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.




What a stunning Letters Page in this morning’s Sydney Morning Herald. It is not so long ago that the Herald’s Letters Editor wrote that there was an inverse relationship between what the opinion polls say about political attitudes in Australia and the political content of the SMH’s Letters Page. You can say that again.

The ACNielsen poll, which used to appear in Fairfax Media, is no longer extant. Which leaves Newspoll as the remaining authoritative poll. According to the most recent Newspoll, Labor leads the Coalition after preferences by 51 per cent to 49 per cent. Tony Abbott trails Bill Shorten by 39 per cent to 40 per cent in the preferred prime minister poll. Not much gap in either poll.

But you would never know this by reading the anti-Coalition/anti-Abbott rave in this morning’s SMH. Rather you would get the impression that the support for the Green/Left position is 100 per cent with that of the Coalition stuck on zero.

The lead Letters section in today’s Herald is titled “Abbott has learnt nothing from history”. Enough said. The SMH Letters Editor ran 11 contributions from readers – everyone of which bags the Coalition and/or the Prime Minister on foreign policy issues. Not one criticised Labor, which is broadly in support of the Abbott government’s position on the Islamic State and Ukraine. And, of course, no one criticised the Greens. Here are the letters:

▪ Gavin Gatenby (Turella) refers to Tony Abbott’s “bellicose enthusiasm” to march on Russia. Really.

▪ Jan Carroll (Potts Point) describes the PM as an “aggressive combative man”. She asserts that Abbott is planning to invade the Middle East. Really.

▪ Alan Carruthers (Artarmon) asserts that Tony Abbott is “leading the charge out of the trenches into no man’s land”.

▪ Sonia Lee (Dudley) opines that it’s “too important” for the PM “to act first and think later”.

▪ Dallas Fraser (Mudgeeraba, Qld) suggests that “surely there must be enough Australians out there who can see through Tony Abbott’s new found interest in becoming a globe-trotting statesman”.

▪ Garth Clarke (North Sydney) accuses the PM of posturing “belligerently on the world stage”.

▪ Jon Sloan (North Narooma) sneers at “Captain Abbott” on foreign policy.

▪ Walter Ivantsoff (Marsfield) mocks the PM’s “sagacity”. Get it?

▪ Elaine Diffey (Glebe) dismisses Tony Abbott’s comment that the Middle East is “a witches’ brew”. Apparently this is a sexist comment, in inner-city Glebe at least.

▪ James Moore (Kingsgrove) extends the anti-Coalition rant by bagging not only Tony Abbott but also his Liberal Party predecessors Robert Menzies and John Howard. How about that?

However, Media Watch Dog’s favourite SMH letter today is this one from John Walsh in Watsonia:

Margie Abbott, is there any chance that you could convince your bellicose husband to stop his bear baiting. It’s dangerous for all of us.

So, there you have it. The SMH’s Letters Page is not only a total rant against Tony Abbott. Moreover, the powers-that-be at the Herald thought it appropriate to bag Mrs Abbott as well. By the way, the Letters Editor did not insert a question mark at the end of Mr Walsh’s query.

How did this come about? Two possibilities suggest themselves. Coalition supporters no longer buy or read the SMH. Or Coalition supporters feel it’s a waste of time writing to the Herald’s Letters Page since they know they will not be published. You be the judge.


What a truly wonderful political panel on Radio National Breakfast this morning as presenter Fran (“I’m an activist”) Kelly spoke to The Guardian’s Katharine Murphy, Crikey’s Bernard Keane and News Corp’s Malcolm (“Gerard Henderson is a complete f-ckwit”) Farr.

The highlight occurred early on when Ms Murphy responded to a question to name the Abbott government’s negatives in its first year. Let’s go to the transcript:

Katharine Murphy : In terms of the negatives, well it’s a toss-up really. I think the campaigning on trust and authenticity – and then proceeding with alacrity to break your key election promises – is still something I cannot come to terms with in terms of how Tony Abbott could be that foolish. So I would nominate that as a low point. And I would also – because I’m a bit of a policy wonk – I would nominate the repeal of the carbon price as a serious low in the life of this parliament. I know he [Tony Abbott] promised to do it before the election – and of course I would argue that people should keep their election promises. However, in public policy terms, that was a retrograde step.

So there you have it. Or not. According to Ms Murphy, Tony Abbott erred by breaking key election promises. But the Prime Minister also erred by not breaking his key election promise to junk the carbon tax. Worth a Walkley, surely.


Can you bear it graphic


The Sydney Morning Herald on Wednesday was criticised for putting Comic Sans theme-font on its front page. This is unfair – since the typeface increasingly represents the paper’s comic-like reality.

Meanwhile, for some genuine comic self-analysis, turn to the Comment section at pages 18-19 on the very same newspaper on Wednesday. Here the SMH’s Opinion Page editor allowed one of the Herald’s star columnists – a certain Alan Stokes – to write about Father’s Day.

Once columnists in need of download-therapy were wont to pay good money to go and see a psychiatrist. Now Fairfax Media columnists in need of a download get paid good money to download on the Opinion Page.

Nancy’s (male) co-owner just loves trivia. That’s why, after opening the Herald each Wednesday, Hendo heads first for the Alan Stokes’ column to share your man Stokes’ on-going pain. This is Hendo’s take on last Wednesday’s Alan Stokes’ column titled “Happy Dead Father’s Day, Dad – I’m sorry that it was like that for you”. Assuming that Alan Stokes’ download was for real – this was his old man’s life. Assuming that anyone, apart from Alan Stokes, gives a toss.

Alan Stokes’ father – let’s call him Old Man Stokes (or OMS) – (i) never liked getting up before noon, (ii) drank lotsa beer every night, (iii) could not hold down a steady job, (iv) had many affairs, (v) threw plates, (vi) engaged in fights circa 4 am even on the mornings when Young Alan was doing his HSC exams, (vii) disowned his family for months at a time, (viii) kept coming around to Alan Stokes’ Mum’s house (after she left the marriage) banging on the door and (ix) kept a shoe-box under his bed containing the likes of a half-eaten Vegemite sandwich.

Er, that’s it. Or is it? Alas no – there’s also Alan Stokes’ grandparents. OMS’s father lived on a park bench in North Sydney – or maybe it was Kirribilli. And OMS’s mother drowned in the bath when OMS was ten. And Mrs OMS might have been pregnant when she married, might have miscarried and might have had a breakdown. Or might not – as the case may be.

Nancy can feel Alan Stokes’ pain. After all, Nancy’s father did a bunk and her mother walked the streets. It’s just that, unlike Alan Stokes, Nancy has chosen not to parade her past angst. Not even in the RSPCA News Bulletin. Can you bear it? [Not really. I’m just dreading what your man Stokes might write in the SMH next Mother’s Day. – Ed].


David Marr, Nancy’s (male) co-owner’s fave Insiders couch co-habitant, appeared on ABC Radio National’s Late Night Live on 28 August. Your man Marr spoke with Phillip Adams not only about Tony Abbott (yet again) but also about HIMSELF (yet again).

The ABC’s Man-in-Black never invites Gerard Henderson on to his little wireless program. However, your man Adams frequently talks about Hendo – as if he is always on his mind. [That would be a dangerous spot – Ed].

On 28 August, here’s how Adams injected Nancy’s (male) co-owner into the discussion:

Phillip Adams: David, our mutual friend Gerard Henderson shares something with Tony Abbott and that is that they were both very much influenced by B.A. Santamaria. And in Tony’s earlier years as a student pollie – and indeed as a minister in the Howard government – he often voiced suspicions of unrestrained freedom and it seems to me he was to some extent echoing B.A.

Both Phillip Adams and David Marr have obviously never read Gerard Henderson’s 1982 book Mr Santamaria and the Bishops which is critical of B.A. Santamaria. Nor, apparently, are they aware of Mr Santamaria’s subsequent public criticisms of your man Henderson. But this is a matter for another day. [I can barely wait – Ed].

As previously mentioned, the good news is that David Marr did not spend all the time at the interview discussing Tony Abbott – a person he misunderstands. Rather Marr, in response to a question from Adams, spoke about the one person whom he genuinely understands. Namely, HIMSELF. Let’s go to the transcript:

Phillip Adams: David, when I was telling the listeners that you would be on tomorrow night, I made that point. That you are in fact one of the strongest libertarians in this country.

David Marr: I don’t know that I am. I think I’m a pretty conservative libertarian, actually. I mean, if you’re a really strong libertarian, yes – you want to gut the Racial Discrimination Act entirely. You want hate speech to be free. I don’t. I think there are limits to it. I don’t think people should be intimidated by speech, I think that’s a limit that I think society has a right to intervene at that point.

Real libertarians say “No, sweep it all away and let hate speech be as free in Australia as it is in the United States”. I don’t welcome that. I can understand the need for restraint on speech. I’m – in a modified way – a defender of the defamation law. If that’s all – if that is all that is available for people to defend their reputations, I can understand why there has to be a defamation law. I still loathe it but I can understand why it’s necessary. So, Phillip, I’m probably not as radical as you.

How about that? In an interview ostensibly about Tony Abbott and freedom of expression, David Marr spoke about his own views on the topic. Moreover, in one 169 word answer, Marr used the terms “I” and “I’m” on no fewer than 17 occasions. Can you bear it?


The ABC1 News Breakfast program has been truncated this week due to the public broadcaster’s coverage of basketball. [Shame – Ed]. However, there was a “Newspapers” gig on Tuesday, which was fronted by Gael Jennings – she of the oddly titled Centre for Advancing Journalism at the University of Melbourne.

Dr Jennings (for a doctor she is) had some thoughts about the Abbott government’s changes to superannuation. Here they are, following a question from News Breakfast co-presenter Michael Rowland:

Michael Rowland: …A lot of superfunds are used to fund infrastructure projects –

Gael Jennings: Yes.

Michael Rowland: … and the like and the argument is that there’s therefore going to be fewer dollars going into the superfunds. Therefore it could impact on that part of economic activity in Australia, as well.

Gael Jennings: Yes, well, even things like, you know, Eric Beecher’s private media group is starting up a whole bunch of new journalism, you know, because the so-called legacy journalism, newspapers, are in decline because of a lack of advertising dollars. So we also were having funding from the superfunds of new media outlets and so on.

Yes we know, we know. And now for a few facts. Some 40 per cent of all superannuation funds raised in Australia – are invested outside Australia. Moreover, superannuation is supposed to be about maximising contributors’ funds – not about making possible the employment of journalists in new media outlets or supporting Eric Beecher’s start-ups. Yet, when it comes to discussing the big issues of superannuation, all Melbourne University’s Centre for Advancing Journalism operative could focus on was advancing journalism per courtesy of superannuation funds. Can you bear it?



Full marks to Allison Pearson for her no-excuses commentary on the appalling cases of sexual child abuse in the British town of Rotherham. It’s self-explanatory.

The Yorkshire town where 1,400 girls have been sexually abused by Asian men is a byword for depravity – all because people wouldn’t rock the multicultural boat

Let’s start with a riddle. If South Yorkshire Police can mount a raid on Sir Cliff Richard’s home in pursuit of evidence linked to a single allegation of child sex abuse 30 years ago, why were South Yorkshire Police incapable of pursuing multiple allegations against multiple men who raped 1,400 children over 16 years?

One thousand four hundred. Consider the weight of that number, feel its tragic heft. Picture 50 junior-school classes of little girls in Rotherham, once a respectable northern town, now a byword for depravity. We have seen child-grooming cases before, but the disgusting stories revealed in the report by Professor Alexis Jay amount to evidence of abuse on an industrial scale.

Men of Pakistani heritage treated white girls like toilet paper. They picked children up from schools and care homes and trafficked them across northern cities for other men to join in the fun. They doused a 15-year-old in petrol and threatened to set her alight should she dare to report them. They menaced entire families and made young girls watch as they raped other children.

These truly horrible things happened in our country – not in the distant, cruel past, but as recently as last year. All but one of the perpetrators were Muslims of Pakistani heritage who would have related to Cliff’s hit, Living Doll. The living dolls of Rotherham were bent and twisted to their masters’ will. There was no escape. As the sterling Professor Jay observes, South Yorkshire Police “regarded many child victims with contempt”.




Jane Caro on Why Wives are Hookers

Jane Caro: Well, I’m going to say something really dangerous now. When you have a society where women’s main currency is really their sexual favours, their ability to reproduce, then a lot of what women do is a form of prostitution. For example, I would argue that traditional marriage, which included conjugal rights particularly when women were not able to go to work or were fired when they first got married and were basically selling their bodies and their reproductive rights to her husband, he bought them, by giving her room and board in return, was a form of prostitution. So I think we really have to discuss what we mean by prostitution. At least the women who choose it as a career choice, freely and uncoerced – that’s very, very important – only have to put up with their customer for about an hour. Once upon a time it was a lifetime, ladies. A lifetime!

Q&A, Monday 1 September 2014

So that seems pretty clear then. On Monday, using the present tense, Ms Caro declared that “women who choose” sex as a career choice “only have to put up with their customer for about an hour”. Whereas married women once upon a time had to put up with their husband’s demands for “a lifetime”. [Hang on a minute, I thought that a prostitute – correction, sex-worker – entertained more than one customer in their life-time. But perhaps I’m out of touch in such matters. – Ed].

Jane Caro on why Wives are Not Hookers

But Jane Caro was even less clear than her muddled presentation on last Monday’s Q&A. You see, on Tuesday Ms Caro wrote a piece on the Fairfax Media website titled “Why housewives are not prostitutes”.

Here Jane Caro acknowledged that she expressed herself badly on Q&A and declared that she “was trying to talk about marriage in the bad old days” and made reference to life in Britain in the 19th Century. But then she moved forward and asserted that as recently as the 1970s, in Australia marriage, was “uncomfortably close to an economic transaction”. Meaning prostitution.

So what is Jane Caro – much beloved by the ABC and Fairfax Media – really saying about love and marriage? Who knows? But it differs from day to day.



As avid MWD readers will know, Nancy’s (male) co-owner reads The Saturday Paper on Monday. On reflection, this may be too early in the week.

Take last Saturday’s issue, for example (30 August 2014). The Page One lead story by Martin McKenzie-Murray was titled “The blindness of George Pell” and featured a photograph of the cardinal.

The article covered the tragic story of the Foster girls who were raped by a Catholic priest before George Pell became Archbishop of Melbourne in 1996. The case is well known. Anthony and Chrissie Foster have appeared on ABC on numerous occasions. And Chrissie Foster’s book on her family tragedy was co-written with ABC journalist Paul Kennedy. Also the parents have given evidence to the Victorian Parliament’s Inquiry into the Handling of Child Abuse by Religious and Other Organisations and the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Abuse. The current criticism of Cardinal Pell turns not on the handling of sexual abuse cases but rather on that of compensation available under the Melbourne Response which he established in 1996.

There was absolutely nothing new in McKenzie-Murray report. But it was the lead-story in The Saturday Paper which goes to print early on Thursday. How boring can you get?


nancy's pick graphic


How great was that on ABC 1’s The Drum last Monday? Julia Baird was in the presenter’s chair and Maxine McKew was the focus of attention. Due to the recent publication of her book Class Act: Ending the Education Wars. Let’s go to the transcript where Ms McKew quoted from Martin Luther King in defence of her approach to education.

Julia Baird: What did you find in those six schools that we did not already know about?

Maxine McKew : Well, what I found there is that you’ve got expert practice undertaken by leaders who have a sense of moral purpose about what they do. And five of the schools that I look at are in some of the poorest communities in Australia. They’re not in remote Australia, they’re in our suburbs or in our regional towns. And typically principals, mostly new change-agents really, are parachuted in. And they look at shocking attendance, poor academic records, very low expectations you know. That phrase of Martin Luther King’s “the soft bigotry of low expectations” is kind of there.

Julia Baird : [interjecting] Such a good phrase!

Maxine McKew : Exactly. That’s the kind of climate that a lot of the principals inherit.

As an avid MWD reader has pointed out, Dr King (1929-68) never used the term “the soft bigotry of low expectations”. In fact the term is credited to Michael Gerson (born 1964) who worked as a speech-writer for President George W. Bush.

Maxine McKew – Back To School For You.




It promises to be a great feat. On Sunday 7 September, Tim Soutphommasane (Australian Race Discrimination Commissioner) will deliver the 2014 B’nai B’rith Human Rights Address at the Moriah College in Sydney before an essentially Jewish audience.

According to the advertising blurb, Dr Soutphommasane (for a doctor he is) is the author of three books – namely The Virtuous Citizen (2012), Don’t Go Back To Where You Came From (2012) and Reclaiming Patriotism (2009).

There is no mention whatsoever of Dr Soutphommasane’s piss-poor What’s Left – which is co-edited with Nick Dyrenfurth. As avid MWD readers will be aware, the Soutphommasane/Dyrenfurth opus magnum is littered with errors. As a work of scholarship, What’s Left is nothing but a leftist rant – containing assertions by the co-editors which are not supported by evidence. What’s Left has neither footnotes nor endnotes nor even a bibliography. It’s as hopeless as that. (See MWD passim ad nauseam).

But MWD digresses. Dr Soutphommasane appeared on ABC 1’s The Drum on 6 August. He was asked about Mike (“I’ll pour the gin”) Carlton’s Sydney Morning Herald column on the Israel/Gaza column which was illustrated by an anti-semitic cartoon.

Asked about Mr Carlton’s aggressive emails to his critics – which included the term “Jewish bigot” – the Australian Race Discrimination Commissioner responded: “Look, I’m an agnostic on this.” Dr Soutphommasane went on to explicitly criticise News Limited (he should have said News Corp) for rounding up your man Carlton’s emails. On the same program Human Rights Commissioner Tim Wilson explicitly criticised Mike Carlton’s intolerance. But the Race Discrimination Commissioner squibbed it.

On Sunday, your man Soutphommasane’s topic is titled “Walking in the shoes of others: Empathy, Courage, Imagination”. Yet the speaker is agnostic about the use of the label “Jewish bigot” as a term of attack. Which suggests that the Australian Race Discrimination Commissioner lacks empathy, imagination and courage when it comes to responding to Mike Carlton’s rants. It’s difficult to imagine Dr Soutphommasane not criticising the use of the term, say, “Muslim bigots”. It’s called a double standard.


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.


Last week’s MWD went out at 3.18 pm. Lo and behold, by 4.30 pm Jonathan Green had sent yet another email whinging about his treatment by Nancy’s (male) co-owner.

There was a time when ABC presenters just presented. Under the management of Nice Mr Scott, the division at the taxpayer funded broadcaster between presenting and commentary has been removed. Now the likes of Jonathan Green present Sunday Extra on Radio National on the (Christian) Sabbath and then comment for the rest of the week on Radio 702, Radio 774, The Drum, News Breakfast and so on.

Since the ABC remains a Conservative-Free-Zone without a conservative presenter on any of its prominent television, radio or online outlets, the availability of ABC presenters to comment on ABC programs simply highlights the prevalence of leftists in the employ of Nice Mr Scott. There is Fran (“I’m an activist”) Kelly and Jonathan (“Yes, I’m the ABC’s sneerer-in-chief”) Green and more besides.

Here is one of your man Green’s leftist rants – it was tweeted yesterday – in which he advertised his latest leftist rant on the ABC’s online publication The Drum – in which @GreenJ accused the Abbott government of starting a war in the Middle East:

Jonathan Green @GreenJ: Axe the tax, stop the boats, start the war. Me at…

He also retweeted a Mr Denmore’s tweet – in which @MrDenmore said that Aussie Sunni Islamists who parade the severed heads of Sh’ia Muslims in Iraq are just like the fundamentalist Christians who bang on about the Second Coming in the second class after lunch on Wednesdays in schools throughout Australia. Here’s the retweet:

Sir Robert Denmore @MrDenmore : Politicians demonise Islamic fundamentalist nutjobs while sending the Christian equivalent into schools to brainwash our kids.

So on Monday to Friday, Jonathan Green runs leftist critiques of his opponents. And on Sunday he presents as an objective presenter. Yet Mr Green gets frightfully upset when anyone draws attention to this. Like last Friday. Here we go:

Jonathan Green to Gerard Henderson – 29 August 2014 (4.30 pm)

I’m a tart for doing my job? Good on you Gerard.

Gerard Henderson to Jonathan Green – 29 August 2014 (4.41 pm)

Oh Jonathan.

You are just sooo sensitive to criticism. As the ABC’s out-and-proud “Sneerer-in-Chief,” you should not worry too much about my after lunch ramblings on a Friday. The truth is I just love the fact that you’re on the ABC so much – both asking and answering questions, sometimes on the same program. What would Nancy and the team do without you?

Lotsa love and keep reading Media Watch Dog.

Gerard – Nancy’s (male) co-owner.

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.