30 June 2017


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. Between November 1997 and October 2015 “Gerard Henderson’s Media Watch” was published as part of The Sydney Institute Quarterly. In March 2009 Gerard Henderson’s Media Watch Dog blog commenced publication.

  • Stop Press: Louise Milligan, Fiona Patten & Alice Workman

  • An ABC Update: Public Broadcaster Fails to Report Historical Child Sexual Abuse Crime which occurred at the ABC

  • Brand New Endorsement: From Phillip Coorey – (Hendo is a dope)

  • Can you bear it? Anne Summers, Rowan Dean & Ross Cameron, Gael Jennings & Alistair Campbell

  • The US(eless) Studies Centre: Featuring the visiting Dana Milbank & Anna Greenberg

  • (The late) Nancy on the Twitter Prowl re Sunday’s Insiders

  • Five Paws Award: Step Forward Joe Aston, Mark Di Stefano & Jonathan Green.

  • Media Fools of the Week: And the winners are Derryn Hinch &The Daily Mail’s Brianne Tolj

  • The ABC and Historical Pederasty: Updating the Scoreboard 



In her book Cardinal: The Rise and Fall of George Pell (MUP, 2017), ABC journalist Louise Milligan declared Cardinal Pell’s (alleged) guilt at Page 4.  What’s more, Ms Milligan does not even regard her own book as objective.  Interviewed on ABC TV News Breakfast program on 17 May 2017, she said that her book Cardinal is written “from the complainants’ point of view”.

Ms Milligan’s self-assessment is supported by reviews in The Weekend Australian and Fairfax Media newspapers.  Both Gerard Windsor (a Pell critic) and Peter Craven (who is not a Pell style conservative Catholic) have described Cardinal as an “attack” motivated by “animus”.  Much of the research for Cardinal was done during ABC time and the author used her ABC email address when researching her attack on Cardinal Pell.

Needless to say, it was Louise Milligan who was given the job by the ABC producers to cover the decision by Victorian Police to charge Cardinal Pell with historical sexual abuse.  It was no surprise that –  on 7.30 last night – she did not interview one person who has supported George Pell.

7.30 presenter Leigh Sales then interviewed Peter Saunders – a vehement Pell critic – and also Robert Mickens, who is not a Pell supporter.  That’s balance, ABC style.  For the record, Pell critic David Marr was interviewed on PM last night and received a predictably soft interview from Fran Kelly on Radio National Breakfast this morning.

Louise (“No comment”) Milligan – who refuses to answer Gerard Henderson’s quite reasonable questions about Cardinal – received another soft interview on ABC TV News Breakfast this morning.  She threw the switch to reasonableness and made this comment about Cardinal Pell’s health. Let’s go to the transcript:

Virginia Trioli:  So what are we expecting then about the Cardinal’s movements? You mentioned there his ill health and he says he’ll be seeking some information on that and advice on whether he can travel. When might we expect him to leave the Vatican?

Louise Milligan: Good question. I’m not one hundred percent sure about that. So when he gave evidence via video link from Rome the last time – he gave a medical certificate talking about his heart problems. And he did say that after long haul flights he had collapsed before. So you know, his cardiologist has said that you know, he does have significant heart problems. But of course, you know, I guess you could break up that trip by several legs. Fly first class, you know there are lots of options. Have a specialist alongside with him. He does seem so determined to have his day in court. He’s someone who, you know he has the courage of his convictions, he’s not backwards at coming forwards. You know there was a lot of speculation in the lead up to this that perhaps he might not come if he was charged, and that you know, Australia doesn’t have an extradition treaty with the Vatican and that sort of thing. But if you look at the character of the man, George Pell is not the sort of person to shrink from a crisis.

 How frightfully interesting.  The cardiologist referred to was Professor Patrizio Polisca who was ridiculed in Milligan’s book Cardinal (See Chapter 11, Pages 130-132). She seems unaware that there was a second specialist in Rome who advised on Cardinal Pell’s serious heart condition.  So Milligan ridiculed George Pell’s specialist a few months ago but took the same specialist seriously this morning. Pretty consistent, eh?


One of the invited guests on Paul Murray Live last night to discuss George Pell was none other than Victorian Sex Party parliamentarian Fiona Patten.  Here’s Ms Patten’s error-laden comment, which was not corrected by presenter Paul Murray. Let’s go to the transcript:

Paul Murray: Fiona about the process that got us to this day, we’ve heard plenty. And virtually, almost, you know, and this is pretty unique here, to hear about the process that’s gone on here. –police have interviewed this many people to they’re considering this they’re considering that. We normally wouldn’t hear that sort of trial that leads to a moment like today. What do you think of the process that got us here? 

Fiona Patten: Yeah look, I think that is really interesting and in some ways the Cardinal himself has been very dismissive of the process. So he largely ignored a lot of the Royal Commission. I felt that, if he had actually come back to Australia maybe last year when he was first asked to appear before the Royal Commission, he could have cleared a lot of what – he suggests are very wrong allegations. He could have cleared a lot of that then.

So in some ways I’m very pleased to see that he’s agreed to come back and that we will see, I think we can see a fair trial… I trust the judicial system, I think the jury system is the right way and I think the jurors will be able to look at this and judge the Cardinal and judge the case on its merits and what they hear before it. But as I say, throughout this process and throughout the time that people have been screaming for leadership from him, in this really painful time for hundreds of people and parents and children, I feel that he should have stepped up earlier.

Fiona Patten’s comments were hopelessly wrong.  It is not clear why Paul Murray invites ill-informed people on to Paul Murray Live to talk about matters of which they know virtually nothing.  These the main errors made last night by the  Australian Sex Party leader.

  1. It is totally false for Ms Patten to claim that “Cardinal Pell largely ignored a lot of the Royal Commission”. The fact is that no witness spent a greater amount of time before the Royal Commission than George Pell.
  1. It is totally false for Ms Patten to claim that Cardinal Pell was “first asked to appear before the Royal Commission” in 2016. In fact, his first appearance was in person in Sydney in March 2011. He made two subsequent appearances by video-link from Rome. A number of witnesses to the Royal Commission give their evidence by video-link.
  1. It is totally false for Ms Patten to claim that Cardinal Pell gave no “leadership” on clerical sexual abuse in the Catholic Church. In fact, he was the first archbishop or bishop to set up a process for dealing with this crime when he established the Melbourne Response in 1996 in cooperation with Victoria Police. This was six years before the “Spotlight” revelations in the Boston Globe concerning the Catholic Archdiocese of Boston.

So many Fiona Patten errors –a  in so few words 


It was a-pile-it-on-Tony-Abbott moment on Radio National Breakfast this morning as Fran (“I’m an activist”) Kelly interviewed Parliament House Buzzfeed’s bureau chief Alice Workman.

Discussion soon got around to the Liberal Party’s backbencher’s speech yesterday to the Centre for Independent Studies (CIS) on national security and related issues.  In particular, Mr Abbott’s opinion that Australia should re-assess the decision to build conventional submarines in Australia and “at least consider” the option of going nuclear.

Let’s go to the transcript as Ms Workman bags Tony Abbott with Ms Kelly’s support:

Alice Workman: …I’ve spoken to some people, some former staffers of Tony Abbott, who said that a very similar proposal as to what he’s put on the table this week [at the CIS] came across his desk while Prime Minister and he completely ignored it. So I think we can maybe put this one straight on to the pile of “wrecking, sniping and undermining” – and less so much as an actual strategy that Tony Abbott thinks the government should adopt. 

Fran Kelly: Well yeah. I just on that point of what he did as prime minister and what he’s said since –  it’s causing a bit of frustration I think amongst his colleagues.

What a load of absolute tosh. Anyone who followed Tony Abbott’s CIS speech will know that there is no conflict between what he did about submarines as prime minister and what he has said since.  Not at all. In fact, Tony Abbott conceded that “not more robustly challenging the nuclear no-go mindset is probably the biggest regret” he has from his time as prime minister.

In short, Alice Workman and Fran Kelly just made up the claim that Tony Abbott is misleading the electorate by doing one thing as prime minister and saying another as backbencher.  There is no misleading because he has acknowledged what he says is his own error.



In its wisdom, the Royal Commission Into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse decided not to hold an inquiry concerning the institutional responses to any such crimes by Australian media outlets.

Yesterday the Daily Telegraph’s Richard Noone reported that former ABC TV producer Jon Stephens pleaded guilty to sexually assaulting a boy in 1981.  Stephens is best known for creating the show that would become the popular Totally Wild ABC TV program. At the time of the offence, Stephens was aged 34 years old and his victim was 14 years old.  Stephens was sentenced in Gosford Local Court to 12 months jail, with a non-parole period of six months.

As MWD readers are aware, Richard Neville had boasted about having sex with an underage 14-year old school girl when he was appointed presenter of the ABC Radio program called Lateline in the early 1970s. Jon Stephens has now admitted to sexually assaulting a 14-year old boy in 1981 – just six years after (then) ABC chairman Richard Downing called on Australians to “understand” the urges of pederasts like Stephens and declared that “in general, men will sleep with young boys”. Professor Downing made these statements in his official capacity as ABC chairman.

According to the Daily Telegraph, the victim in this case reported Stephens’ assault to the Royal Commission.  Due to Justice Peter McClellan’s decision not to enquire into the ABC or other media institutions, it is not clear as to whether Stephens’ offence in 1981 was a one-off crime – or whether there was a pattern of offending by ABC men against boys in the 1970s and 1980s.

By the way, Jon Stephens’ conviction for child sexual abuse was not reported by ABC News yesterday. An unpleasant double-standard to be sure. Especially in view of the ABC’s coverage of the non-ABC types who have been convicted of – or even charged with – child sexual abuse.

For an update on the ABC and historical child sex abuse see MWD’s segment titled “The ABC and Historical Pederasty” in this issue.


“Gerard, you really are a dope”

– Email from Phillip Coorey, 23 June 2017

Shucks. In last week’s MWD, the Australian Financial Review’s chief political correspondent Phillip Coorey starred in the inaugural “A Louise Milligan Anonymous Sources Moment”. This segment honours journalists who have come up with you-beaut anonymous sources – along the lines of the ABC star investigative journalist’s reference to “the father-in-law of an ABC journalist”. How more authoritative a source can a journalist obtain?

Your man Coorey scored last week’s honour due to his report on possible challenges to Tony Abbott’s Liberal Party pre-selection in the Sydney seat of Warringah.  Mr Coorey’s sources included “Liberal Party conservatives opposed to the central recommendation of the Finkel Report [who] have long stopped listening to Mr Abbott”. Sure, this anonymous source is not quite as authoritative as “the father-in-law of an ABC journalist” – or even “a friend who is a mother in the neighbourhood” (another Milligan favourite).  But still pretty impressive, don’t you think?  Alas, the oh-so-serious Phillip Coorey believes otherwise.  Witness his endorsement.


Did anyone read the column by Anne Summers AO in the Sydney Morning Herald last Saturday?  Headed “Honours system would struggle to get a marginal fail”, it was essentially a rant by Dr Summers (for a doctor she is) against the Order of Australia honours system.

The essential gripe was there are not enough female recipients in the Order of Australia. Wrote Summers:

We keep being told by Sir Angus Houston, who runs the advisory council to the awards, and by Sir Peter Cosgrove, the Governor-General, that the only way to increase the paltry number of women receiving awards each Australia Day and Queen’s Birthday is for us all to nominate more.

The numbers of women honoured has never exceeded a patently unjust 30-odd per cent (after being much lower until very recently)…. And it is not going to be fixed by increasing the number of nominations. Apart from the implied insult that it is somehow our fault – for not nominating more – that so few women are apparently deemed worthy of being honoured by their country, this is simply not a practical or realistic way to change the system.

Anne Summers proposes junking much of the Order of Australia nomination system and actively seeking out people for consideration – a kind of quota or affirmative action system administered by, say, the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. According to Summers, if this was to take place:

We could ensure that our lists of honorees look like the Australia that exists, where a wide range of people of both sexes excel as citizens and deserve our recognition, not just the usual safe white bread parade of businessmen and academics. It won’t happen under the current highly selective and secretive vice-regal system.

In her column, Summers described the existing system as “capricious, secretive and hypocritical”.  She also condemned the fact that John Howard had been gonged with an AC within seven months of ceasing to be prime minister while Kevin Rudd has yet to receive such an award – some four years after he ceased to be prime minister.

This overlooks the fact that Mr Rudd might – just might – have rejected an honour.  Anne Summers should be aware of this possibility, since her one-time employer Paul Keating made it very clear that he would not accept an award in the Order of Australia. Mr Keating does not have an AC – which is almost automatically given to former prime ministers, provided they agree to accept an award.

In spite of the fact that Dr Summers bagged the Order of Australia for its lack of female recipients, she commenced her column as follows:

Some years ago, I declined to provide a reference for a well-known public figure who was being nominated for an Order of Australia. I had not been a referee for this woman’s initial nomination, but the office at Government House in Canberra that administers the awards had sought my views as to her suitability.

Rather than put in writing my low opinion of this particular person, I simply replied that I would prefer not to comment. Whether my refusal to endorse her amounted to an effective veto I cannot say. All I know is that she has never received an award and while she would be none the wiser, since nominations are supposed to be confidential, whoever put her name forward must wonder why on earth the nomination did not succeed.

So, there you have it. Given the chance to support a well-known woman for an award in the Order of Australia, Anne Summers effectively black-balled her. Moreover, she did so in a secretive manner.

And yet Dr Summers criticised the Order of Australia for not rewarding sufficient woman as acting in a capricious, secretive and hypocritical manner.  Who knows?  Perhaps there is a whole gang of Summers-like leftist feminists writing critical references concerning well known females whom they do not happen to like. And thus, depriving them of the Order of Australia gongs.  In which case, Dr Summers AO could be responsible, at least in part, for the injustice she’s whinging about. Can You Bear It?


Every week on the Sky News Outsiders program, co-presenter Rowan Dean offers to save his viewers 60 minutes each Sunday morning by monitoring the ABC TV Insiders program.  You see, Outsiders commences at 10 am and Insiders  at 9 am.

Hendo prefers to get his news and current affairs unfiltered.  So, he watches Insiders followed by Outsiders.  By the end of the second program, it’s close to Gin & Tonic time on Sundays.

In its revamped style since the exit of Mark Latham, the format of Outsiders consists of having one self-declared “outsider” on the Outsiders couch talking to Messrs Dean and Cameron.  First up, the outsider-of-the-day is expected to talk about himself or herself and later join in the general discussion.

Last Sunday, Warren Mundine was on the Outsiders couch.  This is how the segment commenced:

Ross Cameron:  We should introduce [Warren Mundine]

 Rowan Dean: Absolutely, this is why we’re here.

But was it?   In the introductory period, Messrs Cameron and Dean spoke for around eight minutes and Warren Mundine for about six minutes.  Come to think of it, this is what Kerry O’Brien used to do on the ABC 7.30 Report of old – when “Red” Kerry’s questions were sometimes longer than the answer he solicited.

So the question is – how do you get the Outsiders presenters to talk less than their guest?  Answer: Interview Ross Cameron’s fav talent – a certain Marcus Aurelius via contact with John Edward who has a way of reaching out (as the cliché goes) to the Other Side. [Good idea. Perhaps Nancy (2004-2017) might be able to lend a paw in making contact – MWD Editor.]

Since Ross Cameron appears to know more about Marcus Aurelius than Aurelius himself, it’s possible that Messrs Cameron and Dean would give a majority of time to a talent who is such an “outsider” that died circa AD 180.  Just possible. Can You Bear It?


What a stunning performance by Gael Jennings on the ABC 1 News Breakfast “Newspapers” segment yesterday.  Dr Jennings (for a doctor she is) who is paid to ADVANCE JOURNALISM at Melbourne University’s Centre for Advancing Journalism commented on Christopher Pyne’s (intended) off-the-record speech at the Liberal Party’s national council in Sydney last Friday evening.   One of the controversial aspects of Mr Pyne’s speech to the Liberal Party’s self-proclaimed moderates turned on his claim that same-sex marriage could be introduced in Australia “sooner than everyone thinks”.

It so happened that newspaper coverage of Christopher Pyne’s apparently emotional late night morale-boost to the Liberal Party’s left co-incided with a report in last Monday’s Australian that an analysis of Newspoll between April and June 2017 indicated that the Coalition support had fallen by 6 per cent since the election.

It so happened that Dr Jennings confused reports that same-sex marriage legislation might be passed (which was also covered in the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age) with the analysis of the Coalition’s falling support in the opinion polls – and put the two together. Let’s go to the transcript:

Gael Jennings: So this is the news. Front page in The Australian, The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age – so that’s for Fairfax and Murdoch. It’s quite interesting in that it would probably get through the House and it would certainly get through the Senate.

But what The Australian is reporting – which is going further – is to somehow link the fact that Christopher Pyne talked about this at a Liberal dinner last Friday and calling that a leak and saying that therefore there’s going to be turmoil in Coalition ranks and 20 members might lose their seats including Peter Dutton and a number of others.

It’s also saying that Christopher Pyne and George Brandis are aware of this draft legislation and are quite happy with it because they are pro same sex marriage. So I’m not quite sure how there is a link between these plans and the finding that everyone knows that the polls are showing that if an election was held this month there would be that loss of seats for Coalition.

There was no such confusion.  The Newspoll report covered the last three months – whereas the reports on the alleged same-sex marriage legislation covered just three days.  As to Dr Jennings claim that 20 Coalition members might lose their seats on account of the same-sex marriage issue – well, Gael Jennings just made this up.  According to the polls, 20 Coalition seats could be lost due to a range of issues.  Can You Bear It?


What a performance by the garrulous British political minder Alastair Campbell, who was director of communications in Tony Blair’s Labour government, on Q&A last Monday

[I note that Christopher Pyne and your man Campbell took up an inordinate amount of time on the program when compared to the women panellists.  Perhaps ABC managing director Michelle (“All diversity is important except political diversity”) Guthrie should investigate this – MWD Editor]

Alastair Campbell received no push-back from the Q&A set – presenter Virginia Trioli and panellists Christopher Pyne, Anna Greenberg, Labor’s Clare O’Neil and Grahame Morris – when the following light-weight comments were made.  It was as if the panel was intellectually intimidated by the oh-so-confident Brit.

First up, Alastair Campbell argued against a plebiscite (as proposed by the Coalition in Australia) or a referendum (as held recently in Ireland) on same sex marriage – or, indeed, any other issue.  Let’s go to the transcript.

Virginia Trioli: Alright, let’s hear quickly from our overseas visitors. Alastair? This has all been sorted out in the UK.

Alastair Campbell: Well, it’s been sorted out in the UK, it’s been sorted out in Ireland –

Anna Greenberg: It’s been sorted in the US!

Alastair Campbell:  -which has now got a gay prime minister, so he can get married if he wants to! It’s kind of – I find this whole argument a bit weird, I’ve got to say. My advice – don’t have a referendum about anything.


Alastair Campbell: Because –


Alastair Campbell: – because you risk making catastrophic decisions….

So there you have it.  According to the spin doctors’ spin doctor, it’s “catastrophic” for a government to seek the views of voters by means of a plebiscite or a referendum.  This despite the fact that a majority of electors voted for same-sex marriage in the referendum held on 22 May 2015 in Ireland.

Then your man Campbell decided to throw the switch to Nazi Germany (Yawn) – as the transcript demonstrates:

Alastair Campbell: …We’ve got to hope that Trump is an aberration. But he might not be. You see – I did an interview with my old boss, Tony Blair, for GQ recently. And I actually said to him – he thought I was going over the top – But, I made the point. I said that Hitler – he took a few years before he started to go for journalists and judges. Trump did it in Week One.

What a load of absolute tosh. As Tony Blair commented, Campbell’s Trump/Hitler link was “over the top”. Right over-the-top.

In any event, how has President Trump “gone” for journalists and judges the way Adolf Hitler did during the first few years of the Nazi regime – i.e. say 1933-1936?  The president has criticised some journalists and some judges.  That’s all.  What’s more, shortly after Alastair Campbell’s Q&A appearance, the US Supreme Court supported much of President Trump’s executive order on immigration from certain nations by a vote of Nine to Zero.  In other words, the US Supreme Court judges effectively agreed with the President’s criticism of some of the judges in the lower courts and acknowledged that a president has certain executive powers with respect to national security issues.

Yet Alastair Campbell made his elitist comments on plebiscites/referendum and his ridiculous comparison between Hitler and Trump without anyone on the panel – or presenter La Trioli – telling Mr Campbell that he was talking bollocks.  Can You Bear It?



As avid readers are aware, all the experts at the taxpayer subsidised United States Studies Centre at the taxpayer subsidised University of Sydney believed that Hillary Clinton would defeat Donald J. Trump at the US presidential election last November.  And all the “experts” were hopelessly wrong – including USSC’s chief executive Simon Jackman, USSC research director James Brown, the high profile Dr David Smith (for a doctor he is) and ABC presenter John Barron (who has a part-time gig at the USSC).

On Sky News, in the aftermath of the election, Professor Jackman told Mark Latham that not one member of the US[eless] Studies Centre supported Donald J. Trump. Not one.

Washington Post journalist Dana Milbank and US pollster Anna Greenberg are currently in Australia as guests of the US Studies Centre.  Both are avowed opponents of President Trump – so they should feel at home at the USSC, which has become a left-of-centre Democratic Party stack.

Interviewed on the ABC TV Breakfast program on 20 June 2017, Dana Milbank described President Trump as a “charlatan”.  As Gerard Henderson documented in the Weekend Australian last Saturday, in the lead-up to the presidential election. Milbank referred to “Trump’s flirtation with fascism”. Milbank also reported that, at one meeting, “Trump’s supporters raised their arms en masse” and in doing so evoked “the sort of scene associated with grainy newsreels from Italy and Germany”.  Get it? – Benito Mussolini’s fascists and Adolf Hitler’s Nazis are a bit like Trump supporters.  According to the Trump-hating Dana Milbank, that is.

Appearing on Q&A last Monday, Anna Greenberg described President Trump’s “political strategy” as posing “an existential threat to democracy”. She also described “the US political system as completely corrupt because we are driven by political donations”.  Ms Greenberg failed to explain how the democratically elected Trump is a threat to democracy.

By the way, Ms Greenberg works for the Washington-based Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research and has been the lead pollster in the campaign of such Democratic Party identities as New York Mayor Bill de Blasio.  All of the Democratic Party candidates for whom Ms Greenberg has worked ran successful campaigns based on political donations.  So, in Anna Greenberg terms, they also must be part of a “completely corrupt” political system.  Which demonstrates a certain lack of self-awareness.

Lotsa thanks to the avid reader who drew MWD’s attention to the apparent influence of Fairfax Media’s Matthew Knott and ABC TV’s Michael Rowland in determining who will be on the ABC1’s Insiders couch this Sunday.  As the following Twitter stream appears to demonstrate:

So there you have it.  Gerard Henderson usually does not know with whom he will be on-the-couch on Insiders until after Media Watch Dog goes out – just before  Gin & Tonic time – early in the evening on a Friday.  But thanks to Messrs Knott, Rowland and Cassidy, the late Nancy’s (male) co-owner knew this as from Wednesday evening.



While on the topic of Insiders, at least Hendo’s trip to Melbourne this weekend will be easier than usual. As MWD has revealed previously, Hendo found the images of (now former) CPA chief executive Alex Malley at Sydney and Melbourne airports oh-so-stressful that they put him off flying.

For example, when arriving at Sydney Airport there is a huge billboard featuring a HUGE photo of your man Malley publicising his piss-poor In Conversation with Alex Malley program on Channel 9 each and every Sunday.  This was paid for by CPA members.

Step inside Sydney airport and passengers are confronted by a HUGE banner advertising Alex Malleys’ piss-poor book The Naked CEO. The highlight of this all but unreadable tome turned on the fact that sometime in the 20th Century Malley was suspended from Trinity Grammar in Sydney for a day or so for being absent from school property during school time without permission.  Wow – what a daring young man young Malley was. Depart Melbourne Airport and it’s another venture into Malley Land with posters banging on about the “suspended school boy” who became, er, Alex Malley.

Thank God, it will soon be possible for passengers to board and disembark a plane in Sydney and Melbourne without going through the stress of confronting a graven image of Alex Malley, boring accountant turned media tart.

No one did more to relieve Hendo’s airflight anxiety than Australian Financial Review’s “Rear Window” columnist Joe Aston who led the criticism of the Malley Cult of Personality over several years.  This is how Mr Aston commenced his “Rear Window” column on Wednesday:

By Tuesday, CPA Australia was well-advanced at the necessary task of fully erasing the dominant personal presence of its sacked CEO Alex Malley across manifold platforms. The “about Alex” page on The Naked CEO’s website has been disabled (the same fate as the trusty “Find a CPA” function). All mention of the member-funded TV show, In Conversation with Alex Malley, has been wiped from CPA’s website. The show’s own website now redirects straight back to CPA’s home page.

CPA is yet to take down Malley’s mug from prime real estate outside airport bookshops around the country – but the moment must be imminent. Our favourite watchdog Gerard Henderson can finally hand back his Murrays bus pass and take the Virgin Australia shuttle to Insiders – as if sitting between David Marr and Barrie Cassidy on Sunday morning wasn’t punishment enough without an 11-hour coach ride down the Hume.

That’s true.  Soon it will be safe for Hendo to go back into an airport terminal without needing a pre-emptive Gin & Tonic to mediate stress.

Here’s hoping, however, that Alex Malley retains his usual slot on the News Breakfast’s Newspapers segment with presenters Michael Rowland and Virginia Trioli.   Especially since MWD has not seen Deakin University’s towering (leftist) intellectual Dr Scott Burchill on this gig of late.  Could it be that he has nothing left to drop off at the tip – and, consequently, no longer finds himself in the vicinity of the ABC’s Southbank studio early in the morning dressed for a News Breakfast appearance?  Let’s hope not.  Let’s hope instead that MWD’s Melbourne-based avid readers drop some junk in the yard of Dr Burchill (for a doctor he is) and encourage him to go to the tip again, dropping into News Breakfast when passing.  MWD needs the material that only a Deakin University senior lecturer can provide.

But MWD digresses.  Joe Aston – Five Paws.


As avid readers are aware, Gerard Henderson clashed with Helen Demidenko (nee Darville who became Dale) following the publication of her book The Hand That Signed The Paper in 1994 (See MWD Issue 361). While Hendo appreciated the fact that Helen D. had fooled the intelligentsia by pretending to be of Ukrainian background – she is an Anglo-Saxon sheila – he objected to the anti-semitic tone of her work along with the historical howlers it contained concerning Eastern Europe in the 1930s and 1940s.

Not long after the publication of The Hand, Ms Dale was dismissed as a Courier Mail columnist for plagiarism.  It seems that old habits die hard.  As young Mark Di Stefano, Buzz Feed News’ Australian political editor, documented on 27 June (see here) Helen Dale has been lifting tweets and putting them out on Facebook as all her own work.

Mark Di Stefano: Five Paws.


Responding to the prevailing journalistic view that today Tony Abbott is only acting with respect to Malcolm Turnbull in much the same way as Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd acted with respect to each other, Radio National presenter and Meanjin editor Jonathan (“I’m a fox-hunting man”) Green threw the switch to reality.  Here’s his tweet:


Jonathan Green: Five Paws



So what’s Senator Derryn Hinch – Australia’s very own “Birther” – up to with respect to Tony Abbott?  Remember how opponents of Barack Obama once claimed that he was not born in the United States and, consequently not entitled to become US president. Well, a similar “Birther” movement once alleged that Tony Abbott had not renounced his British citizenship and, consequently, was illegible to sit in the House of Representatives as prime minister.

Radio shock jock and occasional Sky News presenter Derryn Hinch was a leader of the “Abbott Birther” movement – an obsession he continued when elected last year to the Senate.  Needless to say, your man Hinch never produced a skerrick of evidence in support of his conspiracy theory about Mr Abbott. But, then, he is a journalist by trade.

Last Tuesday, on Sky News’ Paul Murray Live, Derryn Hinch came up with yet another look-mum-no-facts theory about Tony Abbott. Namely, that the former prime minister is leaking against Malcolm Turnbull – not to the media but direct to Bill Shorten and the Labor Party. Really. Let’s go to the transcript:

Paul Murray: Derryn Hinch on this program last night he said something that threw a cat amongst the pigeons. It annoyed plenty of people and there was lots of follow up today. What was it? This:

Derryn Hinch: I actually believe, I say this quite seriously, there are senior people in the Abbott camp who are leaking directly to Bill Shorten.

 Paul Murray: What would they be leaking? You’re talking about internal movements?

 Derryn Hinch: Internal movements – they want to bring down Malcolm Turnbull. They don’t care if they lose the next election. They’ll start again and they’ll regroup – and this is from the Abbott camp. It is so destructive.

 Paul Murray: When asked about it today, Bill Shorten said “I know nothing”.

What a load of absolute tosh.  Senator Hinch produced no evidence of “people in the Abbott camp” leaking anything to anyone. In any event, if there are any Tony Abbott supporters who want to bring down the Prime Minister by leaks, it would be easier to leak to members of the Canberra Parliamentary Press Gallery than to the office of the Opposition leader.

It seems that, now a senator, Derryn Hinch cannot divest himself from a journalistic habit of believing rumour. For example, on 20 June 2017 your man Hinch told 3AW Radio presenter Neil Mitchell that “there will be a bombshell dropped today about One Nation”.  Apparently, this was a Bob-Ellis-style (false) prophecy that James Ashby, Senator Pauline Hanson’s chief-of-staff, would be sacked that day. He wasn’t.

Derryn Hinch: Media Fool of the Week.


Perhaps it was unintentional – but Brianne Tolj produced a wonderful introduction when reporting the latest Census in the Daily Mail Australia on Tuesday. Here it is:

The latest Census figures reveal the Muslim population in Australia has soared to more than 604,000 people, overtaking Buddhism as the most popular non-Christian religion [sic]. The number of Muslims living in the country has almost doubled from 341,000 in the the 2006 census.

The surge in the number of Muslims comes as the Census revealed an additional 2.2 million people registered as having no religion – surpassing Catholicism as the country’s most popular religious affiliation. Data from the 2016 census, released on Tuesday, shows 30 per cent of Australians identified as having no religion, compared with 22 per cent in the 2011 census and almost 19 per cent in 2006.

So there you have it.  According to Ms Tolj, the category of no-religion has surpassed Catholicism “as the country’s most popular religious affiliation”. Brianne Tolj seems to have come to the profound realisation that both believers and atheists hold a “religious” belief – since their views on the existence or non-existence, of God result from an act of faith.  Only agnostics are faithless – since only agnostics believe that there is no empirical evidence for or against the existence of God. Even so, the suggestion that a no-religion position is a religion is somewhat over the top. Even for the Daily Mail Australia.

Brianne Tolj: Media Fool of the Week




 MWD’s coverage of the former ABC producer Jon Stephens’ conviction for pederasty – which was not reported by the public broadcaster – provides an opportunity to revisit the “ABC & Historical Pederasty Scoreboard”. Here we go – again:

 On 20 July 1975, (then) ABC chairman Richard Downing wrote to the Sydney Morning Herald calling on Australians to “understand” the urges of pederasts and declared that “in general, men will sleep with young boys”. Professor Downing’s comments were made in his official capacity as ABC chairman.  He defended a 1975 ABC radio program titled “Pederasty” in which a self-confessed pedophile presenter (Richard Neville) sympathetically interviewed three pederasts, along with some of their victims, in the ABC Sydney studio.  In 1975 the ABC did not report the pederasts to NSW Police and, since then, the ABC has never adopted a duty of care with respect to the pederasts’ victims – who would be aged in their fifties today. The “Pederasty” program tape was apparently destroyed by ABC staff shortly after the program went to air in 1975. Convenient, eh?

For the record, despite the interest of ABC journalists in historical child sexual abuse cases, not one ABC presenter, producer or editor has reported Professor Downing’s statements and non-actions of four decades ago.  It is as if the ABC’s past association with pederasty and pederasts is to go down the public broadcaster’s “memory hole”.

In response to MWD’s enquiries about the ABC’s historical involvement with pederasty, ABC management has refused to distance the contemporary public broadcaster from statements made on its behalf in 1975 by ABC chairman Richard Downing.

Former ABC chairman Jim Spigelman AC QC and current ABC chairman Justin Milne have also denied that the public broadcaster has a duty of care with respect to the victims of the men who were abused by the pederasts in the 1975 ABC program. Now let’s go to the scoreboard:


Until next time