Issue 277

JANE CARO’S FROCK (POLLING) SHOCK

Jane Caro, the darling of Fairfax Media and the ABC, called the next election result during last night shopping on Sydney’s North Shore.  This is what she had to say:

So there you have it.  The authoritative voice of CaroPoll – taken exclusively in upmarket North Shore dress shops [Here’s a point. Are there any downmarket dress shops on Sydney’s North Shore? – Ed].

According to CaroPoll, the Abbott government is going to lose votes because of the Q&A boycott, the Shenhua mine and the Royal Commission into the trade union movement. [Are you sure that “RC” in Ms Carol’s tweet does not stand for Roman Catholicism? – Ed]

According to the news from the ABC’s Ultimo headquarters (which is south of the North Shore), Nice Mr Scott is proposing to give Jane Caro her very own show on the taxpayer funded public broadcaster.  The working title is: “Caro’s Barrow: Reporting Politics from the North Shore’s Front Line”.  In each 30 minute episode Ms Caro will interview Abbott-haters – dressed in a different frock (from upmarket North Shore dress shops) on all occasions.

NICHOLAS REECE THROWS THE SWITCH TO AGEISM

 What a remarkable performance by former Labor staffer – and aspiring Labor parliamentarian – Nicholas Reece on Paul Murray Live last night.  Mr Reece is (currently) an academic at the taxpayer subsidised University of Melbourne.

It so happens that MWD is of the view that Opposition leader Bill Shorten did little wrong when he was a senior official in the Australian Workers Union. Nancy’s (male) co-owner makes two observations.  First, there is no evidence that Mr Shorten acted corruptly when at the AWU.  Second, it made sense for employers to support the AWU in its battle with the Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU).  The activities of sections of the CFMEU have not only been violent but also job-destroying.

It’s understandable why the Coalition is making as much as it can out of Bill Shorten’s current discontents.  But it’s not clear why journalists who oppose the left – like Sky News’ Paul Murray – appear to be running the CFMEU’s line against the AWU by maintaining (incorrectly) that the AWU sold out workers.

Last night on Sky News, Paul Murray was busy quoting former ALP national secretary Bill Hogg against Bill Shorten when the following extraordinary exchange took place:

Paul Murray: Nicholas, do you think that Bob Hogg is now instantly a traitor because he has said, what I think millions of people think about this – which is, sometimes even when your guy does the dodgy thing, the test is whether you can see it as being dodgy?

Nicholas Reece: Look it is true that Bob Hogg is a Labor legend. I mean, he was the campaign manager that brought Bob Hawke to power. You know, he’s run countless campaigns, he’s a legendary figure. I understand that he has recently discovered Facebook. And he’s also senior in years. And, you know, often people in senior years can be quite cantankerous. And that’s, I think what we’ve seen from him in recent years. You know, there tends to be this tendency to think that things are always sort of better in the “good old days”. And, you know, as we also learnt today I guess things weren’t always better in the good old days because Bob [Hogg] himself got caught out by these rules. I think his comments were unhelpful – but I don’t want to take that away from him, you know, lifetime of major contribution.

Fancy that. In order to run the (current) party line, your man Reece had to throw the switch to ageism and suggest that Bob Hogg is suffering from a series of what are politely termed “senior moments”. Without any evidence, of course.

All Nicholas Reece needed to say in defence of Bill Shorten is that Bob Hogg has always deeply resented the fact that Shorten rolled Kevin Rudd in June 2010.  That’s all. Instead Reece threw the switch to ageism.  Mr Reece – off to Susan Ryan’s Age Discrimination Commission for you.

ABC EDITORIAL REVIEW PANEL ALREADY PREJUDICED

Last week’s MWD quoted from ABC star Jonathan Green’s attempt at humour when he sent up the Daily Telegraph’s depiction of the entity “ABC” as standing for “Arrogant, Brazen, Contempt” on the ABC’s News Breakfast program recently.  Green came up with a few alternative misrepresentations of his own – namely, “Awkward Bored Chanteuses”, “Amateur Blowhard Club” and “Attractive Banana Chums”. Pretty funny, eh?

Needless to say, the inner-city bicycle-riding leftist Jonathan Green overlooked another alternative for “ABC”. Namely, Always Bereft of Conservatives.

The reality of the ABC as a Conservative Free Zone was evident again following the ABC Board’s decision to set up an ABC Editorial Review of the Q&A program.  This decision was made before, but announced after, the decision of Q&A to invite convicted criminal and terrorist sympathiser Zaky Mallah into the studio audience on Monday 22 June 2015.

However, the scope and subject of the Editorial Review – which was announced yesterday – covers the period February 2015 to June 2015.  So it includes Mallah’s appearance when Lateline producers helped draft his question to  Steve Ciobo, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs.

As befits its reality as a Conservative Free Zone, the ABC chose not to put one conservative on its Editorial Review Panel. As mentioned in MWD last week, the panel comprises one-time ABC journalist Shaun Brown and one-time ABC journalist Ray Martin. Mr Brown did not deliver political diversity when he served as managing director of SBS from 2006-2011. And Ray Martin, a self-declared admirer of the left-wing ideologue John Pilger, is a leftist who tends to criticise both the Coalition and Labor from the left.

The fact that the ABC’s Editorial Review is heavily compromised even before it commences its investigation is evident from examining one of the research questions which the Brown-Martin Panel has been asked to assess – viz:

Were panel discussions moderated in a way that ensured fair treatment was received, both in relation to the panellists present and the topic under discussion.

It so happened that Ray Martin appeared on the Channel Seven Sunrise program on Wednesday. In relation to Tony Jones’ performance as Q&A presenter or moderator, Mr Martin made the following comment:

I suspect Tony Jones was just as tough on the Labor government as he is on the Coalition right now.

So, before the Editorial Review even commenced – and some 12 weeks before it is due to report – Ray Martin has already declared that Tony Jones has ensured fair treatment was achieved in relation to the panelists.

According to the reports, Tony Abbott in the Liberal Party room recently described Q&A as a “leftie lynch-mob”. Clearly, without examining any of the 23 Q&A episodes televised last year, Ray Martin has rejected the Prime Minister’s criticism of the program. Indeed he told Sunrise viewers that a government boycott of the program was “silly” and added:

A Bex and a good lie down might help at the moment. It’s clearly a political issue at the moment in terms of terror. I think we’ve already started looking towards the next election.

Clearly the leftist Ray Martin has already made up his mind about the Abbott government’s view of the Q&A program and believes that the Prime Minister’s criticism is influenced by electoral matters.

If the ABC was properly managed, ABC managing director Mark Scott would ask for Ray Martin’s resignation from the Editorial Review Panel since he has already tarnished its findings.  But Mr Scott is a weak leader of the taxpayer funded public broadcaster and such an outcome is unlikely to follow.  Nor is it likely that any conservative will be appointed to any significant position at the ABC anytime soon.

Expect the Australian Broadcasting Corporation to remain Absolutely Bereft of Conservatives – in defiance of the charter which requires balance and diversity.

For an update on Hendo’s long march to get the ABC to correct the howlers made by Lateline presenter Emma Alberici on 26 June 2015 see today’s “Correspondence” section.

Finally the ABC has corrected Ms Alberici’s errors – including her verballing of the Prime Minister – on its available sites.  But the Lateline presenter has refused to give an on-air correction and there and there is no correction on the IView footage of the debate.

Emma Alberici is just one of the many ABC types who are sensitive to criticism and just hate acknowledging their errors.

Unlike La Alberici, Hendo is always willing to correct mistakes – “deliberate” or otherwise.

Congratulations to the avid MWD reader who identified the John Laws-Style-Deliberate-Mistake in MWD Issue 276.

Julia Burnside AO QC was not holding a 78 rpm in his pretentious hand when photographed for that pretentious profile in the Financial Review Magazine. No, it was a 33 and one-third LP.  So now you know – if you didn’t know before.

DAVID (“I JUST CAN’T STOP TALKING”) MARR TALKS ON AND ON AND ON – ON THE INSIDERS’ COUCH

How wonderful to see David Marr on the Insiders couch last Sunday with Malcolm (“Gerard Henderson is a f-ckwit”) Farr and Tori (“I’m no Tory”) Shepherd.   [What a shame Hendo was not on the couch with your man Marr – Ed].

On 30 June 2015, Justice Richard White in the Federal Court of Australia handed down judgement in the case of Hockey v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Limited. Justice White awarded Joe Hockey a total for $200,000 in damages.  This was made up of $120,000 with respect to the publication of a Sydney Morning Herald poster and $80,000 with respect to two matters published on Twitter by The Age.  Both publications carried the words “Treasurer for Sale” and “Treasurer Hockey for Sale”.  Justice White also found that the Sydney Morning Herald editor-in-chief Darren Goodsir had acted with animus and malice towards the Treasurer and that Mr Goodsir lacked objectivity in dealing with Joe Hockey.

It is true that Justice White only upheld Mr Hockey’s claims with respect to the Sydney Morning Herald poster and The Age’s tweets. Even so, as Malcolm Farr remarked, trousering $200,000 in a defamation action is hardly a loss.

It’s just that David Marr did not see it this way last Sunday.  His contribution to the discussion of Hockey v Fairfax Media followed an outburst earlier in the program where he berated Abbott government ministers whom he described as “those people”.

When “The Couch” got around to Joe Hockey and all that, an agitated David Marr gave a confused message to Insiders viewers. First up, Marr said that Justice White’s decision was a “devastating outcome really for Hockey”.  Then Marr said that Hockey “lost the core case – he won the fringe case”.  Pretty clear, eh?

But that’s not all.  Marr also claimed that it is “likely that Hockey will appeal” and “that he will probably appeal”.  It is not at all clear why a plaintiff would appeal against a judgement by virtue of which he or she had won a $200,000 defamation payment.  But there you go.  Mr Marr was not all that rational last Sunday.

David Marr also asserted that Hockey “may be overwhelmed by a cost-order because he lost the core case”.  As MWD advised last week, Nancy’s (male) co-owner is content to await the outcome of Justice White’s decision with respect to the costs. Mr Marr, who has legal training, would be well advised to do likewise.

David Marr also told Insiders viewers that he disagreed with Justice White’s decision. How frightfully interesting. But he made no reference to Justice White’s finding of malice against the Sydney Morning Herald – preferring instead to make predictions about appeals, costs and so on.

It seems that – whether or not he is on the Insiders couch – the Philosopher King of Sydney’s Newtown just cannot stop talking. As Mr Marr told the Sydney Writers Festival’s @ the Festival on 20 May 2015:

I do a lot of work by talking, endlessly, about what I’m writing. I’m grateful to my partner, my family, my friends, for the patience that they’ve shown, as I’ve gabbled on and on and on and on and on and on. I don’t think I talk in my sleep. I think that’s the one, merciful time for others, when I don’t talk.

Yeah.  But what about a bit of gratitude also towards the viewers of Insiders as well – since your man also gabbles on and on etc when on The Couch?  Can you bear it?

MR ADAMS’ STAMP OF APPROVAL FOR FAILED GREEK MARXIST

How about the tweet which ABC Late Night Live presenter Phillip (“Have I told you yet about my most recent illness?”) Adams put out at 3.32 pm on Monday – shortly after the (then) Greece finance minister Yanis Varoufokis boasted about the “No” vote victory in the referendum held last Sunday.

Within an hour of the ABC’s Man-in-Black sending his Koala Stamp to Yanis Varoufokis, the Greek Finance Minister was forced to stand down – at the request of his own Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras and to accommodate the wishes of Greece’s lotsa creditors whom Yanis Varoufokis had labelled “terrorists”. 

Your man Adams is perhaps Australia’s richest socialist.  So it came as no surprise that the Marxist and one-time Sydney University academic Yanis Varoufokis found time to rejoice at the receipt of a Koala Stamp from Down Under from a like-minded comrade.  It sure beats having to explain away your (broken) promise that the Greek banks would re-open one day after the referendum.  Can you bear it?

FRAN KELLY’S DOUBLE (INTERVIEW) STANDARDS

While on the topic of ABC Radio National presenters, did anyone hear Fran Kelly’s double-up interviews on same sex marriage?  The first, with Liberal Party Senator Cory Bernardi, took place on Thursday 2 July.  The second, with Labor Party Senator Penny Wong, took place last Monday.   Senator Bernardi supports the traditional view that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Senator Wong supports changing the definition of marriage to a union between two people.

As RN listeners will be well aware, Fran (“I’m an activist”) Kelly is a supporter of marriage reform. Needless to say, Senator Wong received a soft interview from Ms Kelly – replete with leading questions and an absence of interruptions.  This contrasted with Ms Kelly’s interview with Senator Bernardi – during which the RN Breakfast presenter exhibited frustration that her interviewee did not agree with her and constantly interrupted him in an argumentative way. Can you bear it?

IN WHICH EVERYONE AGREES WITH EVERYONE ELSE – IN AN ABC KIND OF WAY – ON SAME-SEX MARRIAGE

Due to unprecedented demand, the Maurice Newman Segment gets another run this week. As MWD readers will know, this (hugely popular) segment is devoted to former ABC chairman Maurice Newman’s suggestion that a certain “group think” might be prevalent at the ABC – and to ABC 1 former Media Watch presenter Jonathan Holmes’ certainty that no such phenomenon is extant within the public broadcaster. See MWD passim.

 Thanks to the avid reader who drew MWD’s attention to the oh-so-ABC debate on Radio 702’s “Journo’s Forum” on 2 July.  The “debate” turned on that ABC favourite same-sex marriage.

Kumi Taguchi was in the presenter’s chair. Ms Taguchi is an evident supporter of what is termed gay marriage.  Soon Kumi Taguchi agreed with Fairfax Media’s Kate McClymont who agreed with ABC’s Emma Alberici who agreed with News Corp’s Ian McPhedran who agreed with Kumi who agreed with Emma who agreed with Kate who agreed with herself.

All three panellists criticised Tony Abbott and his government.  Ms Alberici described Senator Eric Abetz as “ridiculous” and she and Ms McClymont laughed out loud at the leader of the government in the Senate.  No one disagreed with Mr McPhedran when he alleged that Tony Abbott is “instructed” what to do by the Pope.

 Score:

Maurice Newman:    4

Jonathan Holmes:   Zip

Sure MWD’s Five Paws Award is not the most prestigious gong in the world.  It comes behind the Nobel Prize and the Oscar Awards.  But that’s all.  As Australian Financial Review’s Joe Aston recently declared:

Quite so.   And now for the announcement of this week’s winners.  Step forward Labor MP Michael Danby and AFR letter writer Stiofan MacAedh.

 MICHAEL DANBY NAILS Q&A FOR ONE-SIDED COVERAGE OF ISRAEL

Yesterday’s issue of the Australian Jewish News carries an article by Michael Danby, the Labor MP for Melbourne Ports. Here’s a taste:

So the ABC Board has finally acted, issuing a warning to Q&A executive producer Peter McEvoy…over giving Sydney Islamist Zaky Mallah a platform on the ABC’s million rating Q&A program. Possibly the only thing that went unreported about Zaky Mallah was his tweet quoting Hitler:

“I destroyed 90% of the #Jews, leaving 10% of them for the world to understand why

I killed them (Adolf #Hitler). #Israel”

Q&A’s slant on Middle East issues should be no surprise to readers of this newspaper. How often do we see Jews with anti-Israel views being paraded on the program? Usually these unrepresentative types use their ethnicity to bag Israel during flare-ups in the Middle East. They have little or no expertise in Middle East affairs.

That Horrible Harridan, Miriam Margolyes, is a prime example of this phenomena, and seems to have a permanent gig on Q&A. Remember she said earlier this year, “Look, nobody likes Jews” and attributed this to Israel because “People … associate Israel with Jews and Jews are killing people.  Innocent people …”.

It seems that every time there is a Jewish Holiday, our “multicultural”, “sensitive” and “progressive” Q&A baits the local Jews by putting on some hateful extremist. Many of those folks would normally be excluded by their inarticulateness, such as the obscure Israeli-born fanatic, Ilan Pappe. Q&A even disinterred British violinist, Nigel Kennedy, whom the BBC censored for making anti-Israel editorials during one of his concerts. His “expertise” on the complexities of the Middle East was based on “having had a long-term Palestinian girlfriend when I was a teenager” and “having been to Palestine and … played with Palestinian musicians”….

Giving Zaky Mallah a leg-up is not the main problem. The problem is allowing TV producers with hard-line political agendas, operating in the shadows, to distort the public debate, shifting it in a direction that only the “enlightened vanguard” like them, appreciate.

Michael Danby has not been invited on to Q&A. And he has indicated that he will decline any (belated) invitation.

Michael Danby: Five Paws

ABC’S GREEN-LEFT AGENDA IDENTIFIED BY AFR READER

And then on 8 July 2015 the Australian Financial Review ran this letter from certain Stiofan MacAedh of Epping, New South Wales:

ABC ATTACKS FROM FAR LEFT

Craig Emerson’s defence of the ABC is either wilfully or ignorantly misplaced (“ABC not a matter of taking sides“, July 7). The fact that the broadcaster regularly attacks both the Coalition and the ALP right is not evenhandedness. It is simple evidence of the fact that it is way to the left of most people in Australia. 

It’s no coincidence that the ABC is headquartered in Sydney’s inner city. The views it promulgates are predominantly those of the Greens’ voters among whom it is embedded. This fact was well known to Messrs Hawke and Keating, and one of their major policy failings was that they did nothing to address it. Rather than brickbats, Mr Abbott deserves plaudits for finally tackling this canker.

Stiofan MacAedh
Epping, NSW 

It is often overlooked, especially by Coalition voters, that the ABC tends to criticise both the Coalition and Labor – from a leftist perspective – and sometimes resembles the Green Left Weekly of broadcast journalism.

Stiofan MacAedh: Five Paws

FEATURING KEITH SUTER

Due to the overwhelming demand from avid readers, this feature returns after a lengthy absence.  Every now and then MWD will honour someone who has made a genuine attempt to give clichés a chance.

Here’s what self-employed Keith Suter, of the pretentiously titled Global Directions think tank, had to say on the Sky News Richo program on Wednesday. Amidst the clichés, Dr Suter (for a doctor he is) was discussing German chancellor Angela Merkel’s attempts to handle the fall-out from the economic disaster that is contemporary Greece.

Keith Suter:  So if, in fact, you kick the can down the street for a few more years then the chickens will come home to roost after she’s [Ms Merkel’s] left office.

Yeah. Good point – and so on.   [But what would happen if Ms Merkel decided to kick the chickens down the street?  Just a (not very useful) thought – Ed]

For the record, the learned doctor Suter has a “powerful intellect” and is among the world’s “elite thinkers”.  How does MWD know?  Well, Dr Suter’s web page tells us so. Enough said.

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 other 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 & MARK MALEY – CONCERNING MS ALBERICI’S LATELINE HOWLERS

As avid MWD readers will know, last week’s hugely popular “Correspondence” section featured Hendo’s exchange with Mark Maley, ABC News’ editorial policy manager. At issue was Ms Alberici’s verballing of Tony Abbott on Lateline and her invented quote about Zaky Mallah which had the effect of discrediting Hendo’s criticism of the ex-criminal who pleaded guilty to threatening to murder ASIO officers. [Interesting, don’t you think?  I note that the first Alberici howler was to the disadvantage of the Prime Minister while the second Alberici howler was to the advantage of Zaky Mallah – Ed].

After Gerard Henderson drew attention to Lateline presenter Emma Alberici’s errors (which occurred during a live debate on Thursday 25 June 2015) and requested corrections – Mr Maley wrote as follows on 2 July 2015:

ABC News is committed to recognising and correcting its errors. Particularly in relation to important issues like national security, precision and accuracy is important. An editor’s note has been attached to the transcript on the Lateline website and a Clarification has been posted on the ABC Corrections page.

So it took ABC News a whole week to correct Ms Alberici’s false claim that Tony Abbott had called Zaky Mallah a “convicted terrorist” and that  Zaky Mallah had said that Abbott government parliamentary secretary Steve Ciobo’s behaviour merely would encourage young Muslims to join Islamic State.  In fact, the Prime Minister said (correctly) that Mallah was a “convicted criminal and terrorist sympathiser”. And Mallah said that Ciobo’s behaviour had “justified” the decision of Muslims to join ISIL.

Following MWD Issue 276, an avid reader advised Gerard Henderson that, despite Mr Maley’s nice words, the Lateline debate between Gerard Henderson and Jonathan Holmes – over which Emma Alberici presided – was still on the ABC’s IView in its original uncorrected form. This led to (more) correspondence. Here we go:

Gerard Henderson to Mark Maley – 7 July 2015

Dear Mr Maley

I am following up our recent correspondence concerning the errors made by presenter Emma Alberici during the Lateline program on Thursday 26 June 2015.

I note that an “Editor’s Note” has been placed at the end of the Lateline transcript and that a note has been placed on the “Corrections and Clarifications” page of the ABC’s website.

However, neither Emma Alberici nor her co-presenter Tony Jones have made an on-air correction.  This despite the fact that one of Ms Alberici’s errors involved misquoting the Prime Minister on an important matter.  Moreover, no correction has been made on iView – which means that people watching the program in Australia or overseas are not advised of the Lateline co-presenter’s two errors. What’s more, the errors are not notified on Lateline’s twitter feed of the program.

I note that in your email of 2 July 2015 you stated that “ABC News is committed to recognising its errors”.  You added that: “Particularly in relation to important issues like national security, precision and accuracy is important”.

The problem is that precision and accuracy is still lacking on an important issue of national security in the iView and twitter versions of the Lateline debate on 26 July 2015 and no on-air correction has been made.

Over to you.

Best wishes

Gerard Henderson

cc:      Mark Scott

Michael Millett

Emma Alberici

Mark Maley to Gerard Henderson – 8 July 2015

Dear Mr Henderson,

An editor’s note has been attached to iView page.

ABC News considers that the actions that have been undertaken are adequate and proportionate.

Yours Sincerely

Mark Maley

Gerard Henderson to Mark Maley – 8 July 2015

Dear Mr Maley.

Thanks for your response.

I have just one question. When was the editor’s note attached to the IView page?

Best wishes

Gerard Henderson

Mark Maley to Gerard Henderson – 9 July 2015

Dear Mr Henderson

Yesterday, 8 July.

Yours Sincerely

Mark Maley

Gerard Henderson to Mark Maley – 9 July 2015

Dear Mr Maley

Thank you

Gerard Henderson

GERARD HENDERSON & JONATHAN (“PROUDLY THE ABC’S SNEERER-IN-CHIEF”) GREEN – CONCERNING THE PROJECTION OF A MEDIA TART

Jonathan Green has been busy tweeting again about Hendo. This time alleging – without evidence, of course that Nancy’s co-owner is desperate to get called up to appear as a guest on Q&A.  This is all a figment of Mr Green’s vivid inner-city, fox-hunting imagination.  Which explains why – at the time of sending out MWD – your man Green had not responded. [Perhaps he should enrol in your courtesy course which – as I understand it – teaches that all letters should be responded to – except for the Pope’s encyclical letters -Ed]

Gerard Henderson to Jonathan Green – 9 July 2015

Jonathan

One of Nancy’s mates has drawn some of your recent tweets to my attention.  All I can say is that you seem to be presenting with the condition of projection.  Perhaps it has been sparked off by the trauma caused to employees of the taxpayer funded public broadcaster at a time of attack from the Abbott Clerical Fascist dictatorship.  I mean, what greater act of aggression can there be when a Coalition minister fails to appear on Comrade Peter McEvoy’s Q&A?

On Monday 29 June at 4.53 pm you sent out the following tweet:

Then on the following Monday you ran a similar line:

And this is where your condition of projection kicks in.  Just because you want to appear on the media every morning, every night and frequently during the day – you assume that I want to do likewise.  This is just delusional.

In the past I have referred to your decision to appear on News Breakfast in the morning, followed by the ”Babble On ” segment on ABC Radio 702 at lunch-time and wind up with an appearance on The Drum in the evening. In response, you have advised that media appearances are what you do. Fancy that.

Unlike you, I have other things to do.  The fact is that I am rarely asked to appear on ABC TV (apart from Insiders) or ABC Radio – and I decline many of the few invitations I receive.

I have received two invitations to appear on Q&A – both in 2011 – and I accepted both. But that’s four years ago. I tend to find that if you criticise ABC programs the executive director rarely, if ever, invites you on the program. In any event, I have not been asked to appear on Q&A since.  Since I am not delusional, I do not expect to receive another invitation.

If you have ever run a business you would know that there are better things to do than wait by the phone for a call by the taxpayer funded staff at the public broadcaster on behalf of Comrade McEvoy at the Q&A Soviet. As I understand it, you have never run a business.

Keep morale high.

Gerard Henderson

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