GERARD HENDERSON’S MEDIA WATCH DOG – ISSUE NO. 266
24 APRIL 2015
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.
- LATELINE – A VIRTUAL SHEILA-FREE ZONE ON HOUSING
It was what Nancy’s (female) co-owner used to term “blokes-night-on” on Lateline last night with Tony Jones in the presenter’s chair. The topic was housing affordability. And Lateline could barely find a woman to proffer an opinion. First up, Lateline’s reporter Sashka Kaloff interviewed property developer Peter Icklow, Welsh-born Committee for Sydney supremo Tim Williams, economist Saul Eslake and the Grattan Institute’s John Daley. Even when Lateline found a group of young men renting an inner-city dig they, too, were all blokes. Then it was time for a studio discussion featuring John Daley (again) and the Edinburgh based Duncan Maclennan who is Scottish. [Couldn’t Lateline find a bloke from Northern Ireland – Ed].
There was a break when Lateline found two rent challenged Sydney employees. One was a bloke, the other a sheila. Then Janelle Goulding from City West Housing. Then it was back to Messrs Daley and Maclennan again. Then the NSW Housing Minister Rob Stokes was interviewed by Tony Jones.
ABC journalists are always banging on about gender consciousness and all that. It appears that the Lateline team seems to believe that the opinions of blokes – rather than sheilas – matter when it comes to housing. Off to (gender) re-education camp for Mr Jones and his colleagues.
- ALLEGED NSW PAEDOPHILE RING IN ACTION ONLY A DECADE AFTER ONE-TIME ABC CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR PEDERASTY TO BE UNDERSTOOD
Writing in today’s Australian, Dan Box revealed that the man regarded as a “person of interest” in the disappearance of three-year-old William Tyrrell was allegedly involved in a paedophile ring in Sydney in the mid-1980s.
As avid MWD readers will be aware, this is just a decade after Professor Richard Downing – in his formal position as ABC chairman – wrote to the Sydney Morning Herald calling for an “understanding” of paedophiles in general and pederasts in particular. The Downing letter attempted to legitimise the crime of pederasty.
If a prominent member of, say, the Catholic Church or the Uniting Church or the Salvation Army in 1975 had called for an “understanding” of men who committed the crime of child sexual abuse – it would be expected that the current holder of this position would make a public apology on behalf of his/her predecessor.
But the ABC operates according to different standards. Hence the refusal by current ABC chairman Jim Spigelman AC AO to apologise on the ABC’s behalf for the encouragement which one of his predecessors gave to paedophiles – or even to acknowledge that such an incident ever took place. Despite the fact that Richard Downing’s letter was published in the Sydney Morning Herald on 19 July 1975. And despite the fact that Jim Spigelman held senior positions in Gough Whitlam’s government which appointed Richard Downing to the position of ABC chairman in July 1973.
Hundreds of thousands of MWD readers just love our Legacy Issues scoreboard. Here’s an update on the Richard Downing matter.
[table id=13 /]
AUNTY’S PLANNED INVASION OF TURKEY REVEALED
Sure, as ABC managing director and editor-in-chief Mark Scott keeps saying, the taxpayer funded public broadcaster is the official host broadcaster of the 2015 Anzac Commemoration. But, surely, this cannot justify the fact that the ABC has 38 personnel currently deployed to the Dardanelles on active service – 14 from ABC TV, 5 from ABC Radio and 19 from ABC News (which covers both ABC TV and ABC Radio). As John Pilger might say, there might be a hidden agenda involved – Australia’s most recent secret, perhaps.
Nice Mr Scott’s staff have advised MWD that the ABC deployment includes presenters, reporters, producers, crews and technicians. Thanks for that. However, presumably for security reasons and consistent with military censorship requirements in place when the first Aussies went ashore on 25 April 1915, the ABC refuses to provide the names of its contingent who are currently serving in the Dardanelles. This despite the fact that the ABC has signed up to the “Right to Know” Coalition.
At the risk of revealing military secrets [Get over it. No one in Turkey reads MWD – Ed], MWD can state that it has identified a number of ABC presenters tripping over one another in the Gallipoli trenches and going up and down the stairs of the HMAS Anzac which is moored off Anzac Cove.
The list includes John Barron, Scott Bevan, Eliza Borrello, Zoe Daniel, James Glenday, Fran (“I’m an activist”) Kelly, Michael Rowland and Phillip (“call me Phil”) Williams. It’s a powerful, experienced contingent. There also may be some ABC presenters digging tunnels under the Gallipoli trenches. If they surface, MWD will reveal their identities next week. Or, perhaps, in 2115.
So, what’s the hidden agenda? MWD can reveal that the 1st AIF – i.e. the 1st Aunty Invasion Force – plans to use the Commemoration to do what the 1st Australian Imperial Force could not achieve a century ago. Namely, to conquer the peaks of Chunuk Bair and proceed to Istanbul. There the 1st Aunty Invasion Force plans to take over the local office of the Turkish taxpayer funded public broadcaster TRT. Clever, eh? The strategy is contingent on TRT’s staff being away from their posts and hanging out at Anzac Cove in order to get footage of something or other and perhaps find some left-over plonk washing ashore from a tourist landing craft which sank under the weight of its grog supply.
MWD will keep you posted about the success – or otherwise – of Nice Mr Scott’s gallant band of intrepid invaders. [I haven’t seen Nice Mr Scott of late. Could he be tunnelling under the Nek right now? – Ed.] It is understood that if, as in 1915, the 1st Aunty Invasion Force can’t really get very far off the beachhead – the ABC has reinforcements ready to go into action. Lotsa reinforcements – like Leigh Sales, Phillip (“Have I told you about my latest illness?”) Adams, Tony Jones and Jonathan (“Proudly the ABC’s sneerer-in-chief”) Green.
- OH-SO-ANGRY LEIGH SALES DECLINES TO ADMIT ERROR OR EXPRESS DOUBT
While on the topic of Leigh Sales, did anyone see her oh-so-angry and oh-so- unprofessional interview with Environment Minister Greg Hunt on 7.30 last night? Ms Sales had a bee in her bonnet about the Coalition’s Emissions Reduction Fund. Many commentators considered the first stage in the exercise a significant success. But not so Leigh Sales – who was more interested in stating her somewhat confused view than hearing what Mr Hunt had to say.
It all seemed like a replay of Ms Sales’ oh-so-angry and oh-so-unprofessional interview with Defence Minister Kevin Andrews on 14 April 2015. See MWD Issue 265. Ms Sales asked Mr Andrews on no fewer than four occasions “who is the top leader of the IS?” (i.e. the so-called Islamic State). The Defence Minister declined to engage the 7.30 presenter in her “gotcha” moment and did not answer the question. Whereupon Ms Sales stated triumphantly: “The specific person to whom I have been referring is Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi”. [Thank God for Wikipedia – Ed]
As MWD speculated last Friday, there are any number of reasons why Kevin Andrews failed to respond to Ms Sales’ quiz – show style interrogation. Including the fact that he might have been put off by her oh-so-simplistic suggestion that IS acts like a Western-style government with “a leader and a cabinet”. You know, like in Canberra or Westminster. The Minister may not have wanted to acknowledge IS in this way.
In any event, Kevin Andrews was correct in declining to play a mediocre journalist’s mediocre game. As The Guardian in London reported this week, there is some evidence that al-Baghdadi may not have been in operational control of IS on 14 April – since he was allegedly wounded in an air-strike in western Iraq on 18 March. That is, some 3 weeks before Leigh Sales declared that al-Baghdadi was IS’s “top leader”.
On the available evidence, Kevin Andrews was correct in declining to speculate publicly on who was in charge of IS on 14 April in view of, in Mr Andrews’ words, the “fluidity between organisations and individuals who are involved”.
So last night did Leigh Sales tell 7.30 viewers that she may have got it wrong in her Andrews interview and that al-Baghdadi may not be currently in control of IS? No. Not on your nelly. Journalists like Leigh Sales rarely correct or even doubt their positions. Can you bear it?
- JONATHAN GREEN – NO 23 YEAR OLD WOMEN ARE LIARS
Jonathan Green is another possible replacement to fill a front-line vacancy should tomorrow’s planned attack by the Australian taxpayer funded public broadcaster on the Turkish taxpayer funded public broadcaster in Istanbul – or is it Constantinople? – initially falters.
Your man Green was on ABC1’s News Breakfast’s “Newspapers” segment yesterday. Among his chosen topics was the so-called cancer victim Belle Gibson – who has fessed up that she does not have inoperable cancer or, indeed, any cancer at all. This story was first broken by Richard Guilliatt in The Australian on 10 March 2015. Ms Gibson’s (delayed) true confession is contained in this week’s Women’s Weekly.
To us mere mortals, Ms Gibson has confessed to lying about her medical condition – and admitted to giving false hope about cancer cures to cancer sufferers who believed her story about curing the disease through using natural therapies and so on. Along the lines laid out in her book The Whole Pantry (Penguin Books, 2014) which has now been withdrawn.
However, the inner-city dwelling cyclist and ABC employee Jonathan Green, believes it’s a lot more complicated than this. Your man Green commenced his comments on the issue on News Breakfast with the cliché-driven reflection: “I felt in a very strange place about this story – Belle Gibson”. He continued:
Jonathan Green: [Belle Gibson is aged] 23, though. Right, so this says two things I think. One that yes this is an unreasonable way to behave and to build this business, for that’s what it is, on the basis of a lie is a terrible thing. And it’s a terrible thing because it offered hope to people who were desperate for that hope. So that is a terrible thing.
The other side of this is that we have here a 23 year old that we were all very eager to believe and clearly a troubled person. And it says something about our credulousness, our capacity to jump on something like this without perhaps giving it full scrutiny. The publishers never tested the claims.
After co-presenters Virginia Trioli and Paul Kennedy along with some viewers, expressed a different view – Jonathan Green continued with his we-must-understand-liars plea. Let’s go to the transcript:
Virginia Trioli: Look there’s a very sceptical line of commentary here this morning, but you’re feeling a bit of compassion for her?
Jonathan Green: I want to, because clearly she’s someone who has a problem with truth. And that problem is, I think, deep in her psychology. It’s not just that, that, I’m hypothesising.
Virginia Trioli: And it’s clearly caused her and others deep unhappiness.
Jonathan Green: It has, but it seems to me it’s not been a malicious attempt. It’s been that she seems to be unable to sort fact from fantasy and that’s a strange and disturbing thing.
What a load of tosh. Jonathan Green has no idea whatsoever as to whether Belle Gibson is “clearly a troubled person” who is not able to “sort fact from fiction”. And he seems to believe that 23 year olds should be given some exemption from telling the truth. Can you bear it?
- MARK LATHAM ON WHY IT WAS WRONG FOR AUSTRALIA TO RESIST BOTH THE KAISER & THE FUHRER
What stunning contributions to the Anzac Day debate by failed former Labor leader Mark Latham and the Chair of History and Australian Studies at Monash University Professor Bruce Scates.
Writing in the Australian Financial Review on Wednesday, the Lair of Liverpool declared:
In the century since Gallipoli, Australia’s military engagements have been plagued by the Antill legacy: sacrificing young lives in conflicts that have been both unnecessary and unwinnable. Throughout World War I, our troops thought they were fighting for Australia’s freedom when, in fact, they were cannon fodder for the failings of European imperialism – the last mass-murderous folly of the monarchical system. Only after 1918 did the true extent of the slaughter and its pointlessness become clear. As Paul Keating has said, it was a war devoid of any virtue.
It’s clear that Mark Latham now opposes all Australia’s military engagements since 1914-18. This includes not only Korea, Confrontation in defence of Malaysia against Indonesia, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq but also World War II. Latham never stated such a position when he was Labor leader – presumably because his advisers told him that the electorate would not warm to the proposal that Australia should have done nothing to repel Nazi Germany’s aggression in 1939-45 or Japan’s aggression during the Pacific War.
The Lair of Liverpool also believes that Australia should have done nothing when the German Army conquered Belgium and occupied parts of France in 1914. Despite the fact that Imperial Germany was a Pacific power. It seems that Mark Latham’s position, if stated at any time during 1914-18, would have consisted of the following “strategic” approach: “Find out what the Kaiser wants – then give it to him”.
- BRUCE SCATES ON WHY IT WAS WRONG NOT TO GIVE IMPERIAL GERMANY A CHANCE IN 1914-18
Writing in The Age, also on Wednesday, Bruce Scates referred to “the futility of…World War I in its entirety”. Like the Lair of Liverpool, your man Scates is of the view that Imperial Germany should have been allowed to conquer both France and Russia and all of New Guinea and more besides. Presumably this is what Professor Scates teaches his students at the taxpayer subsidised Monash University. Here’s hoping he lets his students know that no mainstream political party ever held this view in Australia during the entire period of World War I.
DAVID DAY STILL UNDER THE BED RE HIS WINSTON/MING CLAIM
The (above) reference to World War II and all that provides an opportunity to respond to the demand from hundreds of thousands of avid readers who have asked how David Day is going in responding to documenting undocumented assertions in his 1986 book Menzies & Churchill At War. Here’s how.
[table id=33 /]
There has been huge interest in the possibility that Hendo may accept an invitation to address the inner-city leftist sandal-wearers at the 2015 Melbourne Writers’ Festival. Indeed, avid readers have been waiting with bated breath to find out what’s going on.
Alas, no final decision has been made. But thanks to reader contributions, Hendo is putting together a suitable wardrobe for the occasion and considering to engage a stylist and a dresser. Just in case.
Currently Hendo’s MWF wardrobe consists of:
A Che Guevara black beret
A Che Guevara navy blue tee-shirt
A pair of Che Guevara unbleached cow-hide sandals.
Here is a glimpse of Hendo’s proposed gear – if he accepts the gig. Fashion advice from avid MWD readers for remaining items of apparel is still welcome.
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. There are, alas, some occasions where Hendo sends a polite missive but does not receive the courtesy of a reply. Nevertheless, publication of this one-sided correspondence still takes place. For the record and in the public interest, of course.
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.
- JAMES FRANKLIN AND GERARD HENDERSON – ON ARTHUR CALWELL, BRENDA NIALL & DANIEL MANNIX’S PAPERS
It seems that failed former Labor leader Arthur Calwell (1896-1973) has a two-person fan club. Consisting of his daughter Mary Elizabeth Calwell who insists on writing apologias about her late father (see MWD Issue 265and Professor James Franklin, the talented mathematician who dabbles in history, philosophy and all that stuff. See MWD passim.
This week your man Franklin has written to Nancy’s (male) co-owner again about Arthur Calwell and Brenda Niall’s undocumented assertion that Daniel Mannix, the Catholic Archbishop of Melbourne from 1917 to 1963, had his papers destroyed upon his death. Again. Here we go. Again.
James Franklin to Gerard Henderson – 17 April 2015
Gerard
Re Calwell:
A. Calwell, Peacock, Beazley and Al Gore could take satisfaction (or anger, up to them) in having been elected by a majority of the electorate.
The properly constituted electoral system awarded office to someone else.A. and B. are not logical contraries so there’s nothing to argue about there.
Calwell does need to take blame for failing to win Victorian seats in 1961. As we all know, there were some other causes of that as well.
Re Mannix:
Hearsay evidence is not “no evidence”. Courts look askance on it in most circumstances as they think juries give it undue weight, but that doesn’t make it bad evidence. Depends on the case.
Brenda Niall says that Tom Boland got the information from May Saunders in her Mannix, page 378 note 4. Since Boland was a respected historian questioning a subject in his professional capacity, that is strong evidence not dismissible as mere hearsay. As it’s confirmed by Frank Little, also a man without any reason to doubt, it isn’t like what someone overheard in a pub.
Niall does not claim that May Saunders burned “all” Mannix’s papers, as she writes that Santamaria took what he wanted first. (Mannix, pages 372-3). Speculations as to how many papers Mannix may have had and in what locations don’t advance the argument. A “three-day” bonfire doesn’t imply they were at it non-stop for three days. Housekeepers have other things to do.
Jim
Gerard Henderson to James Franklin – 24 April 2015
James
Thanks for your note. My responses are set out below:
▪ Arthur Calwell:
Here are the facts. No one knows whether Labor, under Arthur Calwell’s leadership, won 50.5 per cent of the two-party preferred vote in 1961. The ballot papers were not exhaustively counted. So this is a mere estimate. But we do know that the Labor Party did not win the 1961 election and we do know that Mr Calwell led the ALP to further defeats in 1963 and 1966.
Certainly there were many reasons why the ALP did not win seats in Victoria in 1961. Mr Calwell, despite being the most prominent Labor MP in Victoria, could not make any breakthrough for the ALP. Moreover, he made no attempt to heal the Labor Split of 1955 by making gestures to the break-away Democratic Labor Party. So Arthur Calwell was substantially responsible for Labor’s defeat in 1961 – after all, he was Labor’s leader at the time.
▪ Daniel Mannix, Brenda Niall and the alleged destruction of Mannix’s Papers:
Contrary to your assertion, Brenda Niall did claim that Daniel Mannix’s had “all” his papers burned upon his death. At Page 136 of The Riddle of Father Hackett (National Library of Australia, 2009), Brenda Niall wrote:
Mannix had all his private paper burned, so as to frustrate biographers.
And at Page 269 of the Riddle of Father Hackett, Ms Niall repeated that Archbishop Mannix “had all his papers burned”.
In response to a query from me, Brenda Niall said that her “immediate” source was Archbishop Frank Little (1925-2008) “who said that he had been told this by May Saunders”. Little claimed that Saunders did the burning on the instructions of Bishop Arthur Fox. So the Archbishop Little’s claim – as told to Niall in 2008 – was that “all” of Daniel Mannix’s papers were burned.
On 28 May 2010, I wrote again to Brenda Niall in the following terms:
I note from your email that it was Archbishop Frank Little who told you that Archbishop Daniel Mannix had all his papers burned so as to frustrate biographers. According to Little’s account, he was informed of this by May Saunders – Bishop Arthur Fox’s housekeeper – who undertook the burning. It is not clear whether any such destruction of this material took place before or after Dr Mannix’s death.
I do not doubt that May Saunders may have burned some of Dr Mannix’s papers. This was a common occurrence with respect to many deceased persons in the 1960s and earlier – not only clerics. However, the fact is that not all of Daniel Mannix’s papers were burned. I understand that you worked as B.A. Santamaria’s research assistant from 1954 until around 1960 – and, in this capacity, you worked on those papers of Dr Mannix which were collected by Santamaria both before and after the Archbishop’s death.
This material was quoted by Santamaria in his book Daniel Mannix: The Quality of Leadership (MUP, 1984) and it is this material which you refer to as being returned to Rachel Naughton at the Melbourne Diocesan Historical Commission after BAS’s death. There are many examples of Mannix’s papers referred to in Santamaria’s book – including Cardinal Van Rossum’s 1918 letter to Mannix, Mannix’s handwritten notes circa 1919, Archbishop Duhig’s letter to Mannix – and more besides. As I recall, Mannix’s papers also used to contain a letter written to him by Billy Hughes shortly before the latter’s death.
Clearly, then, May Saunders did not burn all of Mannix’s papers at Arthur Fox’s – or anyone else’s – request. Moreover, as you know, Fox was close to Santamaria and it is likely that Santamaria would have opposed any such burning – if only because he would have wanted such papers for the biography which Santamaria was already planning when Mannix died in November 1963….
I worked part-time for B.A. Santamaria in 1970 and 1971. During this time I did some research on Santamaria’s (then proposed) Mannix biography. Santamaria discussed with me the preliminary work which you did with him on the Mannix book. BAS told me that he was disappointed that Mannix left so few papers. But BAS never said to me that Mannix’s papers had been consciously destroyed – or that such destruction had been undertaken at the direction of Bishop Fox. Santamaria just regretted that Mannix had not maintained a filing system.
In view of all the above, I remain unconvinced that your comment in The Riddle of Father Hackett that Mannix had all his papers burned so as to frustrate biographers is accurate. At the very least, such as assertion should be qualified.
Brenda Niall declined to address the matters which I raised. However, in her recent book Mannix, Brenda Niall changed her previous position that “all” of Mannix’s papers had been burned. She wrote at Page 7 of Mannix that Ms Saunders – at the direction of Bishop Fox – burned “most of the Mannix papers setting aside those that were clearly on diocesan matters”. From “all” to “most” is a significant qualification.
Brenda Niall has not explained why she changed her position between her books on Fr Hackett in 2010 and Dr Mannix in 2015. Especially since Frank Little is the source for both accounts and he died before Niall changed her position. So, clearly, Archbishop Little cannot be the source for Brenda Niall’s revised claim.
In her “Notes” to Mannix, the author does write that “the story of the burning was confirmed by Father T.P. Boland”. As you will be aware, Dr Boland died in December 2010 at age 81. He wrote to Niall that it took May Saunders “three days” to burn Mannix’s papers. It is not clear when Boland spoke – or corresponded with – May Saunders. The statement seems hyperbolic – and there is no way of checking it.
The allegation about what May Saunders told Frank Little or perhaps Arthur Fox or perhaps Tom Boland remains precisely that – an allegation. But three facts are established.
First, Archbishop Mannix left no instruction in his will – or elsewhere – that his papers be destroyed. Consequently, there is no documentary evidence linking Mannix with the alleged destruction of his papers.
Second, Frank Little was not in a positon to lecture others about the destruction of documents. Evidence provided to the Victorian Parliament’s Family and Community Development Committee in 2013 by Archbishop Denis Hart reveals that, when Archbishop of Melbourne, Frank Little kept no records concerning child sex abuse by Catholic clergy and kept all such matters to himself. Clearly Archbishop Little destroyed all such records since none survived his period as archbishop.
In short, Frank Little was in no place to lecture about Daniel Mannix’s (alleged) destruction of official and private papers when Little himself destroyed official papers concerning a criminal matter with respect to which he had a duty of care. Brenda Niall should know this.
Third. If, as Brenda Niall has claimed, Dr Mannix had “all” or “most” of his papers burned on his death, how come the first sentence in the “Acknowledgements” section of Mannix reads: “I thank Archbishop Denis Hart for giving me access to the Mannix Papers…in the Melbourne diocesan archives”? The fact is that the Melbourne Diocesan Historical Commission has a significant collection of Daniel Mannix’s papers. These files would not exist if all Mannix’s papers had been consciously destroyed half a century ago.
Best wishes
Gerard Henderson
Until next time – keep morale high.
“Gerard’s condescension levels high on #insiders this morning”
– Lenore Taylor, via Twitter, 22 February 2015
“Gerard Henderson and David Marr are on #Insiders this week. Like a political Felix and Oscar.”
– Mark Scott via Twitter 19 February 2015 at 1.10 pm
“I once called Gerard Henderson `a complete f%^wit’. I deeply regret that. I was being much too harsh on f%^wits.”
– Malcolm Farr via Twitter 14 February 2015 at 10:14 am
“Oh Gerard. You total clown.”
– Jonathan (“Proudly the ABC’s Sneerer-in-Chief”) Green on Twitter, Friday 3 October 2014, 4.31 pm [Mr Green must be an obsessive avid reader to respond so soon. – Ed]
“Good morning. All the gooder for being attacked (for thousandth time) by silly Gerard in the Oz”
– Phillip Adams via Twitter, 27 September 2014
“What troubles me most is that he [Gerard Henderson] shows such low journalistic standards, yet he is politically quite influential. He is often on Insiders. It’s hard to see why: he comes across as a crank.”
– Kate Durham as told to Crikey, 16 September 2014
“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