29 AUGUST 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.




Could it be that the Sydney Morning Herald’’s Opinion Page editors were out to lunch yesterday when Frank Moorhouse’s article arrived for publication today. Otherwise, how to explain the howlers in his column today titled “ASIO head’s ground breaking speech sheds a lot of litter”? Here’s how your man Moorhouse commenced his piece:

At the National Press Club in Canberra on Wednesday, the Director-General of Security (ASIO) David Irvine, was walking an untrodden path. Since its creation in 1949, ASIO Directors-General have not had their names published, let alone addressed the National Press Club.

What a load of tosh. These are the facts.

▪ There have been 12 ASIO directors-general since the organisation was founded by the Chifley Labor government in the late 1940s. Here they are – Geoffrey Reed, Sir Charles Spry, Peter Barbour, Frank Mahony, Sir Edward Woodward, Harvey Barnett, Alan Wrigley, John Moten, David Sadler, Dennis Richardson, Paul O’Sullivan and David Irvine.

All were known. Moreover, the likes of Charles Spry, Peter Barbour, Edward Woodward, Harvey Barnet, Dennis Richardson, Paul O’Sullivan and David Irvine had a high profile.

▪ In the 21st Century, ASIO directors-general have given some public addresses. For example – Dennis Richardson, Paul O’Sullivan and David Irvine delivered public talks at The Sydney Institute in October 2004, May 2006 and January 2012 respectively. Their talks were open to the media and were subsequently published in The Sydney Papers.

▪ Paul O’Sullivan delivered the 2006 CEW Bean oration at the National Press Club in April 2006.

In other words, Frank Moorhouse’s first paragraph in today’s Sydney Morning Herald is littered with errors. It didn’t get much better. What followed was a rant about national security in general and ASIO in particular. Needless to say, the sandal wearing author, also has a crack at Tony Abbott and his Team Australia concept:

Matt Moran (Ten Network, Afghanistan veteran), asked the DG whether the term “Team Australia” was divisive. The DG in a blue tie with white spots, said, “I am happy to be part of the Team Australia,”. I called this a joke.

He seemed to be oblivious to the excluding nature which some people find in the PM’s term and, perhaps to the partisan meaning of his almost blue tie. It is a term which condemns those who question the proposed expansion of ASIO’s powers and presence (in this budget it’s getting an additional $630 million) as not being part of “Team Australia”. Perhaps he thinks the questioners should be sent to the sin bin. Or worse.

David Irvine was appointed ASIO Director-General by the Gillard Labor government. Yet Moorhouse reckons that Irvine is a partisan supporter of Tony Abbott because, wait for it, he wears an “almost blue tie”. Fancy that.

Moreover, Moorhouse believes that ASIO is working with the Abbott government with the intent of sending critics of “Team Australia” to “the sin bin; or worse” – presumably prison or a gulag or something like that. Also, Moorhouse incorrectly stated that ASIO will get an additional $630 million in this budget. In fact, the $630 million covers a number of intelligence and police agencies in addition to ASIO and is over four years.



Believe it or not, it was at 8.04 am on 18 August 2014 that Mike Carlton sent out the following tweet concerning Anne Henderson and Gerard Henderson :

Mike Carlton @MikeCarlton01 : Actually, the reason the Hendersons are always on the ABC is that they’re endlessly available. And ABC producers are too lazy to diversify.

Mike Carlton has refused to document his assertion that “the Hendersons are always on the ABC”. That’s the problem with tweets sent out early in the morning – presumably after post-dinner drinks. It seems that at 3.04 am last Monday morning your man Carlton was so delusional that he came to the view that Gerard and Anne Henderson are always on the taxpayer funded public broadcaster due to their availability and the (alleged) laziness of ABC producers. Alas, reality is oft-times distorted in the lead-up to the crowing of the cock.

Now for some (non-delusional) facts. Here are the number of occasions Gerard Henderson has been on key ABC discussion programs between January 2012 and August 2014 – i.e. almost three years:

ABC 1 News Breakfast: Zero

7.30: Zero

ABC 1 The Drum: Zero

Q&A: Zero

Big Ideas – TV and Radio: Zero

ABC News 24: Zero

RN Drive: Zero

RN Saturday Extra: Zero

RN Sunday Extra: Zero

Late Night Live: Zero

774 Mornings: Zero

702 Mornings: Zero

702 Drive: Zero

774 Drive: Zero

ABC News Radio: 1

Radio National Breakfast: 1

AM, The World Today, PM: 3 (estimated)

Lateline: 3 (one interview, two “grabs”)

Insiders: 25

In other words, apart from his regular appearances on Insiders, Gerard Henderson virtually never appears on the main ABC television and radio programs. Over all ABC programs, he averages one appearance a month – which, even after a gin or six, is a long way south of “always”.

Apart from her appearances on The Drum in 2014, Anne Henderson has rarely been interviewed on ABC television or radio over the past three years – except for interviews concerning her books on Joseph Lyons and Robert Menzies’ government of 1939-1941.

Clearly from an armchair early in the morning, Mike Carlton fantasises about the number of times that the Hendersons appear on the ABC. It’s called delusional behaviour.


Can you bear it graphic


Nancy’s (male) co-owner was on his way to Canberra at lunch-time on Wednesday. Looking up at the Sky News screen in the Qantas Lounge, he found that a certain Nicholas Reece was on the big screen. The program was Lunch Time Agenda.

The big issue of the moment was, wait for it, Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s travel to Melbourne the previous night and sleep-over prior to attending the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre and heading back to Canberra. The issue is whether the Prime Minister was entitled to travel to Melbourne for a fund-raiser and visit a hospital the following morning as a means for using his official travel entitlements. Or something like that.

Believe it or not, your man Reece had an opinion on this – he did not much like Tony Abbott’s behaviour. Big deal. Who cares? And so on. Reece, who once worked for Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard, is now a taxpayer subsidised Public Policy Fellow at the University of Melbourne’s Centre for Public Policy. How impressive is that?

Apparently the powers-that-be at Melbourne University believe that it is important that its Public Policy Fellow head down Swanston Street to Southbank to talk to Sky News’ Lunch Time Agenda viewers about whether or not the Prime Minister should have travelled to Melbourne the previous evening. Have public policy fellows at Melbourne University’s Centre for Public Policy nothing better to do? Can you bear it?

[No not really. I note that your man Reece was on Sky News’ Paul Murray Live last night alleging that the Islamic State fighters are “a couple of thousand lightly armed thugs running around the desert” and would not fare well if attacked by an efficient army like that of Iran or Syria. He seemed totally unaware that IS terrorists/militants have captured sophisticated United States weapons from the Iraqi Army and have already fared well in battles against the Syrian Army. IS also captured Mosul in Iraq. At least Paul Murray had the sense to dismiss Reece’s analysis. – Ed]


While on the topic of media tarts, how about Jonathan Green? Waking up in Canberra on Thursday morning, Nancy’s (male) co-owner noticed that your man Green had risen at sparrows to do the “Newspapers” gig on ABC 1 News Breakfast program, for no fee.

Then, on arriving at Canberra Airport, Nancy’s (male) co-owner noticed that Green had placed another rambling piece of something or other on The Drum website. Titled “The paradox of political dysfunction”, it ran the familiar line that Tony Abbott is primarily responsible for Australia’s political discontents. Yawn.

Arriving in Sydney shortly after lunch, Nancy’s (male) co-owner heard Mr Green on the “Babble-on” segment on James Valentine’s – uumm – 702 program. The point – if a point there is – about the Green/Valentine exchange is that they talk about nothing at all for a full 20 minutes after 1.10 pm every Thursday. Really. [How is this any different from Jonathan Green’s RN Sunday Extra program except for the timing? Please explain. – Ed].

It was not so long ago that Media Watch Dog criticised the ever-sneering Jonathan Green as the taxpayer funded public broadcaster’s sneerer-in-chief. The only point worth referring to from yesterday’s 702 blathering-on segment, is that the ABC’s man for all programs admitted that he is the ABC’s sneerer-in-chief. [He must be an avid MWD reader – Ed]. Let’s go to the transcript:

Jonathan Green: I have to remind you of this, James, [I’m] the ABC’s sneerer-in-chief.

James Valentine: You are the sneerer-in-chief but – you know – we, we, we, try, we try to get you to broaden out from that one.

Jonathan Green: Oh, okay. Ha, ha, ha, ha.

Ha, ha, ha, ha indeed. In MWD’s view, instead of wasting 20 minutes of his life each Thursday blathering on to James (“I like saying a deliberate loud ‘uumm’ all the time”) Valentine, your man Green could spend 20 minutes trying to support an assertion in his book The Year My Politics Broke.

As avid MWD readers will be aware, Jonathan Green is still to provide a source for a quote in his book which has Julia Gillard stating before the 2010 election that, if re-elected, she would put a price on carbon – thus moderating her “there will be no carbon tax under the government I lead” commitment.

Ms Gillard never issued such a qualification. Jonathan (“Yes, I’m the ABC’s sneerer-in-chief”) Green cannot produce a source for such a claim. Neither can Kerry-Anne Walsh who made a similar assertion in her book The Stalking of Julia Gillard. Yet Walsh won the Australian Book Publishers Award for her book and Green appears on the ABC – as both interviewer and interviewee – as an authority on almost everything. Can you bear it?


What a stunning interview between AM presenter Michael Brissenden and Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull on Wednesday. Mr Brissenden was the ABC’s political reporter in 2007 when he, and two other Press Gallery reporters – Paul Daley and Tony Wright – revealed their off-the-record discussion with then Liberal Party deputy leader Peter Costello which had taken place in June 2005. For the full story – see here. The story was first broken by Brissenden on the 7.30 Report on 14 August 2007 – despite the fact that it was an off-the-record conversation.

It was a great scoop – except that it turned out your man Brissenden and his colleagues had not even the slightest idea as to the date of the dinner where the alleged conversation took place. They did not know whether it was held in March 2005 (when it was hot in Canberra) or June 2005 (when it was cold in Canberra). They first went to the March date – only to be corrected by Costello. [Gee, it must have been a typical Press Gallery dinner – Ed].

In any event, let’s go to the Brissenden/Turnbull transcript last Wednesday when discussion turned to the Abbott government’s proposed Medicare co-payment:

Michael Brissenden: There’s not entire agreement on your [budget] plan. I mean, there’s some problems with the GP co-payment within the Coalition. Was that put to Cabinet?

Malcolm Turnbull: The GP-copayment? Of course, the whole budget went through the Cabinet process, absolutely.

Michael Brissenden: Right, so it all got Cabinet approval?

Malcolm Turnbull: Of course (laughs) of course it does. It goes through the Expenditure Review Committee and the Cabinet…. There’s quite an elaborate process.

Michael Brissenden: Okay.

Yeah, okay. So the presenter of the ABC Radio’s flagship AM program is not aware that the budget each year is approved by the cabinet. Can you bear it?


Precisely what is moral panic? And is there such a thing as an immoral panic or even an amoral panic? Alas, Scott Burchill, who has reached the exalted status of Senior Lecturer in International Relations at Deakin University, did not say when he appeared on the ABC 1 News Breakfast’s “Newspapers” gig last Tuesday. As usual, your man Burchill was dressed for a visit to the tip on the way back from the ABC’s Southbank studio to Deakin University in suburban Burwood.

Dr Burchill (for a doctor he is) indicated to viewers that he was none too happy about the response to the Abbott government’s attempt to prevent Aussie Sunni Muslim jihadists travelling to the Middle East to kill Sh’ia Muslims. Burchill thinks this is over the top. This is how he commenced his rant about what was in the print media last Tuesday:

Zoe Daniel: So, home grown terrorism and strategies to combat it. That’s really the issue of the day, isn’t it?

Scott Burchill: It certainly is. The front page of the Courier-Mail and the Daily Telegraph this morning are contributing to the sense of a moral panic that we’re all supposed to be experiencing at the moment about the threat that is posed by Jihadis – home-grown Jihadis – going across to fight in Syria and Iraq. And for some unspecified reason they’re going to return to Australia and continue to fight us. Even though the cause, of course, that motivates them is one really between Sunni and Shia in Syria and Iraq.

So, nevertheless we’re being subject to headlines this morning in Brisbane and in Sydney about how we can stop our young Muslim youth from becoming Jihadis and also how easily [sic] it is to transition from being someone is just an average guy and all of a sudden wants to go and start decapitating people in Syria.

It was your typical left-wing sneer at national security. In fact, in a relatively brief appearance, Burchill used the term “moral panic” on no fewer than three occasions without saying what it meant.

It seems that Scott Burchill believes that Sunni and Sh’ia Muslims only oppose one another in the Middle East. If he had read beyond Page 1 of Tuesday’s Daily Telegraph, Dr Burchill would be aware that there are Sunni versus Sh’ia gang battles taking place in Western Sydney right now. Senior Lecturer Scott Burchill seems to believe that the division in Islam is only important outside of Australia and has no implications for Australians. Can you bear it?



It’s now three weeks since David Day advised MWD that he was flat out like a lizard drinking and, consequently, not able to provide evidence for his comments in the Australian Book Review (August 2014) and The Spectator Australia (2 August 2014) concerning Anne Henderson’s book Menzies at War (New South, 2014).

This is what Dr Day (for a doctor he is) wrote in The Spectator Australia concerning his three decade old unproven theory that things were going so badly in Britain circa 1941 that the British Establishment decided that Winston Churchill would have to go and be replaced by a chap form the colonies named Robert Menzies:

As incredible as it may seem today, Menzies was led to believe that he might be one of the possible replacements for Churchill. With his political support crumbling in Australia, and with a war going very badly for Britain, it didn’t take much for the very Anglophile Menzies to fancy himself as the next leader of the British Empire.

There are two problems with David Day’s theory:

▪ Dr Day has not been able to provide the name of one British figure in the 1940s – or one commentator on 20th Century British history in general or Winston Churchill in particular – who ever said or wrote that leading figures in British society in the early 1940s wanted Churchill replaced by Menzies.

▪ Dr Day has not been able to provide any source – primary or secondary – which demonstrates that Menzies ever believed that he could become the prime minister or Britain. Apart that is from the work of Day himself and his left-wing mates.

So David Day is asking us to accept that there was a serious proposal to replace the world-famous Winston Churchill in 1941 with a little known politician from the dominions named Robert Menzies – who had been prime minister of Australia for a little over a year. Yet no one ever reported this at the time and no one has ever reported it subsequently. Except for David Day – that is, with the support of John Moore’s piss-poor ABC documentary titled Menzies & Churchill At War which aired in October 2008 and which censored alternative views to Day’s (undocumented) thesis.

MWD eagerly awaits David Day’s defence of his (so far) undocumented assertions.

Here’s the “waiting for David” scoreboard update.

[table id=21 /]

And here’s a photo of your man David “Lizard” Day in busy mode – so busy that that he cannot support his Churchill/Menzies theory with evidence due to the requirements of partaking of water.


We’ll keep you posted.

nancy's pick graphic


Paul Murray’s “Darl”

The gorgeous Grace (“call me darl”) Collier made a welcome return to Paul Murray Live last Sunday. Alas, these days – following obsessive comments in MWD – Mr Murray no longer refers to Ms Collier as “Darl”. But he reverted to form last Sunday. [Good show – Ed].

First up, the Paul Murray Live presenter referred to the sassy Grace Collier as “mate”. [That was quite disappointing – Ed]. But the bearded one warmed up as the conversation continued – and then said to Collier “Thank you darling.”

Well, thank you Paul.

Phillip Adams’ Confusion

What a wonderful Late Night Live on Radio National on Wednesday 27 August. Here’s how Phillip Adams’ little wireless program was described on ABC Radio National’s program notes:

Sex in the internet era

The internet has transformed the way in which the adult entertainment industry works. To a large degree, prostitution has moved online, but is the sex industry a safer place to work, and is there any role for the government left to play in trying to restrict internet sex?

The concept of prostitution moving on-line gives new meaning to the word “virtual”. Fortunately LNL presenter Phillip Adams had the assistance of Josie Delap (The Economist’s home affairs correspondent) and the super Aussie sheila Fiona Patten (founder of the Eros Foundation).

Highlights of the conversation included:

– A discussion about the Swedish Model

Phillip Adams: Fiona, I want to look at Sweden. It’s a country where the sex laws are – to say the least – interesting, as a certain young man in an Ecuadorian Embassy could attest. Tell us about the so called Swedish Model.

Fiona Patten: Yes, well it’s an interesting model. They’ve decided to say that sex work itself is legal or decriminalised. So it’s quite legal to have sex with someone for money. But it’s illegal to pay anyone for sex. So, the client –

Phillip Adams: [interjecting] I’m sorry, would you run that past me

Fiona Patten: [laughter] That’s right. So quite legal to have sex for money –

Phillip Adams: [interjecting] I’m just writing this down, it’s legal to have sex for money

Fiona Patten: [continuing] but illegal to pay someone.

Phillip Adams: It’s illegal. Well, yes, that’s perfectly clear.

It is, in fact. In Sweden you cannot buy sex – but you can sell it.

– A discussion about whether the Swedish Model would work in Australia:

Fiona Patten: And unfortunately, I mean, we’re seeing this [Swedish] model being touted in Australia where we’ve actually probably been very progressive in comparison to the rest of the world in recognising sex work as just that – work.

Phillip Adams: [interjecting] Well, The Greens in Victoria are calling for the Swedish Model –

Fiona Patten: That’s right. This may become an election issue in Victoria. A number of Greens members have called for the Swedish Model, in bed with the Australian Christian Lobby. So, it – sex work, the emotion of sex work – does seem to create interesting bed fellows, as it were.

Phillip Adams: Stop making these terrible puns. They’re worse than mine.

That would be hard – considering your man Adams’ constant puns.

– A discussion about Malcolm Turnbull :

Fiona Patten: The interesting thing with Australia though, with the internet, is that because many of our laws around sex work were set up prior to the internet – and because of Australia’s record at being so pathetically bad about internet regulation – technically it’s illegal for a Victorian sex worker to use the internet to advertise. And if she does use it she can only show her face, which basically is probably not the body part that most sex workers want to promote their business with.

Phillip Adams: [interjecting] Well, you’ll have to talk to Malcolm Turnbull and sort that out.

Presumably Adams was referring to Mr Turnbull in his capacity as Minister for Communications – but this was not made clear.

After Josie Delap concluded the discussion on “which sheets stand up to washing best”, the ABC’s Man-in-Black concluded:

Phillip Adams: Look, on that technical note, we should take our leave. Look, Josie and Fiona thank you very much for your time… On our next David Marr – who’s an absolute libertarian on matters sexual. We’re talking about the state of free speech in Australia, and we’ll also have Bea Campbell on a very serious issue of the Irish abortion controversy. That’s pretty much the lot. I will talk to you again in 23 hours.

From Phillip Adams and Fiona Patten to Phillip Adams and David Marr and on to Phillip Adams and Bea Campbell. Your taxes at work in Australia’s Conservative-Free-Zone.



In his column in the Weekend Australian on 16-17 August 2014, Gerard Henderson criticised the Four Corners program “In the Name of the Law” which aired on 11 August 2014. This upset Four Corners’ oh-so-sensitive presenter Quentin McDermott. The Four Corners program was also criticised in last week’s MWD which went out at 3.04 pm last Friday.

At 3.52 pm on Friday, Quentin McDermott issued the following tweet :

Quentin McDermott @QuentinMcDermot : Gerard Henderson says I refused to answer his questions about our #4Corners program on church abuse. Not true. He refused to answer mine!

In fact, Gerard Henderson’s comment was true. Four Corners did refuse to respond to his queries before he wrote his column in The Weekend Australian. See today’s “Correspondence” section for the exchange of emails.

Then at 4.02 pm, Quentin McDermott sent out a 550 word letter to The Weekend Australian criticising Gerard Henderson. It was poorly written, too long and obviously too late for publication in last Saturday’s edition. A better written and briefer letter from Mr McDermott was published in The Australian on Thursday.

Interesting. The Australian publishes criticism of its columnist by ABC presenters and producers. But the ABC’s Four Corners refuses to answer questions or to correct its errors. See MWD passim. An unpleasant double-standard, don’t you think?


correspondence header caps


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.

As hundreds of thousands of avid readers are aware, The Guardian Australia’s deputy editor Katharine Murphy put out the following tweet on 6 June 2014 at 4.33 pm – when that issue of MWD was “hot off the press”. Here is Ms Murphy’s tweet: “Without in any way wanting to breach anyone’s human rights or free speech – why do people write emails to Gerard Henderson?” It’s a very good question. Thankfully, not everyone follows Katharine Murphy’s wise counsel. So here we go again.


Following his receipt of Hendo’s letter last Friday (see MWD Issue 239), Stephen Mayne sent out a tweet about Nancy’s (male) co-owner. Councillor Mayne (for a councillor he is) is an obsessive tweeter. Gerard Henderson responded to a totally false comment in Councillor Mayne’s tweet. Here it is:

Gerard Henderson to Stephen Mayne – 26 August 2014

Councillor Mayne

My attention has been drawn to this tweet which you sent out on Sunday:

Stephen Mayne @MayneReport: Gerard Henderson regards himself as irreplaceable. The Sydney Institute closes without him, apparently. What an ego!

Obviously, you cannot remember on Sunday what you wrote the previous Wednesday.

In your email dated Wednesday 20 August 2014, you stated that George Pell, David Crawford, Stephen Conroy and Rupert Murdoch should retire. You added: “Perhaps the same could be said for The Sydney Institute.”

So you did not state that I should retire. Rather you said that The Sydney Institute should retire. This is what I wrote in my email to you on 15 August 2014 – which you misinterpreted in your tweet of 20 August 2014.

In other words, your tweet is totally inaccurate. Contrary to your assertion in your tweet, I did not say that The Sydney Institute would close without me. You just made this up.

I trust that you will send out a tweet correcting your false claim about me. That’s what a professional commentator would do.

Over to you.

Gerard Henderson

[So far, Stephen Mayne has not corrected his false tweet. MWD will let you know if he does – but don’t hold your breath.]


Like many a journalist, Four Corners’ reporter Quentin McDermott makes a living out of questioning others – but it is oh-so-sensitive when someone questions him.

Earlier in this issue of MWD, it was documented that – contrary to his assertion – Quentin McDermott did decline to answer Gerard Henderson’s questions concerning the Four Corners program “In the Name of the Law”. He did so by refusing to answer Hendo’s verbal query until Hendo had answered his subsequent and quite irrelevant questions. You be the judge:

Gerard Henderson to Quentin McDermott – 12 August 2014


I would be grateful if you could clarify one aspect of last night’s Four Corners program which you presented.

As you will be aware, Frank Little was the Catholic Archbishop of Melbourne between 1974 and 1996 – when many cases of clerical child abuse occurred in the Melbourne Archdiocese.

I would be grateful if you could answer the following questions:

▪ Why was there no mention of Sir Frank Little on Four Corners last night – since the period when he was Archbishop of Melbourne was covered?

▪ Why was there no mention of the fact that immediately prior to 1996, George Pell was an auxiliary bishop who reported to Archbishop Little?

I look forward to your responses.

Best wishes

Gerard Henderson

Quentin McDermott to Gerard Henderson – 14 August 2014

Gerard hi,

Thanks for your email, and apologies for the late response. I’m on leave at the moment and away from the office, and I have had other urgent matters to attend to.

Can you give me a bit more context, please, for your questions? I’m unclear where you are going with this, and what specific cases (if any) you are referring to in our report.

And, are you looking for background clarification here, or for an on the record statement?

I am copying this to the program’s producer Peter Cronau.

Best regards,

Quentin McDermott

Gerard Henderson to Quentin McDermott – 14 August 2014


Thanks for your note. They were both quite simple questions – where I am “going with this” is quite irrelevant to my queries.

Best wishes


Quentin McDermott to Gerard Henderson – 14 August 2014

Dear Gerard,

I’m happy to help if you can give me some guidance as I requested. My own three questions are very simple and straightforward, and entirely relevant.

Best regards

Quentin McDermott

Until next time – keep morale high.

“The unhinged but well spoken Gerard Henderson….”

– Bob Ellis, Table Talk blog, 10 August 2014

“Gerard Henderson and Nancy are awful human beings.”

– Alexander White, Twitter, 25 July 2014

“This is my regularly scheduled “Oh Gerard” tweet for every time he appears on #insiders”

– Josh Taylor, senior journalist for ZDNet, Twitter, 20 July 2014

“…that fu-kwitted Gerard “Gollum” Henderson….”

– Mike (“I’ll pour the gin”) Carlton, via Twitter, 12 July 2014

“[Gerard Henderson is a] silly prick”

– Mike (“I’ll pour the gin”) Carlton – tweeted Saturday 27 June 2014 at 4.15 pm, i.e. after lunch

“If Gerard Henderson had run Beria’s public relations Stalin’s death would have been hidden for a year and Nikita [Khrushchev] and co would have been shot”

– Laurie Ferguson via Twitter – 22 June 2014 [By-line: Mr Ferguson is a member of the House of Representatives who speaks in riddles.]

“[Gerard Henderson] is the Eeyore of Australian public life”

– Mike Seccombe in The [Boring] Saturday Paper – 21 June 2014

“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

“[Gerard Henderson is] an unhinged prick”

– Mike Carlton, Twitter, Thursday 12 June 2014

“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.