GERARD HENDERSON’S MEDIA WATCH DOG – ISSUE NO. 274
19 JUNE 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.

brand new mike carlton

Tweet sent out by Mike Carlton during Gin & Tonic Time on 12 June 2015.

 

STOP PRESS GRAPHIC

 

        • IN DEFENCE OF BILL SHORTEN AGAINST FAIRFAX MEDIA AND ABC OUTLETS

Media Watch Dog has always maintained that both the ABC and Fairfax Media criticise the Coalition (constantly) and Labor (occasionally) – but always from the left.

This mindset is evident at the moment with the attacks by Fairfax Media – principally The Age and the Sydney Morning Herald – on Labor leader Bill Shorten. Last Tuesday Herald editor Darren Goodsir published a piss-poor editorial titled “Bill Shorten should be considering his future”. This is a bit much – coming from the poorly performing Goodsir who should be considering his own future. Mr Goodsir – like the equally poorly performing Age editor Andrew Holden – preside over newspapers which continually bag the positions of those who buy, and advertise in, their products – while gesturing to the inner-city left, most of whom neither buy, nor advertise in, printed newspapers.

When he headed the Victorian branch of the Australian Workers’ Union (AWU) – also part of the Labor right-wing faction – Bill Shorten ran an efficient and honest union. Like many competent trade union officials, Shorten did deals with employers and employer organisations in the interests of his members and the AWU itself. What’s wrong with that?

There is no evidence that Shorten or AWU officials in Victoria have acted improperly. The criticism of Shorten and his AWU colleagues is coming from the radical left – and sometimes violent – Construction, Forestry, Manufacturing and Energy Union (CFMEU). The CFMEU is a rival of the AWU and wants to take over some of the AWU’s membership base and its worksites.

It’s understandable why the Coalition is attacking Mr Shorten over his time as an AWU official. That’s politics. But it is not clear why The Age and the Sydney Morning Herald should be adopting a position very similar to the CFMEU in their assertion that Shorten did not get the best deals for his members when negotiating with employers around a decade ago. This follows Fairfax Media’s obsessive attacks on Joe de Bruyn and the shop assistants union – the SDA – which is part of Labor’s right-wing. See MWD Issue 269.

It’s much the same with the ABC. Last night 7.30 called up its favourite industrial relations commentator – the self-proclaimed socialist academic John Buchanan. Dr Buchanan (for a doctor he is) was given the opportunity to make this point:

John Buchanan, Labour Historian, Uni. Of Sydney: Employers, wherever they had a chance, always tried to reach agreements with the quiet unions and tried to isolate the militant and progressive unions. The AWU was at the forefront of that dynamic in keeping labour standards at a relatively modest level.

This is the same John Buchanan who addressed a “Politics in the Pub” gig on 18 February 2005. He praised the Marxist philosopher Antonio Gramsci and advocated the cause of “the militants in the workplace”.

John Buchanan provided no evidence for his assertion on 7.30 that the AWU keeps “labour standards at a relatively modest level”. None whatsoever. Moreover, Buchanan clearly regards the CFMEU as both “militant” and “progressive”. Well, the CFMEU is certainly militant. But progressive? In fact, the CFMEU is a job destroyer on Melbourne building sites since its very militancy discourages investment and construction.

Last night, 7.30 did not interview any other commentator to counter the views of the socialist Buchanan who regards the AWU as quiet and timid. Thus making it possible for Bill Shorten and the AWU to be attacked – from the left. How very ABC.

        • JULIAN BURNSIDE’S PAPAL DOUBLE-STANDARD

The ABC1 edition of Lateline had not ended last night when Julian (‘I like flashing my post-nominals’) Burnside AO QC sent out the following tweet:

For those who were still awake last night (and were neither drunk nor high) when Lateline went to air at 11.15 pm – the program was focused on Pope Francis’ encyclical letter Laudato Si’ . In English – On Care For Our Common Good. Lateline was not focused on Tony Abbott. But, apparently, JB AO QC was.

Asked by Tony Jones whether Tony Abbott would feel bound by the encyclical, Gerard Henderson replied in the negative. He made the point that no Pope had issued an infallible statement, binding all the Catholic faithful, since 1950. Moreover, Catholics are not expected to automatically follow the Pope’s teachings on politics, economics, or science and many don’t follow the Pope’s teachings on faith and morals.

In any event, the Pope does not regard his teachings on climate change and the like as binding on Catholics. This is made clear at Paragraph 188 of Laudato Si’ – which is as follows:

188. There are certain environmental issues where it is not easy to achieve a broad consensus. Here I would state once more that the Church does not presume to settle scientific questions or to replace politics. But I am concerned to encourage an honest and open debate so that particular interests or ideologies will not prejudice the common good.

Clearly Julian Burnside AO QC does not have a clue about Catholic encyclicals and all that. Moreover, he is hopelessly inconsistent.

According to JB AO QC’s (confused) thought, the Catholic Tony Abbott should follow the Church’s thinking on climate change. But if this is so, then – according to JB QC’s (confused) thought – Tony Abbott should follow the Church’s thinking on same-sex marriage.

It’s just that JB AO QC believes that the Prime Minister should follow the Pope on climate change but not on same sex marriage. Your man Burnside was educated at Melbourne Grammar School – where he was denied full colours in swimming and something else. See MWD passim. [Perhaps it was Logic? – Ed].

 

editorial

THE ROYAL COMMISSION – AND THE ABC?

As avid MWD readers will be aware, Nancy’s (male) co-owner has been banging on in recent months about the ABC in 1975. You see, four decades ago Professor Richard Downing (1915-1975) was chairman of the taxpayer funded public broadcaster. In his capacity as ABC chairman, Professor Downing not only defended the action of the then ABC Radio program Lateline in giving sympathetic coverage to pederasts. He also called on Australians to “understand” the “phenomenon of pederasty”.

It so happens that around the time when Professor Richard Downing was defending “the phenomenon of pederasty” in The Sydney Morning Herald (19 July 1975), the pederast (the then Fr.) Gerald Ridsdale was raping young boys in the Catholic diocese of Ballarat. Downing, who died suddenly and prematurely, was appointed ABC chairman by Gough Whitlam’s Labor government in 1973.

Despite the fact that he was a senior adviser to the Whitlam government in the early 1970s, the current ABC chairman Jim Spigelman has refused on two occasions to distance the ABC from Professor Downing’s 1975 letter.

Jim Spigelman’s decision has been supported by The [Boring] Saturday Paper’s Richard Ackland. Writing in Melbourne property developer Morry Schwartz’s weekly on 6 June 2015, Mr Ackland defended Jim Spigelman’s decision in this instance. By the way, the oh-so-witty Ackland refers to the ABC chairman as “Spigsy” and to the Daily Telegraph as “The Daily Smellograph”. Funny eh?

According to The [Boring] Saturday Paper’s star columnist, Richard Downing merely “defended an ABC program in 1975 that discussed the phenomenon of pederasty”. Not so. In fact, Downing called on Sydney Morning Herald readers to “understand” the “phenomenon” in 1975. As Messrs Ackland and Spigelman should know, in 1975 pederasty was not a phenomenon but a crime. It still is.

It seems that the Royal Commission Into Institutional Responses To Child Sexual Abuse is taking a serious interest in child sexual abuse in the entertainment industry. Including television networks – both public or private. The ABC is a public television network.

On 15 June 2015, the Royal Commission issued the following Media Release:

Child sexual abuse in the entertainment industry

The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse would like to hear from anyone who has experienced, or has information regarding, child sexual abuse in institutions in the entertainment industry. Royal Commission CEO Philip Reed said that the Royal Commission is calling for people with information about child sexual abuse in the entertainment industry to contact the Royal Commission.

Institutions within the Royal Commission’s scope may include television networks, film and television production companies, theatrical production companies, dance, drama and performing arts schools or colleges, casting agencies or any other company, agency or organisation, public or private involved in the entertainment industry.

Anyone with information, whether or not they have experienced child sexual abuse themselves, can contact the Royal Commission. Anyone thinking of coming forward should be rest assured that the confidentiality of their information will be protected,” Mr Reed said.

In Britain, the one-time BBC star Jimmy Savile (1926-2011) has been identified as one of the worst paedophiles. He mainly abused under-age girls and females. Yet it seems that Savile was not alone. In the mid-1970s in Britain, the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE) adopted a similar attitude to men who have sex with young boys as was adopted at the time by ABC chairman Richard Downing. See MWD Issue 216.

The ABC’s flirtation with pederasty in the mid-1970s was identified by K.S. Inglis in his book This is the ABC: The Australian Broadcasting Commission 1932-1983. It remains to be seen whether the Royal Commission will express an interest in this matter. Likewise, it remains to be seen for how long the ABC board will tolerate Mr Spigelman’s stubborn refusal to distance the ABC in 2015 from the abhorrent views expressed by one of his predecessors only four decades ago.

 

Legacy Issues

Meanwhile let’s update the Legacy Issues with respect to this matter:

Spigleman and Downing 82 days

And here’s another screen-shot of past ABC chairman Professor Downing’s disgraceful 1975 letter – which Mr Spigelman refuses to condemn in 2015.

Downing letter

 

Can you bear it graphic

      • CRIKEY’S “SNOWDEN LETTER” BEAT UP

Talk about a beat-up. Here’s how, last Wednesday, Crikey advertised an item under the heading “Unredacted: The Snowden letter the Oz wouldn’t publish”.

Nancy’s (male) co-owner immediately read the item – wondering why The Australian would spike a letter written by Edward Snowden currently of Moscow town. Alas, it turned out that “The Oz” had not binned a “Snowden letter”. Not at all. Rather it had binned a letter about your man Snowden by a certain David Salter of Hunters Hill. You know, the Mr Salter who used to produce the ABC’s Media Watch program in Stuart Littlemore’s day. Apparently Crikey is going to run a series of letters by individuals who have not had their letters published in the mainstream newspapers. [How frightfully exciting – Ed]. Mr Salter’s effort was the first. Yes, this is the very same David Salter who refused to run any correspondence on the ABC’s Media Watch critical of his leftist mate Stuart Littlemore for around a decade.

For a leftist Sandalista type, David Salter of Hunters Hill gets quite a number of letters published in The Australian. And yet he is objecting to the fact that, on this occasion, The Australian did not run his defence of Snowden – which said not very much at all in four paragraphs. Can you bear it?

      • CRIKEY’S WAITERS IN HUNTERS HILL SCOOP CONTINUES

While on the topic of scribe David Salter, did anyone see the letter which he wrote to Crikey last Friday? Your man Salter was responding to Margot Saville’s modern day Marco Polo type adventure in which she travelled a whole 4.6 kilometres from her abode in inner-city Rozelle to Joe Hockey’s abode in Hunters Hill. Unlike Marco Polo of old, Ms Saville’s journey took her over water – per courtesy of the Iron Cove Bridge.

According to your man Salter, Crikey’s traveller was unfair to Sandalistas (like him) who live in Hunters Hill and treat their waiters well. Here is what he had to say:

Margot Saville muses that if only she’d married a Sydney University law school boy she might have been one of those well-shod ladies at lunch in Hunter’s Hill, “snapping my fingers for another pinot gris.” Margot should know that it’s the eastern suburbs nouveau riche who snap their fingers at restaurant staff.

Hunter’s Hill ladies have much nicer manners (and anyway, the local waiters will discreetly offer to re-fill your glass before you’ve noticed it’s empty). As for Hunter’s Hill being an exclusive enclave for those born to privilege, Saville could have noted that just around the corner from the Hockeys is the home of Eddie Obeid. They’re not all toffs down there on the peninsula.

David Salter, Hunters Hill

So that settles that. Even retired journos live in Hunters Hill. [Perhaps Crikey might commission Mr Salter to travel over the Iron Cove Bridge and report on Ms Saville and her neighbours in fashionable Rozelle – Ed]

Meanwhile thanks to the avid MWD reader who has pointed out that this is not Margot Saville’s first big journey on behalf of Crikey. In March 2012 she travelled all the way from inner-city Rozelle to check out the locals down Cronulla way and to inspect The Shire. This time Crikey provided a translator – or so it is said [By whom? By you? – Ed]. Can Crikey be the only publication which pays its inner-city reporters to report on the suburbs? Can you bear it?

      • FAIRFAX MEDIA & THE COALITION: A SATURDAY PERSPECTIVE

While on the topic of boredom, The Age last Saturday, which not so long ago used to be called The Saturday Age, bored on with its attack on the Abbott government. Take the “Insight” section, for example. It contained:

      • a lead story by James Massola on Joe Hockey titled “Dead Weight”. You get the picture. This ran for three pages.
      • a column by Tony Wright criticising the Prime Minister on wind farms.
      • a cartoon by John Spooner mocking Joe Hockey and
      • a column by Michael Gordon criticising the Abbott government’s approach to border protection.

There was also a column by Anne Summers bagging the Prime Minister in The Age online. Get the picture? For its part, the Canberra Times ran the Michael Gordon and Anne Summers pieces – along with a column by Peter Hartcher criticising Tony Abbott on wind farms. All three articles were published on one page. Can you bear it?

      • DOCTOR IN THE STUDIO?

What a stunning performance from the British born Paul Barry on the ABC1 Media Watch program last Monday. Discussing the so-called “female Viagra”, your man Barry had this to say:

Now, when you’re dealing with delicate medical subjects, I’ve always thought it’s best to consult a doctor.

Not so much, in fact. Sure, when discussing the health impacts of wind farms on Media Watch on 15 June 2015, Paul Barry did consult a doctor. Dr Simon Chapman, in fact. However, Dr Chapman (for a doctor he is) has an Arts degree in sociology and a Ph.D. (Doctorate of Philosophy) for a thesis on cigarette advertising.

Paul Barry and his executive producer Tim Latham declared that they needed to consult a MB BS (Bachelor of Medicine, Bachelor of Surgery) doctor when discussing the health effects of Viagra. But a Ph.D. in advertising will do when discussing the health effects of wind farms. Can you bear it?

      • DOCTOR IN ANGST

How wonderful to read Elizabeth Farrelly in yesterday’s Sydney Morning Herald. Nancy’s (male) co-owner was intending to cite what Dr Farrelly (for a doctor she is) said about her love for windmills and how she sees “the clean energy being made”. Quite a remarkable feat when you think about it – since the SMH columnist lives in inner-city Sydney. However, The Australian’s “Cut & Paste” acquired this gem this morning. Shucks.

So MWD has had to content itself with the Farrelly introduction:

No doubt it’s funny, in a bleak and windswept kind of way. Tony Abbott, proudly philistine leader of a proudly philistine country, makes world news by declaring war on renewables for reasons of, you betcha, taste. Windmills bad because windmills ugly.

When was the last time Australia had conniptions over aesthetics? Like, ever? Even the Opera House controversy centred around money. Yet Abbott’s war on wind – indeed his entire campaign against the renewables industry and targets – is, he says, because windmills are “visually awful [and] make a lot of noise”. So yes, we’re having our first national debate on aesthetics. That’s good. But we’re having the wrong one, and that’s bad.

What a load of absolute tosh. Australia is a “proudly philistine country” – compared to what? This from an associate professor at the University of NSW whose salary is subsidised by the very taxpayers whom she regards as philistines. Presumably Dr Farrelly also regards the Sydney Morning Herald readers and advertisers as philistines.

 

literary reflection

Here’s how The Age’s literary editor Jason Steger, who once provided an “endorsement” for Nancy’s (male) co-owner, commenced his ever shrinking “Bookmarks” column on Saturday 6 June 2015.

There were extraordinary events behind the scenes at the Sydney Writers’ Festival after one panellist took umbrage at supposed insensitive treatment at the hands of another and fired off a blistering email that had publishers, publicists and the festival organisers shaking their heads in utter dismay. It was a strongly worded but entirely wrong-headed email that prompted the recipient’s partner to ring the sender and let rip a blistering response. The upshot – eventually – was a backing down and an apology of some sort, but it’s fair to say the sender of the email is unlikely to be invited back to Sydney, or a couple of other festivals where noses have already apparently been put out of joint.

Gosh. How about that? Hold the front page and so on. And wouldn’t your man Steger’s scoop have been even more interesting if he had provided, er, names for the actors in this taxpayer subsidised literary contretemps?

Meanwhile – as of Friday 19 June – The Age has yet to run a review, or even a mention, of the book by Sam Lipski and Suzanne D. Rutland titled Let My People Go: The untold story of Australia and the Soviet Jews 1959-89 (Hybrid Publishers).

This is an international story featuring such well-known one-time Melbourne personalities as Bob Hawke and Isi Leibler along with the late Malcolm Fraser plus the very extant Melbourne personality Sam Lipski.

For the record, the Melbourne-born and Sydney-based Ross Fitzgerald reviewed Let My People Go in The Weekend Australian as long ago as 4 April 2015. But the Melbourne Age, despite promptings, has ignored the book so far. Can you bear it?

Lipski book cover

 

dee madigan john laws

This is what the gorgeously confused Dee Madigan had to say on Friday afternoon after MWD pointed out, for the second week in a row, that the Loreto Mandeville Hall graduate could not remember on one day what she said or wrote the previous day.

The Creative Edge/Campaign Edge “error” was, in fact, a John-Laws-style-deliberate-mistake so beloved by MWD’s tens of millions of avid readers. Well done Ms Madigan for spotting this. However, once again, the lady has a bad memory. In fact, Dee Madigan is still using the “Madcom” email address. There followed a tweet from Catherine (‘I used to go to Mass on Sundays’) Deveny:

To which, Ms Madigan responded:

In this instance Nancy’s (male) co-owner has been verballed. He never commented on the length of Ms Madigan’s skirts. However, from time to time, Hendo was wont to observe that the director of Campaign Edge had turned up at Sky News in such haste that she had forgotten to put on her skirt. That’s different, don’t you think?

At least Dee Madigan – “skirted” or “skirtless” – used to liven up The Contrarians, which aired on Sky News on Friday afternoons with Peter Van Onselen in the presenter’s chair. The Contrarians is now dead, cremated and buried. [I’m glad you got the sequence right – Ed]. The Friday Show now runs in its old slot.

Last week Nancy’s (male) co-owner headed home early to have Gin & Tonic in virtual time with Mike Carlton up Avalon Beach way. He turned on the new Friday Show and noted that Janine Perrett was interviewing former politician Peter Reith and former politician Peter Beattie about national politics. Hendo downed his gin to relieve his pain.

 

five paws graphic

RICHARD MULGAN ON THE ABC’S GREEN LEFT MINDSET

Writing in the June 2015 issue of the Canberra Times “The Public Sector Informant”, Emeritus Professor Richard Mulgan had this to say about the ABC after the Howard government:

A decade on, ABC news and current affairs seem much as before. ABC journalists are careful to aim for formal “balance”, giving equal time to all sides of an issue. But on the litmus-test issues of progressive politics, such as support for asylum seekers, climate change, indigenous rights and gay marriage, there can be little doubt where most of their sympathies lie. In confirmation of this tendency, the ABC’s supporters continue to defend it as a necessary counterbalance to the right-wing bias in the Murdoch press and talkback radio. Conservative governments can starve the ABC by cutting its resources but they cannot shift its mindset.

Sure, Richard Mulgan is a left-of-centre kind of guy. But at least he doesn’t run Nice Mr Scott’s post-2006 line that the ABC is fair and balanced. As the learned emeritus professor acknowledges, the taxpayer funded broadcaster has a green/left “mindset”.

Richard Mulgan: Five Paws

      • JOE ASTON ON FOUR CORNERS’ MINING OBSESSION

Meanwhile, in the Australian Financial Review last Monday, “Rear Window” writer Joe Aston had this to say in the lead-up to last Monday’s Four Corners’ program on the Australian mining industry:

Usually, we’re the first to ignore vague pejoratives about the ABC’s independence (or alleged lack of it), but the vendetta the public broadcaster’s current affairs program Four Corners seems to have against the mining industry deserves attention.

Red Kerry O’Brien will commute from Byron Bay to Sydney in Business class on Monday to read from an autocue for approximately 40 seconds before retiring to Royal Sydney Golf Club and then flying home the following day. This weekly service costs the taxpayer around $200,000 each year.

This week he will introduce a segment called “The End of Coal”, whose promos ask “will Australia be left on the wrong side of history?” In the past four years, correspondent Marian Wilkinson has already brought two segments to air suggesting the coal industry is threatening the Great Barrier Reef: one in September last year called “Battle for the Reef” (original!) and one in November 2011 called “Great Barrier Grief”.

In July 2014, “Power to the People” bemoaned Australia’s failure to embrace renewable energy despite a “revolution in power generation taking place across the globe”. In May 2012, “Casualties of the Boom” documented how “massive mining developments are killing communities in regional Australia”.

In February 2011, “The Gash Rush” investigated “the cost to farmers and the environment” of the coal seam gas industry. April 2013’s “Gas Leak!” was no different. But our personal favourite is April 2010’s “A Dirty Business” about “how the people of a once picturesque valley found themselves surrounded by coalmines, dust and toxic chemicals, while the state government ignores their pleas for help”.

Anyone seeing a pattern here? And I’m not just talking about Red Kerry’s shocking drives on the Rose Bay fairway…

Joe Aston: Five Paws

 

what guy rundle forgot continued

HOW LEFT-WING HERO NOAM CHOMSKY IN 1980 DESCRIBED REPORTS THAT OVER 1 MILLION CAMBODIANS HAD BEEN MURDERED BY POL POT’S KHMER ROUGE AS AN “EXTENSIVE EXAGGERATION” AND “A JOKE”

Due to popular demand, this feature examines Guy Rundle’s recent comment that left-wing hero Tom Uren, along with “many people”, said “silly things” about the Khmer Rouge in the 1970s. Just silly. In Crikey on 5 June 2015 your man Rundle added the term “naïve” in defence of Comrade Uren.

Nancy’s (male) co-owner’s favourite Marxist comedian has also asserted that the left only said “positive things” about Pol Pot’s murderous regime “when reports of the Khmer Rouge rule were few and frequently disbelieved”.

This is absolute tosh since – as MWD has documented. Evidence of Pol Pot’s crimes was available as early as July 1975, i.e. only a few months after the Khmer Rouge came to power in April 1975 – and the left supported Pol Pot at least until communist North Vietnam invaded communist Cambodia in December 1978.

For an example of the “naïve” and “silly things” the left said about the Khmer Rouge – consider the turgid chapter “Cambodia” in the 1980 book by Noam Chomsky and Edwards Herman titled After the Cataclysm: Postwar Indochina and the Reconstruction of Imperial Ideology (Hale & Iremonger, Sydney, 1980).

Here are some extracts demonstrating how Noam Chomsky played down Pol Pot’s murders and attempted to blame the Khmer Rouge’s killing fields on the United States and other Western powers including France.

The record of atrocities in Cambodia is substantial and often gruesome, but it has by no means satisfied the requirements of Western propagandists, who must labor to shift the blame for the torment of Indochina to the victims of France and the United States. Consequently, there has been extensive fabrication of evidence, a tide that is not stemmed even by repeated exposure. Furthermore, more tempered and cautious assessments are given little notice, as is evidence that runs contrary to the chorus of denunciation that has dominated the Western media. (Page 136).

In other words, according to Noam Chomsky in 1980, the evidence of Khmer Rouge atrocities had been extensively fabricated. Pretty “silly”, eh?

It is a truism, obvious to anyone who has ever dealt with refugees or considers the historical record or simply uses common sense, that “the accounts of refugees are indeed to be used with great care.” It is a truism commonly ignored. For example, the New York Times Pulitzer prize-winning specialist on refugees from Communism interviewed Cambodian refugees in Thailand “in a cage 8 feet square and 10 feet high in the police station of this provincial capital,” where “9 men are huddled on the bare floor” rarely speaking and staring “into the narrow space before them with dulled eyes.” It does not occur to him, here or elsewhere, to treat the accounts offered under such circumstances with the “great care”… (Page 141).

In other words, according to Noam Chomsky in 1980, it is unwise to take seriously the accounts of refugees from Communist dictatorships. More silliness, don’t you think?

[Ben] Kiernan believes there is little evidence that the government – planned and approved a systematic large-scale purge. The evidence indicates, he believes, that “apart from the execution of high-ranking army officers and officials, the killing reported by refugees from the northwest after April 1975 was instigated by untrained and vengeful local Khmer Rouge soldiers, despite orders to the contrary from Phnom Penh.” (Page 227-28)

In other words, according to Noam Chomsky in 1980, Ben Kiernan was correct in believing that there was little evidence that Pol Pot’s regime planned and approved the Khmer Rouge’s purges. Silly for sure – by the way, Kiernan later conceded he had been totally wrong on the Khmer Rouge.

The methodology for estimating postwar deaths, which has so impressed the editors of the London Economist and other ideologists, is hardly more than a joke; one does not have to be a “dedicated sceptic” to question their basis for concluding that “at least 1m people have died since the fall of Cambodia as a direct result of the excesses of the Angka Loeu” (our emphasis); mere rationality suffices, since all other factors were eliminated as irrelevant. What of the numbers? These are determined on the basis of such notable sources as Khieu Samphan’s alleged admission that “roughly a million Cambodians died,” and beyond that, estimates offered with no stated basis by various named and unnamed “Western observers,” various guesses based on no cited evidence about the proportion of “educated people” massacred, other guesses about deaths from starvation and disease, and so on. (Pages 244-45).

In other words, according to Noam Chomsky in 1980, it was more silliness – a joke, in fact – to believe that one million Cambodians had died as a consequence of Pol Pot’s dictatorship.

Finally, perhaps we should stress some obvious points about what the future may reveal. We speculated in the preface that the Vietnamese invasion may prove disastrous for Cambodia. Any assessment of the resulting conditions should be carefully compared with what visitors observed just prior to the invasion – specifically, with their general assessment that food supplies appeared adequate and that there were certain constructive developments, whatever one may think of the regime. If there is a deterioration in the conditions of Cambodia, this is very likely a consequence of the invasion itself; and here again the Western contribution cannot be ignored, including the special role played by the propaganda hysteria and climate of opinion of 1975-78, discussed at length above. (Page 294).

In other words, according to Noam Chomsky in 1980, the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia – which led to the overthrow of Pol Pot – might “prove disastrous” for Cambodia. Silliness – and naivety – incorporated. Also Noam Chomsky described the reports of Khmer Rouge atrocities between 1976 and 1978 as a product of “propaganda hysteria”.

At the time of the publication of After the Cataclysm in 1980, Noam Chomsky had quite a fan club at Arena, the self-proclaimed journal of Marxist opinion which Guy Rundle came to edit. It is said that, during Mr Rundle’s time as editor of Arena magazine, a Marxist comrade could not move in the tea-room without bumping into a one-time barracker for Pol Pot who supported the Khmer Rouge when the Cambodian killing fields were choked with corpses.

But, these days Hendo’s favourite Marxist comedian regards the left’s one-time infatuation with Pol Pot as not important, just silly and naive. As in “Silly” Tom Uren and “Silly” Mr Chomsky.

chomsky-book-cover

 

 

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 tens of millions 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 MWD 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.

GERARD HENDERSON & 2UE’s JUSTIN SMITH – YET ANOTHER GUTLESS WONDER WHO IS INTO ALAN-JONES-STYLE-RANTS

As avid MWD readers will be aware, Sky News’ gutless wonders Paul Murray and Derryn Hinch criticised in recent weeks Hendo’s comments concerning Cardinal George Pell. But the presenters of Paul Murray Live and Hinch Live still lack the courage to invite Hendo on to their programs to discuss the matter. Obviously neither Mr Murray nor Mr Hinch seems to want their invincible ignorance in this matter challenged on live television. With facts, no less. Surprised?

It’s much the same with 2UE Radio’s Justin Smith – as the following (one-way) correspondence documents. Mr Smith asked Gerard Henderson on to the program on 3 June 2015. When certain facts were contested concerning George Pell, the presenter of 2UE’s “Drive” program declared that he and Hendo should agree to disagree. Until, at the end of the program, Justin Smith turned off Hendo’s microphone and did an Alan-Jones-style-rant-to-air declaring that he (Justin Smith) was right and Hendo was wrong. How about that?

After checking both the transcripts and facts, Gerard Henderson wrote to Justin Smith pointing out his howlers. As of the time MWD went out today, Mr Smith had not responded. Presumably he is under the (2UE) bed – or some such place where the station accommodates gutless wonders.

We will let you know if Justin Smith has the courage to respond. In the meantime, here is Hendo’s (unanswered) letter:

Gerard Henderson to Justin Smith – 16 June 2015

Justin

I refer to your phone call to me on the morning of Thursday 11 June 2015. This followed my phone call to your producer Brian Carlton earlier that morning. I have been busy of late and this is my first opportunity to express my position in writing.

As you will be aware, the background is as follows. On Tuesday 2 June, Brian Carlton – whom I have known for some years – left a message on my voice mail asking me to come on to your “Drive” program on 2UE. He wanted me to discuss my article in the Daily Telegraph that day under the heading “Pell a victim of left-wing witch-hunt”.

This was an edited version of my column in The Weekend Australian on 30-31 May 2015 tilted “Persecutors of Cardinal George Pell wilfully ignore the history”. The Daily Telegraph republished my article without consulting me. I welcomed this decision since I assumed it wanted to provide some balance to the debate. The kind of balance which had been absent in many parts of the media – including 2UE’s “Drive” program.

I was busy on Tuesday but returned Brian Carlton’s call on Wednesday 3 June. Brian said that the 2UE program “Drive” had been running quite lot of critical material on Cardinal Pell and he would like me to come on to your program to present an alternative view.

Out of respect for Brian, I agreed. There was no understanding that the discussion would turn on the details of the Melbourne Response which (the then) Archbishop Pell set up in 1996 – shortly after he was appointed Archbishop of Melbourne – with respect to past and current sexual abuse by priests and members of religious orders.

Early in the interview, you expressed concern that my piece in the Daily Telegraph was headed “Pell victim of left-wing witch-hunt”. You repeated this concern on two occasions during our conversation last Thursday. As an experienced journalist, you should know that sub-editors, not journalists or columnists, write headings. I’m surprised by your apparent ignorance in this instance.

At the start of the interview, you volunteered the comment that “we have belted George Pell reasonably hard on this program”. Initially I assumed that – as advised by Brian – you wanted to put some balance into your coverage of this issue. But it soon became apparent that this was not the case. Rather, you wanted to focus on George Pell’s role in the Melbourne Response. Let’s go to the transcript early in the interview:

Justin Smith: Yeah. How did that Melbourne Response work, like how was it implemented?

Gerard Henderson: Well, essentially people who claim to be abused went to an independent inquiry, it was independent from the Church, they made assessments compensation was given. Now there have been complaints about the levels of compensation given –

Justin Smith: [Interjecting] Well, there’s also a complaint that probably sits at the very top of that tree Gerard, if you don’t mind. In the Melbourne Response, if anybody went to the police they were not able to get that compensation.

Gerard Henderson: I don’t think that’s the case, actually. But I can check that. I don’t think that’s the case. I don’t think the compensation was limited to that extent. No, that is certainly not correct. There was never a prohibition of going to the police.

Justin Smith: People were not able to go – the victims groups say that if anyone went, anybody who went to the police were not able to get any payment from the Melbourne Response.

Gerard Henderson: Well, I think that ought to be checked. I’m not an expert on the Melbourne Response. But I would say this – that there was never any prohibition of going to the police. And this was presided over by some of the leading non-Catholic lawyers in the State of Victoria. Some of them ended up on superior courts, there was a QC in charge of it. I don’t think that such senior figures in the Australian legal system would have been part of such a scheme.

Justin Smith: Okay, so tell me then – alright. Well let’s at the moment agree to disagree on it.

As the transcript demonstrates, I queried your comment but said that I would check out the matter and correct myself if I was wrong. I expected you to do the same – since you said that we should “agree to disagree”.

But, no. At the end of the interview you silenced me by turning off my microphone and then made the following Alan-Jones-style rant, as the transcript demonstrates:

Justin Smith: Gerard, thank you very much. It has been Gerard Henderson. And look I’m not kicking him on the door on the way out. But it has been reported, and there is a very firm belief, that people who took part in what has been called the Melbourne Response were not able to go to the police to receive their compensation. That has been reported. I’ve talked to victims groups that have also told me that very thing. And I’m happy to stand corrected if we’re able to be given some evidence that that is not the case. That is certainly what has been reported over the years. But, look, I appreciate the chat with Gerard Henderson.

Needless to say, I had no right of reply. You commenced the interview by declaring that you had “belted George Pell reasonably hard on the program”. And, you concluded the interview by turning off my microphone and belting Cardinal Pell again.

For the record, I have always maintained that it is most unwise to accept, without fact-checking, what individuals or organisations say. Not because they are untruthful but because they sometimes make mistakes.

I have now had time to check the matter with the Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne and I have re-read the findings of Betrayal of Trust: The Victorian Parliamentary Inquiry Into The Handling of Child Abuse by Religious And Other Non-government Organisations. These are the facts:

      • The Melbourne Response was set up in 1996 by (then Archbishop) George Pell in consultation with Victorian Police. On 30 October 1996, Victoria Police issued a statement titled “Police Support Catholic Church Initiatives To Combat Sexual Abuse” which is dated 30 October 1996. It can be found on the website of the Victorian Parliamentary Inquiry.

The media release stated that Victoria Police “welcomed the appointment of Peter O’Callaghan QC to the position of Independent Commission” and that Victoria Police was “pleased that the appointment of the Commissioner will not in any way conflict with police investigations or actions in respect to sexual abuse”.

      • As I understand it, the Melbourne Response was concerned not to interfere with investigations by Victoria Police – for obvious reasons. I also understand that in 1996 Victoria Police requested that the Melbourne Response not undertake investigations (with respect to compensation) while its enquiries were under way. However, counselling by the Melbourne Response could be provided while Victoria Police investigations were in process. Compensation was to be considered once police investigations were concluded.

I understand that of the 115 matters considered by Victorian Police that came before the Melbourne Response – some 100 victims received compensation under the Melbourne Response. In other words, it was false for you to claim on 2UE that victims who went to Victoria Police “were not able to get any payment from the Melbourne Response”. You could have determined this by doing a fact-check. It’s called research.

I would not have taken this matter up with Brian Carlton if you had not invited me to the program and then dismissed my views when doing an Alan-Jones-style rant at the end of the interview concerning which I was not able to respond.

Gerard Henderson

cc: Brian Carlton

Executive Producer

2UE with Justin Smith

Until next time – keep morale high.

“On Sunday before Insiders…I was giving you a rich and full account of what a weird shit I think you are…”

David Marr to Gerard Henderson, 1 June 2015

To #swf2015 this morning. Sunlit harbour, fabulous crowds radiating civility. And no Gerard Henderson ! It doesn’t get any better.

– Mike Carlton, via Twitter, 1:48 PM – 21 May 2015

Gerard Henderson’s friday self-harm update is here

– Adam Brereton, via Twitter, May 15, 2015

[Gerard Henderson’s Media Watch Dog is] batshit mad.

– Guy Rundle in Crikey, 14 May 2015:

I’m in the sort of mood that if I saw Gerard Henderson in the street I’d hit him with his own umbrella

– Ben Pobjie, via Twitter, 8 May 2015

It’s a glorious day when Gerard Henderson has a go at you

– Adam Gartrell, via Twitter, 8 May 2015

Meeting of Gerard Henderson Appreciation Society tonight Sydney Opera House phone booth

– Phillip Adams, via Twitter, 28 April 2015, 1.36 pm (after lunch).

“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

      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