday.
● JONATHAN GREEN
▪ 22 May. Jonathan Green, the ABC’s man-for-all-programs and sneerer-in-chief, makes one of his regular appearances. He focuses on Tony Abbott’s much publicised wink while on Mornings with Jon Faine in Melbourne. Your man Green also focuses on a story in The Age concerning (what turned out to be disputed) NATSEM figures of the effect of the 2014 budget on the less well off. Green dismisses Virginia Trioli’s criticism thatThe Age’s “scoop” was over a day old. Needless to say, the segment ends with a discussion of Andrew Bolt’s column this very morning in the Herald-Sun and the Daily Telegraph. In other words, the ABC’s very own “Bolt Report”.
● KATHARINE VINER
▪ 27 May. Katharine Viner, until recently the editor of The Guardian Australia, gets a run. This is essentially a promotion for the hand-me-out The Guardian Australia and goes on and on and on. Ms Viner then alleges that The Australian has “destroyed” the “lives” of some “academics or writers”. When asked to name names, Ms Viner nominates Larissa Behrendt and Margaret Simons. When it is suggested that neither Dr Behrendt nor Dr Simons seem to have had their lives destroyed, Katharine Viner concedes that “they’re obviously doing well now” So these lives have not been destroyed then. Fancy that.
● JONATHAN GREEN
▪ 5 June. Jonathan Green again. Another mention of Andrew Bolt. Another criticism of The Australian. And a cheerio to Nancy’s (male) co-owner.
● GAEL JENNINGS
▪ 10 June. Gael Jennings, from Melbourne University’s pretentiously titled Centre for Advancing Journalism, fronts up. [Is it true that the Centre advances journalists for jobs which do not exist? – Ed].
After her formal bout of artificial laughter, Dr Jennings (for a doctor she is) decides to ridicule Prime Minister Tony Abbott. [Is this really news ? – after all she is a Melbourne University academic who works in a department headed by Dr Margaret Simons and appears regularly on the ABC. – Ed]
In any event, to find out what Gael Jennings had to say, let’s go to the tape:
The Fairfax press has got big stories everywhere – but nowhere mentioned in the Murdoch press – is our prime minister Abbott in “Canadia” as he called it when he arrived there. He was talking about Canadia – which is rather awkward since he was in Canada.
A completely misleading sneer, to be sure. There was one occasion when Tony Abbott was moving from referring to the Canadian prime minister and then to the name Canada – and used the term Canadia. It was instantly corrected. Yet Dr Jennings implied that Abbott constantly used the term Canadia. [Don’t tell me that this is how Dr Jennings advances journalism at Melbourne University – Ed].
Gael Jennings then gave authority to that morning’s story in Fairfax Media concerning climate change. She claimed that Prime Minister Abbott was attempting to get together a gang-of-five Commonwealth nations to oppose President Obama on climate change. She named Australia, Canada, India, New
Zealand and – wait for it – Britain as in this club. Needless to say, the Fairfax Media story was a beat-up – especially since Britain’s policy on climate change is quite different to the other named nations.
Following the invitation of Michael Rowland, Gael Jennings praises the ABC – declaring “We’re not scared of the truth”. Except, apparently, when describing the Prime Minister’s visit to Canada.
MALCOLM FRASER’S SELF-DECLARED “NOTORIOUSLY FALLIBLE” MEMORY: AN UPDATE WITH RESPECT TO THE VIETNAM WAR
There has been an enormous response to the coverage in last Friday’s MWD concerning Malcolm Fraser’s comment – as reported by Troy Bramston – that he did not learn until the 1980s that the United States was complicit in the overthrow and assassination of South Vietnam president Ngo Dinh Diem on 1-2 November 1963. [Note to my PA. For God’s Sake, don’t run another John-Laws-style-deliberate-mistake by typing Troy as Tory [sic] Bramston. That would be a little sic – Ed].
After a small amount of digging this week, Nancy’s (male) co-owner came up with the text of B.A. Santamaria’s comment on the Sunday Magazine program which aired on Channel 7 on 3 November 1963 :
When I spoke to you about South Vietnam some weeks ago I said that I could not discuss whether Diem would survive but only whether he deserved to survive –
for the events were already under way which finally developed in the past two days. But a man’s fate and a man’s desserts are different things and distinction is important to me.
Yesterday you heard that President Diem, and his brother Nhu, had committed suicide. The authority for that report was the Army of Vietnam which had overthrown the government. The Army first announced that Diem had surrendered unconditionally: so that on its own statement he was in their hands. Then it announced that he was dead, having committed suicide. I believe that statement to be a sickening and outrageous lie. If Diem is dead, he cannot speak for
himself. Few others will speak for him. But I will have my say.
If Diem is dead, I believe that he was murdered. He did not commit suicide…. There is another legend which we may quickly dismiss. The American State Department declared that it had nothing to do with the military rising. I say that the State Department does not believe that statement itself.
Bob Santamaria went on to accuse US State Department official Roger Hilsman of co-ordinating a “coup d’etat” in South Vietnam.
So a political commentator like B.A. Santamaria knew in November 1963 that the US was involved in the overthrow of President Diem. But Malcolm Fraser – a well informed Liberal Party backbencher at the time who went on to become Minister for Army and Minister for Defence and, later, Prime Minister – maintains that he did not find out about the coup d’etat until some two decades after the event.
Malcolm Fraser’s current position – as told to Troy Bramston – can only be explained by reference to what the former prime minister has described as his “notoriously fallible” memory.
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 Nancy’s (male) co-owner 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 hundreds of thousands of readers.
There are occasions, however, when Nancy’s (male) co-owner decides to write a polite note to someone or other – who, in turn, believes that a reply is in order. Publication in MWD invariably follows.
Last week’s Media Watch Dog went out – after lunch, of course – at 3.18 pm. Katharine Murphy cannot have much work to do on a Friday afternoon.
Why else read the work of Nancy’s (male) co-owner the moment Nancy hits the upload button? As avid MWD readers will already be aware, at 4.33 pm last Friday Ms Murphy raised the issue of why anyone would want to write emails to Gerard Henderson.
It’s a good question. Perhaps The Guardian Australia’s deputy political editor should ask The-Guardian-on-the-Yarra’s literary editor Jason (“I’m a left-inclined luvvie”) Steger who has contributed to this week’s Correspondence section. It’s an email about football – or perhaps not.
Here we go again.
● JASON (“I’M A LEFT INCLINED LUVVIE”) STEGER & GERARD HENDERSON
Last week MWD proudly quoted Jason Steger’s endorsement of an anonymous source that Gerard Henderson has “no…literary credentials at all”. The full correspondence between The Age’s literary editor and Hendo was published last week in MWD Issue 228. On Monday, believe it or not, your man Steger renewed the correspondence on a totally different issue.
Jason Steger to Gerard Henderson – 9 June 2014
I want to draw your attention to the England football team in the forthcoming World Cup, the details of which I imagine you are unfamiliar with. However, the central midfield pairing – the holding midfielders as they are known – consists of Steven Gerrard (the captain) and Jordan Henderson.
Gerard Henderson to Jason Steger – 11 June 2014
How thoughtful for you to write to me last Monday advising that England’s football team at the 2014 World Cup includes a holding midfielder named Steven Gerrard and another holding midfielder named Jordan Henderson.
The only problem is that, as you have previously indicated, I have “no…literary credentials at all”. Consequently, I simply could not understand what your epistle was all about.
Pity, really, I’m sure.
Keep morale high.
Jason Steger to Gerard Henderson – 11 June 2014
Morale is always high.
● GEOFFREY McCOWAGE & GERARD HENDERSON
In last week’s MWD, Nancy’s male co-owner was just so impressed with Fairfax Media’s James Massola’s reference to the term “ad maiorem Dei gloriam
inque hominem salutem” and his blatant intellectual flashing of the “I know my Latin” genre. Mr Massola attributed his Latin awareness to time spent studying at a Jesuit run school which followed the teachings of the Spanish Jesuit Ignatius of Loyola (1491-1536).
So Nancy’s male co-owner tried a bit of intellectual flashery of his own – referring to the books by Kerry-Anne Walsh and Jonathan Green as their combined “opera magnum”. It was, alas, a mistake – as a certain Geoffrey McCowage has pointed out. It should have been “opera magna”.
Geoffrey McCowage to Gerard Henderson – 6 June 2014
Sorry, but I’m pretty sure it should be “opera magna”, not “opera magnum’”. Nominative, first person plural, neuter…
Christian Brothers 1, Jesuits nil.
Keep up the good work,
Gerard Henderson to Geoffrey McCowage – 13 June 2014
Bless me (Christian) Brother for I have sinned. It seems that I have forgotten all I ever knew about the nominative, first person, neuter and all that.
In their Latin contexts.
Michael Kirby is wont to correct my English grammar on occasions – while proclaiming the benefits of a Fort Street High secular education. And now you
have taken up to correcting my Latin – while proclaiming the benefits of a Christian Brothers education.
It’s all very dispiriting. I confess that morale is lower than should be the case.
Keep up your work on the informative, first person neuter and other classics. You never know when such knowledge may be of use again.
● DAN NOLAN & GERARD HENDERSON
Also Dan Nolan wrote from San Francisco to declare that (yes) he does buy The Saturday Paper in the inner-city but (no) he does not wear sandals.
Nancy’s (male) co-owner cannot but think of anything more useful to occupy one’s mind on a summer day in California. Here’s the correspondence:
Dan Nolan to Gerard Henderson – 6 June 2014
I do hope this email finds you well. I am writing to you in dismay regarding your allegations in today’s Media Watch Dog that I am some manner of sandal-wearing ‘leftinista’ or ‘sandalista’ as you are wont to label people. My initial concern is your crass and gross disregarding of a long-standing Australian convention of not attacking individuals on domestic matters while they are abroad. I am currently in San Francisco on a business trip and the eagerness with which you attacked me while I was in a position, some 12,000 km away from you does you no favours. I’m a long standing fan of the publication (I am one of the few who has seen MWD passim) and to have my footwear called into question not once but twice in the history of Media Watch Dog causes me great concern.
You see Gerard, for someone with as prodigious a memory (and filing cabinets) as yours, you’ve made a fatal mistake alleging that I am a sandal wearer on the regular, I have written to you requesting your counsel on footwear previously. I refer you to MWD Issue 160 (published 26 October 2012) wherein you published correspondence from me on the matter of whether thongs constituted as sandals. I again strenuously decline having worn sandals since the age of 10 and I believe that you have accepted this on the public record as a settled statement. So which one is it, Gerard? Either you were wrong previously to accept my statement about my inglorious sandal-wearing past having ended at the tender age of 10, or you’ve made an egregious error in this week’s MWD (perhaps a deliberate mistake) and I insist you amend it immediately. I remind you Dr Henderson (Ph.D University of Melbourne) [for a Doctor you are] that as a man of advanced tertiary learning to fail to refer effectively to your own publications is something the academic establishment would not forgive.
I will be sitting here in San Francisco, nursing one of the bay area’s finest craft ales as I wait for you to amend this scurrilous slur you’ve let slide and diminish your own publication.
Keep Morale High
Gerard Henderson to Dan Nolan – 11 June 2014
I received your email late on Friday – just before my computer fell ill. It has yet to fully recover, alas. Hence the delay in responding. In reply, I make the following comments :
▪ Believe it or not, I had no idea you were in San Francisco last Friday. In future, please send me your travel itinerary in advance of your journeys.
▪ Believe it or not, I had forgotten your previous exchanges about sandals, thongs and the like. I now remember that you denounced sandals and all that at the tender age of ten. Apparently, you are a thong man. Yet your childhood experience seems to have had an impact. Why else go to eleven newsagents in inner-city Surry Hills to purchase a copy of the boring inner-city Saturday Paper? This does not seem to be the expected behaviour of a thong
▪ I trust you had a craft ale for Nancy and myself in SF last Friday.
▪ When I get time I will amend the reference on The Sydney Institute’s website.
▪ I note that when you wrote to me in October 2012 you said you would not be seen dead entering the Ultimo postcode. I also note, for the record, that Surry Hills is very close to Sandalista Central at Ultimo. Please explain, as the saying goes (or went).
Over and out. Regards to your cat.
Until next time – keep morale high.
“There’s no sense that Gerard Henderson has any literary credentials at all.”
– Anonymous comment quoted, highlighted and presumably endorsed by Jason (“I’m a left-leaning luvvie”) Steger, The Age, 31 May 2014
On boyfriend’s insistence, watching the notorious Gerard Henderson/@Kate_McClymont Lateline segment. GH: What an odd, angry gnome of a man.
– Benjamin Law, via Twitter, Thursday 17 Apr 2014, 11:21 pm
Can’t believe I just spent my Thursday evening with a video recap of Gerard Henderson. I’m a f-cking moron.
– Benjamin Law, via Twitter, Thursday 17 Apr 2014, 11:23 pm
“[Gerard Henderson is an] unhinged crank”
– Mike Carlton, via Twitter, Saturday 29 March 2014, 4.34 pm
Complete stranger comes up to me: that Gerard Henderson’s a xxxxxx.
– Jonathan Green via Twitter, 8 February 2014
“[Gerard Henderson is] a sclerotic warhorse, unhelpful to debate, unwilling to think…a wonderful study in delusion…ideologically-constipated.”
– Erik Jensen, editor of Morry Schwartz’s The Saturday Paper [forthcoming], 23 November 2013
“The last time Gerard Henderson smiled was in 1978, when he saw a university student being mauled by a pitbull.”
– Ben Pobjie, via Twitter, 13 October 2013 [Editor’s Note: Mr “Why Can’t I Score an
Invite on Q&A?” Pobjie is wrong. In fact, the year was 1977 and the dog was a blue-heeler – like Nancy]
“I think Henderson is seriously ill. There’s enough there for an entire convention of psychiatrists.”
– Mike (“I’ll pour the gin”) Carlton (after Pre-Dinner Drinks tweet to Jeff Sparrow), 8 October 2013
“Wrong, you got caught out, off to Gerard Henderson’s Media Watch Dog for you!”
– Tim Wilson tweet to Jonathan Green and Virginia Trioli, 8 October 2013.
“Nancy as ever will be the judge”
– Jonathan Green to Tim Wilson and Virginia Trioli (conceding to the arbitral authority of Nancy), 8 October 2013
[Gerard Henderson’s analysis of the ABC] is absolutely simplistic.”
– ABC managing director Mark Scott talking to ABC presenter Jonathan Green on ABC Radio National Drive, 2 May 2013.
“Oh my God; you’re as bad as Gerard Henderson.”
– Dr Peter Van Onselen (for a doctor he is), The Contrarians, Sky News, 20 September 2013.
“The nation mourns Gerard Henderson. He’s in perfect health.”
– Phillip Adams, via Twitter, 2 July 2013 (favourited by Virginia Trioli)
“Old Australian saying. ‘He wouldn’t know a tram was up him unless the bell rang’. Wholly appropriate to Gerard Henderson”
– Phillip Adams, via Twitter, 7 May 2013
“I said publicly once that I thought that Gerard’s views on the ABC came not from his brain but from his spinal cord”
– Tim Bowden as told to Phillip (“I was a teenage Stalinist”) Adams, Late Night Live, 11 June 2013 – Queen’s Birthday Public Holiday.
“Gerard Henderson is a crank”
– David Marr at the 2013 Sydney Writers’ Festival (as reported by Mike Carlton)
“The great Australian media nutter Gerard [Henderson is an] ungrateful bastard”.
– Mark Latham, Q&A, 10 June 2013.
“[Gerard Henderson] is a moral dwarf …Gerard, pull your head in”
– Professor Sinclair Davidson, 24 April 2013.
“[Henderson] You are mad. In the 18th century you would have been caged, with the mob invited to poke you with sticks.”
– Mike Carlton, 5.23 pm (Gin & Tonic Time) 25 March 2013
“I like to think of Gerard [Henderson] as the Inspector Clouseau of forensic journalism”
– David Marr, ABC News 24 The Drum, 21 March 2013.
“[Media Watch Dog is] not a moan, more of a miserable dribble”
– Peter Munro, 21 March 2013
“You are a fool, Henderson, a malicious and mendacious piece of shit… Now F_ck off”
– Mike Carlton, 11 March 2013 (Hangover Time).
“[Gerard Henderson is] an internet pest”
– Dr (for a doctor he is) Jeff Sparrow, 26 February 2013.
Jonathan Green: “Nancy, will be taking notes, I suspect”
Michael Rowland: “Nancy…yes. We’ll get a nice write-up on Friday. Good morning as well, Gerard. Thanks for watching, by the way.”
– ABC 1 News Breakfast, 18 October 2012
“Gerard [Henderson] is a complete f-ckwit”
– Malcolm Farr, via Twitter, 29 June 2012 (circa pre-dinner drinks)
“What a haughty flapping half-arsed buffoon he [Henderson] is”
– Bob Ellis on his Table Talk blog, 8 May 2012 (before breakfast)
“We’d better be careful what we say, just in case Gerard’s offsider pooch Nancy is keeping an eye on us for his delightfully earnest Media Watch Dog”
– Tom Cowie of The Power Index, Crikey 20 January 2012
“Henderson…What a pompous, pretentious turd you are.”
– Mike Carlton, Saturday 13 August 2011 (after lunch)
“Go to the Sydney Institute Media Watch Dog website to marvel at [its] work”
– Mark Latham The Spectator Australia 11 June 2011.
Media Watch Dog – “disgraceful”, “sick”
– Professor Robert Manne, April Fool’s Day 2011.
“Before going further can you write to confirm that these emails are private correspondence and not for publication”
– ABC News Radio’s Marius Benson, 11 March 2011. He did go further – see MWD Issue 86.
“I realise this makes me practically retarded, but until five minutes ago I thought Nancy was Gerard Henderson’s wife, not his dog.”
– Byronbache via Twitter, Monday 7 February 2011
“Gerard Henderson is big enough to take care of himself, but that doesn’t stop us worrying about him from time to time. Lately it’s Hendo’s tendency to self-harm that has us losing sleep. For example, peruse the correspondence he’s published in his latest Media Watch Dog blog… There’s a part of us that just wants to ask: “Hendo, are you OK?”
– James Jeffrey’s “Strewth!” column, The Australian, 8 November 2010.
“Media Watch Dog on Fridays…is a sort of popular read in the Crikey office”
– Crikey’s Andrew Crook on ABC 2 News Breakfast, 24 September 2010.