GERARD HENDERSON’S MEDIA WATCH DOG – ISSUE NO. 280
31 July 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.
- STOP PRESS – Mike Carlton’s Hitler rant; Nicholas Reece’s speaker rant
(the Other One)
- CAN YOU BEAR IT? Joel Deane whitewashes Gough Whitlam’s opposition to asylum seekers; Journalistic double standards on entitlements; Richard Ackland’s brand new Vatican conspiracy; Jason Steger goes soft on Rai Gaita.
- MWD exclusive and Hendo on LNL
- Legacy Issues – Robert Manne’s advice to Kevin Rudd remembered & MWD’s 16,000 offer for evidence still available
- CORRESPONDENCE – ABC Fact Check’s John Barron helps out
- MIKE CARLTON EQUATES THE BOLTER WITH NAZI MASS-MURDERERS: AFTER GIN & TONIC TIME (OF COURSE)
Thanks to the avid reader who drew MWD’s attention to yesterday’s tweet from Mike (“I’ll pour the gin”) Carlton.
This is what the Sage of Avalon had to say about the Adam Goodes controversy – where a star indigenous Australian Rules footballer is being booed by AFL crowds and commentator Andrew Bolt has suggested that Mr Goodes may be partly responsible for the crowd’s reaction on account of some of his own provocative comments and actions. Now it’s over to Mr Carlton who sent this out at 8.45 pm – just after Gin & Tonic time and just before drinks over Dinner.
Sure Mr Carlton’s tweet went out after Gin & Tonic time up Avalon Beach (or is it the Peninsula?) way on Sydney’s Upper North Shore. How else to explain that Adam Goodes – a millionaire Australian with a huge profile, and who only experiences physical interaction on the football field – is compared by your man Carlton with the millions of victims of Adolf Hitler’s Final Solution? And how else to explain Mike Carlton’s comparison between Gestapo thugs who regularly murdered and tortured innocent Jews with Andrew Bolt who is, after all, but a scribbler and commentator.
- Nicholas Reece Exalts the Speaker (Sort of)
Does the taxpayer subsidised staffer at the taxpayer subsidised University of Melbourne – Nicholas Reece – do anything else but appear on Sky News, ABC TV and so on? He seems to be on television every morning, every night and frequently during the day. The former Julia Gillard staffer seems to forever run a line critical of Tony Abbott and the Coalition. He is just so predictable. Yawn.
Nancy’s male) co-owner turned on Paul Murray Live in his Melbourne hotel last night only to hear your man Reece banging on about Speaker Bronwyn Bishop and all that. It may be possible to find a softer target but it’s not clear what this might be. Certainly your man Reece has not found one right now.
Last night, the Melbourne University academic described the position of Speaker as equivalent in importance to that of the Chief Justice of the High Court. Fair dinkum.
Mr Reece (for a mister he still is but a doctor he one day will surely become) seems unaware that the Speaker has no executive, legislative or judicial authority. Sure, Ms Bishop can remove some unruly members from the House of Representatives and presides over Question Time. But that’s about it. The Chief Justice, on the other hand, leads the High Court which is capable of bringing down decisions which affect the whole of the nation. The Mabo and Wik cases, for example.
Nancy’s male co-owner has just come through a (very) late night followed by a (very) early morning. However, through the mists of time, he seems to recall that on Paul Murray Live the previous Thursday, Mr Reece was banging on about the benefits of increasing electricity prices – which would be the consequence of an emissions trading scheme or a carbon tax.
Mr Reece lives a comfortable taxpayer subsidised existence in inner-city Melbourne – so it’s easy for him to call for lowly paid workers, large families and welfare recipients to pay more for switching on the electricity. In any event, if climate change is such a problem perhaps Nicholas Reece should give a lead and cease his life as a media tart on Sky News, ABC 1 and ABC News 24 or, indeed, wherever there is electricity powered lights, cameras and action.
[Interesting about Sky News. I note that “Gutless Wonder” Paul Murray and “Gutless Wonder” Derryn Hinch still have not allowed you to defend yourself on their programs in the face of their criticism of your comments re Cardinal George Pell. See MWD passim. I see that Paul Murray still asserts that he would “like to know” what viewers think. His slogan should be revamped to saying that he would “like to know” what only some viewers think. – Ed]
AND THE INAUGURAL WINNER IS – DENNIS ATKINS
Due to popular demand, this new segment remembers the occasion on Lateline (25 June 2015) when presenter Emma Alberici falsely declared that Tony Abbott had described convicted criminal Zaky Mallah as a “convicted terrorist” – when in fact the Prime Minister actually said that Mallah was a “convicted criminal and terrorist sympathiser”.
After pressure, ABC management corrected La Alberici’s howler on the Lateline transcript and on the introductory note which accompanies the iView film. But Emma Alberici has declined to offer an on-air apology or even an on-air correction. [How very ABC. – Ed].
This new segment will name other verballers of the PM. Like this one.
On Insiders (12 July 2015) the Courier Mail’s Dennis Atkins made the following comment:
It does follow on from that interview that Tony Abbott gave in the Alan Jones Show – when he said that [wind farms] are ugly things and if he had his way he’d get rid of them all, and that he spelt out the word “reduce” in that he said that their legislation was going to reduce it. Then when we got the renewable energy legislation going through the Senate – we even ended up with a wind farm commissioner, who is going to be the sort of public advocate for people’s gripes about wind farms.
Now, according to MWD’s research, Tony Abbott has never said that, if he had his way, he would “get rid of…all” wind farms. The Prime Minister merely said that he wanted to “reduce” the level of taxpayer funded subsidies going into the wind farm industry. That’s all.
Over to you, Mr Atkins.
- LABOR OPERATIVE FORGETS GOUGH WHITLAM’S OPPOSITION TO ASYLUM SEEKERS
Did anyone hear Labor operative Joel Deane on Late Night Live on Monday? Your man Deane is the author of yet another turgid book on the internal workings of the Labor Party. [Are you aware of any left-of-centre type who is not currently writing a book about the ALP’s leadership/factional battles? – Ed]
Nancy’s (male) co-owner was falling asleep on Monday evening when he was rudely awakened by the following exchange between LNL presenter Phillip Adams and the author of Catch and Kill: The Politics of Power:
Phillip Adams: And I think you and I would agree that Gough would be turning in his grave at some of the decisions made at the conference.
Joel Deane: I think he would be turning in his grave at a great many of them. For me, when I look at where the Labor Party is at, I mean Gough [Whitlam] saved the party from being this troglodyte party in the 60’s. I mean, obviously other people had a hand in that, Don Dunstan amongst them, but I think the party needs to have that moment again.
One of the ALP national conference decisions – concerning which the late Gough Whitlam allegedly would be “turning in his grave” – involves Labor’s support for Opposition leader Bill Shorten backing the Abbott government’s policy on turning back asylum seeker boats (which are financed by the people smuggler trade).
So where does Gough Whitlam come into this? Well, Deane obviously regards Gough Whitlam as a one-time supporter of asylum seekers, excluding those who arrive unlawfully by boat.
As has been documented in MWD, The Sydney Institute Quarterly and elsewhere, Gough Whitlam was opposed to Indo-Chinese refugees from the communist dictatorships that came to office in Vietnam and Cambodia following the fall of Saigon and Phnom Penh in April 1975. The late Mr Whitlam completely opposed Indo-Chinese refugees and did his best to keep Indo-Chinese refugees out of Australia. Gough Whitlam even described asylum seekers as “f-cking Vietnamese Balts”.
Here’s the evidence. Clyde Cameron, a one-time member of the Whitlam government, supported Gough Whitlam’s opposition to Vietnamese refugees arriving in Australia. In his book China, Communism and Coca-Cola, Cameron reported that Whitlam told the Cabinet in 1975 that he was “not having hundreds of f-cking Vietnamese Balts coming into this country”. By “Balts”, Whitlam meant anti-communists – like the residents of the Baltic States which had been conquered by the Soviet Union. [Imagine, just imagine, how the Sandalista set would have raged had John Howard or even Tony Abbott ever said that he was not having hundreds of “f-cking Muslims” coming into this country. – Ed].
The fact is that no political leader in Australian history has been more opposed to asylum seekers than Gough Whitlam during the final year of his prime ministership in 1975. Yet Comrade Deane wants us all to believe that the late Mr Whitlam would have turned in his grave at the ALP national conference’s decision on asylum seekers last weekend. Can you bear it?
- JOURNALIST LARGESSE ON HAMSTEAD HEATH
Hasn’t Fairfax Media been banging on of late about the travel entitlements of both Coalition and Labor politicians? An ill-informed reader might well have thought that Fairfax Media journalists are without stain when it comes to travel, accommodation and the like.
Not so, according to one of Nancy’s (male) co-owner’s sources. He/She reports that not so long ago the correspondent for the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age in London decided that the accommodation provided by the company at Notting Hill and Fleet Street was not exalted enough for a London-based Aussie scribbler reporting back to Sydney and Melbourne.
According to MWD’s source, this particular journalist insisted instead that Fairfax Media rent out a cottage at Holly Cottage (Hampstead Heath) for a mere £ 17,000 per month (approximately $36,000 per month). So some Fairfax Media outlets seem happy to criticise the entitlements of politicians whilst saying nothing about the recent entitlements of their own journalists. Can you bear it?
[Er, no. Not really. I note that Fairfax Media has just used up around $1.5 million of shareholders money defending its case against Joe Hockey. I also note that the Sydney Morning Herald’s editor-in-chief Darren Goodsir has still not apologised to Fairfax shareholders for what the Federal Court found was his “malice” with respect to the Treasurer which resulted in the defamation payout. I also note that in Tuesday’s Fairfax Media an apology was offered to Warren Mundine for a defamatory comment made about the chairman of the Prime Minister’s Indigenous Advisory Council – but that in its apology the Sydney Morning Herald did not mention the fact that its “star” reporters Richard Baker and Nick McKenzie wrote the offending comment. Also the “Correction was tucked away at the bottom of Page 2. It seems that at Fairfax Media these days the call for disclosure only goes so far. – Ed]
- YET ANOTHER (ALLEGED) CATHOLIC CONSPIRACY IN THE SATURDAY PAPER
Nancy’s male co-owner, who reads The [Boring] Saturday Paper on Monday, managed to make it all the way this week to Richard Ackland’s “Gadfly” column. Past the advertisement for Anna Schwartz’s Gallery. Past the advertisement for Aesop’s exclusive interior design. Past the advertisement for the Byron Bay Writers Festival (Dress code: sandals). Past the advertisement for the Melbourne Writers Festival (Dress code: Che Guevara tee-shirt and pants).
And on to the bitter rantings of your man Ackland. Last Saturday, Mr Ackland was in anti-Catholic sectarian mode. This time, the Gadfly complained that Attorney-General George Brandis had met with Cardinal George Pell at the residence of John McCarthy QC, Australia’s Ambassador to the Holy See (who was appointed by the Gillard Labor Government).
According to Ackland, there was “conjecture” that Senator Brandis was “briefing the Cardinal about what he might expect from his forthcoming turn at the royal commission into child sexual abuse”.
How does Ackland know this? Answer – he doesn’t. The Gadfly just made this up. Can you bear it?
- RAI GAITA DREAMING
Here’s what The Age’s Literary editor Jason Steger wrote in his Bookmarks column last Saturday:
When philosopher Raimond Gaita heard Prime Minister Tony Abbott describe one of the Islamic State beheadings as pure evil, it set him thinking about how politicians use the term evil and what effect it has. People feel uneasy “because they believe the use of the term betrays moral simplification and a desire to demonise those who are accused of being or having done evil”.
But scepticism, he argues, about the use of such terms does not inevitably mean scepticism about the need for moral judgment in politics. And so Gaita arrived at the theme for his annual Wednesday lectures, beginning July 29, which will be run for the next six weeks in the public lecture theatre of the Old Arts Building at the University of Melbourne.
Among the speakers are Gaita himself on “Politics and the Idea of Evil”, Anne Manne on “The Anders Breivik Massacre: The Psychology of Evil”, and Timothy Lynch on “Good and Evil in American Politics”. The lectures are free.
What a load of tosh. Your man Steger favourably quotes Philosopher King Raimond Gaita’s “thinkings” about Islamist beheadings and all that. Dr Gaita (for a doctor he is) reckons that “people feel uneasy” about Tony Abbott’s use of the word “evil” to describe the so-called Islamic State. Conveniently, Gaita does not say who such “people” are. But he seems to be blaming the Prime Minister for upsetting the “people” – rather than the Islamists for doing their acts of beheadings, rape and the like. Convenient, eh?
Somehow or other, Rai Gaita uses all of the above to justify (yet) another in his six part series of Wednesday Lectures at Melbourne University – where he and his mates speak on diverse philosophical topics concerning which they all agree. [Surely this series will get a run on ABC Radio National. Ed]
This time, Dr Gaita seems destined to agree with Anne Manne who seems destined to agree with Timothy Lynch who seems destined to agree with Rai Gaita who seems destined to agree with himself. According to the blurb as promoted by Jason Steger, “the lectures are free”. Er, not really. Mr Steger seems to forget that Melbourne University is subsidised by the taxpayer. Can you bear it?
PHILLIP ADAMS AND HENDO BREAK BREAD (NOT BONES) ON LATE NIGHT LIVE
How wonderful that, after a break of a mere half a century, Gerard Henderson was invited on to Phillip Adams program last Thursday. And wasn’t the discussion civilised. [Perhaps the ABC’s Man-in-Black has been rocking up in disguise to the courtesy classes by Gerard Henderson AC (aka Always Courteous) – Ed].
The occasion was the release of Hendo’s book Santamaria: A Most Unusual Man (MUP) which favourably quotes an interview between Phillip Adams and B.A. Santamaria in 1996 – among other things.
The last time Hendo appeared on LNL – in a discussion with Quentin Dempster – Vivian Schenker was in the presenter’s chair and your man Adams was on what journalists like to call A Well Earned Break. It was the early 1990s. The previous occasion was some time before that – that is, around half a century ago.
The ABC’s Man-in-Black implied in private conversation that Hendo had boycotted Late Night Live for eons. Not so. It’s just that Gerard Henderson AC (aka Always Courteous) is a courteous kind of guy who believed that Adams had forsaken him. He simply would not ring Late Night Live and invite himself on to the program. Nor would Hendo invite himself to Phillip Adams’ inner-city pile or his Scone mansion. It’s just not courteous behaviour.
In any event, since the discussion on Thursday went so well – Hendo is anticipating another invitation to join Phillip Adams in the Late Night Live studio. He’s currently clearing his diary for possible invitations in 2040.
PART 1 –ROBERT MANNE’S ADVICE TO KEVIN RUDD CIRCA 2008
Barely a week passes without some reminder of the evident dysfunction of Kevin Rudd’s Labor government, particularly in early 2010. The good news is that it could have been worse. At least Mr Rudd had the sense not to accept all the advice provided to him by Professor Robert Manne before coming to office in his edited collection Dear Mr Rudd which was published by Morry Schwartz’s Black Inc.
This is the advice proffered by a certain Juliana Engberg in her essay titled “The Arts”. This was edited by the learned professor who headed off into semi-retirement a few years ago without ever having worked in politics or the public service – an academic expert, you see.
First up, here’s what Juliana Engberg, with the approval of Robert Manne, said to Kevin Rudd about how taxpayer funds should be expended on his office:
If he really wanted to muck with their heads, Rudd could get Callum Morton to redesign his entire office and turn it into an architectural conundrum, so that when people walk in they find themselves in an entirely different kind of environment – hotel corridor, lift lobby, West Wing. If they haven’t already put one on his desk, he should ask the good people at the Australia Council to send him a Venice Biennale catalogue. Then he’ll see what I mean.
Yeah, sure. The Rudd government could not sell its proposed emissions trading scheme to the electorate. But according to Engberg/Manne everything might have worked out okay, if only the entrance to the Prime Minister’s office had been turned into the corridor of the Waldorf Astoria Hotel.
And this is the Engberg/Manne advice to Kevin Rudd as to why the arts should not have to bother to pay its way. Governments should just throw in other people’s money to ensure that the taxpayer subsidised artistic community grow in “cultural and creative confidence”. According to the Engberg/Manne synopsis – only lotsa government handouts can create “minds that matter”:
….I think it is dangerous for the arts to abandon its assertion of intangible benefits in favour of an exclusively we-pay-our-way and our-outputs-are-up argument. Governments – at all levels – need to support the arts for the sake of growing cultural and creative confidence. Most importantly, the arts need government patronage because they create minds that matter. I want to reassert the belief… in the importance of creativity as a means to helping us become more adaptive, innovative individuals. Because, as we all know, we have a great deal of new thinking to do if we are going to work our way through some of the massive challenges we face as both a nation and a planet.
And here’s the Engberg/Manne advice to Mr Rudd how the Rudd government could make us all “haptic again”. Yes HAPTIC. Again. If only this can be achieved then will we “give ourselves the chance to deal with the incongruent and encounter the cognitive conflict that gives rise to thinking.
As society relies more on virtual space and telecommunications, as it will and must do if it is to be environmentally sustainable, we need to counter this synthetic life by finding opportunities for more tangible experiences. We need to evolve and keep our minds and bodies agile. We need to become more genuinely, not virtually, haptic again: to feel our bodies and test our perceptions. If we are to keep our minds and bodies agile, we must give ourselves the chance to deal with the incongruent and encounter the cognitive conflict that gives rise to thinking. It’s what I call positive apprehension: that moment of radical misunderstanding that leads us to use our brains again. Art is great at creating these moments of arresting, conflicted thoughts.
What a load of absolute tosh. Thank God that, when Prime Minister Rudd did not heed Robert Manne’s advice proffered in Dear Mr Rudd. But then, perhaps he did.
LEGACY ISSUES – PART II
STILL NO CLAIM ON MWD’S $16,000 OFFER FOR EVIDENCE
While on the topic of learned Professor Manne, what has happened – MWD hears avid readers ask – to the offer to provide $16,000 to Robert Manne – if only he can stump up the evidence to support his serious allegation against Gerard Henderson of long-standing. Hendo has offered a reward of $8000 provided it goes to a charity of Mr Manne’s choice. An avid Perth reader – a certain – Graham Jeffs will match Hendo dollar for dollar and will even allow the recipient to take himself and his wife on a Well Earned Break to New Zealand or some such place.
Now for some background. As avid MWD readers will know, Robert Manne alleges that in 1993 – or it may have been 1995 or something like that – Gerard Henderson sent a fax to The Age’s Opinion Page editor Paul Austin demanding that Robert Manne be dropped as a columnist. Professor Manne claims that Hendo sent a copy of the alleged fax to Morag Fraser (one of Manne’s besties) and that he obtained a copy of the fax from Mr Austin.
So, according to Manne’s j’accuse, there are three copies of Hendo’s note in existence. Paul Austin has the original and Morag Fraser and Manne have copies. It’s just that it’s around a decade since Professor Manne made the allegation – and he still cannot provide a copy of Hendo’s (alleged) document. Not even to receive the $16,000 (tax free) award. [Don’t be too hard on your man Manne. How can the learned Professor provide a copy of a document which was never written in the first place? – Ed]
Nancy’s male co-owner will keep you posted. But right now we have a saga where the man proclaimed as Australia’s leading public intellectual makes allegations without a skerrick of evidence and refuses to withdraw them or apologise for his howlers. Yet Professor (‘Yes, I have no facts’) Manne continues to enjoy a taxpayer subsidised sinecure as the vice-chancellor’s fellow at La Trobe University.
- “DELIBERATE MISTAKE” UPDATE – OR NOT
Due to time constraints, the winner of last weeks “Deliberate Mistake” Award has been held over until next week.
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.
- John (‘I don’t give a fact’) Barron & Gerard Henderson
Nancy’s (male) co-owner was interested to read in Chris Kenny’s Media Watch “Watch” column in The Australian last Monday that John Barron – presenter of the ABC’s Fact Check Unit which does not check on what passes for fact on the taxpayer funded broadcaster – had opined about the concept of what constitutes a “broken promise”.
A certain Barney McCusker wrote to John Barron in the following terms:
If the present government gives an undertaking, or a promise, prior to the election on a particular policy but are unable to get that policy through the present federal Senate, does that constitute a broken promise?
To which ABC Fact Check presenter replied as follows:
In our view, a promise is broken if the government fails to deliver it either through a change in policy or an inability to deliver it – such as enacting legislation. So it is true that a promise can be broken willingly or unwillingly in politics just as it can be in life.
This exchange encouraged MWD to write to Mr Barron wondering how he would assess Nice Mr Scott’s 2006 promise to provide greater diversity within the taxpayer funded public broadcaster. Here we go:
Gerard Henderson to John Barron – 29 July 2015
You may remember that we last corresponded when I incorrectly wrote in Media Watch Dog that you were part of the ABC’s Aunty Invasion Force which landed at The Dardanelles on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the original Anzac Day. Because of my commitment to courtesy and all that, I did correct my (deliberate) mistake in MWD. This reflects my decision to award myself with AC (aka Always Courteous).
I read with interest your comment in The Australian on Monday that in view of the ABC Fact Check Unit that “a promise is broken” if it is not delivered either through a change in policy or an inability to deliver on the policy.
In view of this, I am wondering how you assess Mark Scott’s promise made in September 2006 at The Sydney Institute that he was intent on delivering greater diversity within the public broadcaster. It’s a matter of fact that no one at the ABC has been able to name a conservative who is a presenter, producer or editor of its prominent television, radio or on-line outlets. An organisation without one conservative, while having numerous left-of-centre personalities, cannot be regarded as diverse.
It may be that Mr Scott changed his position on the need for the ABC to have greater diversity sometime after he addressed The Sydney Institute in his capacity as ABC managing director and editor-in-chief. Alternatively, he may not have been able to deliver on this promise due to opposition within the public broadcaster.
In any event, according to what you told Chris Kenny at The Australian, this is clearly a broken promise either “through a change of policy or an inability to deliver it”.
I would be grateful if you could advise me as to your position on this matter. If, on the other hand, you did not mean to say what you actually said to The Australian – then I would expect that you would correct your error. Just as I corrected my error with reference to your involvement in the Aunty Invasion Force of recent memory.
John Barron to Gerard Henderson – 29 July 2015
How lovely to hear from you again – and don’t be silly, of course I remember the error you made and your apology.
I am afraid I don’t think I can help you with this one – I have never written to Chris Kenny and haven’t seen his column.
Gerard Henderson to John Barron – 29 July 2015
Many thanks for your prompt and courteous reply.
It’s great that you remember me. I never know with ABC types. I am appearing on Late Night Live with Phillip Adams tomorrow night. This is the first occasion on which I have been invited by Phillip to appear on his program in a quarter of a century. I assumed that Phillip had forgotten me – but it now appears that this was not the case.
On checking, I realise that you did not provide a copy of your opinion about broken promises to Chris Kenny. You provided it to Dr Barney McCusker who was quoted by Chris Kenny in his Media Watch “Watch” column in The Australian last Monday. In any event, it’s much the same thing. And my questions remain the same.
I am surprised that you do not appear to read the Media section of The Australian on Monday. To assist, I have attached a link to Chris Kenny’s column of last Monday in which you are quoted at some length on broken promises and all that – see below.
Lots of love
Keep morale high
Gerard Henderson AC (aka Always Courteous)
John Barron to Gerard Henderson – 29 July 2015
Hi Gerard –
Oh, you are much too modest – but that’s a nice fault to have.
I am surprised to hear that private correspondence would somehow find its way into someone else’s newspaper column.
I mean – who on earth would do that????
I guess if you are paid by the word it saves effort to print letters and emails from other people, but it’s a bit dodgy – don’t you think?
I mean it’s okay if you aren’t really bound by journalistic ethics, if you consider yourself a political operative or partisan warrior or some such,
Each to their own I suppose.
Gerard Henderson to John Barron – 31 July 2015
Thanks for your prompt reply. But I’m not sure how to read it. To quote tennis great John McEnroe “Can you be serious?”
Are you, an ABC journalist, really condemning a newspaper columnist – to wit Chris Kenny – for publishing private correspondence. As you should be aware, ABC journalists have been publishing private correspondence for eons. Moreover, it would seem that Chris Kenny had authority to publish Dr McCusker’s letter.
You seem to be alleging that Chris Kenny only prints private correspondence because he is “paid by the word”. Turn it up. The number of words cited by Mr Kenny from the McCusker/Barron exchange amounts to 52 in total. If Chris Kenny is paid at a dollar a word, he would score $52. Hardly enough to support a family for more than a few hours.
Like so many journalists, you are extraordinarily sensitive to criticism.
In any event, if as a taxpayer funded journalist who writes by email/fax/letter in your capacity as presenter of the ABC’s Fact Check Unit, why should you not be quoted? Surely your comments are in the public interest.
Keep morale high.
* * * * *
[What a fine finish. Why not end with an update of the Mark Scott clock. – Ed]
* * * * *
Until next time.
“gerard henderson trending on twitter, omg
[looks out window, where the sun is eclipsed and the sky blood-red]
oh yeah that makes sense”
– Adam Brereton via Twitter, 31 July 2015
Gerard Henderson on @891adelaide right now & I find myself shouting at my radio. What a morning”
– Louise Pascale via Twitter, 31 July 2015
“oh hell why is Gerard Henderson trending? Has boredom become the new black.”
– MNihilon via Twitter, 31 July 2015
“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