ISSUE – NO. 544

4 June 2021

* * * *


According to today’s Nine Newspapers, ABC managing director and editor-in-chief David Anderson “has blocked a Four Corners episode by journalist Louise Milligan about the relationship between Prime Minister Scott Morrison and a supporter of the QAnon conspiracy theory”.   This theory claims that an international pedophile ring is essentially running the world.

Zoe Samios reported in The Sydney Morning Herald  and The Age that “Four Corners  staff were expecting the episode to run on Monday after weeks of delays but were informed yesterday [Thursday] it would not air following a decision by managing director David Anderson”.

An ABC spokesperson has denied the story – which reads like a leak from within Four Corners or some other part of the ABC to the left-of-centre Nine Newspapers. The ABC’s official position seems to be that all requirements to publish have not yet been met.  It remains to be seen whether any version of Louise Milligan’s report will make it to air.

Whatever the outcome, the evidence so far indicates that, once again, the activist ABC journalist Milligan has chosen to believe what she wants to believe.  It was reported in Crikey  in 2019, by David Hardaker, that Prime Minister Scott Morrison is being influenced by an alleged friend who is a QAnon promoter in Australia.  The problem is that just because someone says that the Prime Minister has a mate who influences him – does not mean that it is true.  Mr Morrison, in close to three years in The Lodge, has not shown any QAnon tendencies – that’s for sure.

In recent times Louise Milligan has believed what she wanted to believe with respect to Cardinal George Pell and Christian Porter – and the ABC’s Sarah Ferguson has believed what she wanted to believe re Pell. Not one of their collective stories led to a finding of guilt in the Australian legal system.  It’s hard to imagine that any ABC attempt to hang the QAnon tag on Scott Morrison will be any more successful.


Meanwhile, leading ABC journalists Laura Tingle and David Speers have not struck any problems in getting their material to air in recent times.

Last night on 7.30 La Tingle introduced a segment on the Labor Party as follows:

Laura Tingle: There are things that Labor would rather forget about the 2019 election campaign.  Perhaps first and foremost, the sense of certainty that they were going to win.  But what they don’t want to forget is the feeling that you can win….

Hang on a minute.  Labor Party MPs are not the only individuals who would like to forget they believed that the ALP was going to win in May 2019.  So did La Tingle who, on the eve of the May 2019 election, said that “most people think that Labor…is on track to win.”  She added that the Coalition “will not be in a position to form a government”.  That’s the problem with having, er, a sense of certainty.

And then, on Radio National Breakfast this morning, Insiders’ presenter David Speers spoke to Sally Sara about the Morrison government’s initial reluctance to provide a job subsidy to Victorians adversely affected by the latest Victoria-wide lockdown – lest the Andrews Labor government regard such assistance as an encouragement to bring about more lockdowns. Let’s go to the transcript:

David Speers:  Yeah, I’ve found this argument about not providing an incentive to States a little bit weird.  I don’t think States ever really want to lockdown, you know – it costs their economy, their budget.  It costs them politically as well….

What a load of absolute tosh.  All States and Territories, except NSW, have introduced one or more substantial lockdowns along with border closures.  Those States and Territory governments which have gone to an election during the pandemic have been returned – often with increased majorities. This is true of the Northern Territory, Australian Capital Territory, the Northern Territory, Queensland, Western Australia and Tasmania.  In short, on the available evidence, lockdowns/border closures do not hurt State or Territory governments politically.

Can You Bear It?


For the most part, Media Watch Dog does not read Paul Bongiorno’s boring column in The [Boring] Saturday Paper. Life’s too short.  However, with a little help from avid readers, MWD on occasions follows Bonge’s tweets. With a special attention to those which emerge from Bonge’s iPad or iPhone between Gin & Tonic Time and Post Dinner Drinks Time.

Thanks to the avid reader who drew MWD’s attention to this tweet which Bonge sent out at 9.53 am on 23 May 2021 concerning the Report of the Dyson Investigation by the Honourable Lord Dyson which found that Martin Bashir had performed unprofessionally and dishonestly in acquiring an interview in 1995 with Diana, Princess of Wales for the BBC Panorama program. Gerard Henderson discussed this in his column in The Weekend Australian on 29 May – see here.

Here is Bonge’s tweet:

So Martin Bashir’s “utter disgrace” was essentially the fault of News Corp’s Rupert Murdoch – once again, it seems.  When Bonge was reminded that Bashir worked for the BBC – not News Corp – the following exchange took place:

So there you have it.  Comrade Bongiorno receives mild criticism from a certain Mr Nicholls and Bonge replies “That is bull-shit”.  Which suggests that either Bonge has a limited vocabulary or else he is easily raised to anger.  And this in spite of your man Bongiorno’s impressive qualifications – to wit, a Bachelor in Sacred Theology and an STL (whatever that is) from the Pontifical Urban College in Rome.  Even though  possessing learning imbued with Christianity, Bonge responds to considered criticism in three words: “That is bull-shit”. Can You Bear It?

[Not on your nelly. It would seem that Bonge would be well advised to attend the (late) Nancy’s Courtesy Classes which, in Nancy’s post-mortem mode, are now being conducted from the Other Side with a little help from the American psychic John Edward. – MWD Editor.]


As avid readers are only too well aware, the ABC is a Conservative Free Zone without a conservative presenter, producer or editor for any of its prominent television, radio or online outlets.

Consequently, it came as no surprise when ABC TV Insiders  executive producer Samuel  (“Call me Sam”) Clark could not find one conservative a seat on the program’s (virtual) couch last Sunday.  David Speers was in the presenter’s chair and the panel comprised the ABC’s Patricia Karvelas (aka PK), The Project’s Peter van Onselen (aka PVO) and The Saturday Paper’s  Karen Middleton. The “Talking Pictures” segment’s guest was Amanda Copp, political reporter for National Radio News, who was interviewed by regular “Talking Pictures” presenter Michael Bowers of The Guardian.  Not a conservative among this half dozen.  In fact all the panellists along with the presenter are strong critics of the Morrison government.

The line during the panel discussion of the program was evident early on when the Victorian Labor government’s fourth COVID-19 lockdown along with the vaccine rollout were the focus of discussion.

First up, PK (as she likes to be called) declared that there is a “very strong view in the community that the vaccination program, that the Federal government’s responsible for, has been a disaster”. PVO (as he likes to be called) immediately declared: “I agree with Patricia”. And Comrade Middleton (as she probably does not like to be called) declared, with respect to the vaccine rollout: “The house is still on fire”. Speersy (as he likes to be called) did not even query the views of any of this trio.

And so it went on and on as PK essentially agreed with PVO who essentially agreed with Karen who essentially agreed with Speersy who essentially agreed with PK who essentially agreed with herself.

And then your man Speers got to interview Dan Tehan, the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment. As usual, the Insiders presenter went after the gotcha moment as he asked the Minister a question over and over again.  Yawn – you might think.  But PVO and PK just loved it and they piled on the flattery after the interview.

Let’s go to the transcript – trigger warning, it commences with PVO’s attempt at irony after Speersy asked your man Van Onselen what he thought about Speersy’s very own line of questioning:

Peter Van Onselen: You really let him off easy there, David. He was sort of bleeding out on the floor, politically speaking, the poor guy. He realised that he got himself into a complete word muddle, he tried to point to something that doesn’t ultimately apply for casual workers. And rather than let him off the hook, you reminded him of it about half a dozen times. And in the end, he was forced to backtrack. So that was like a live fact-check here on the ABC. Bottom line is he is not giving any guarantee for those casual workers, the government is yet at the Federal level to say if they will get anything, including if a lockdown continues, and the support that he was pointing to doesn’t apply to people who don’t either have COVID, or act as close contacts to having had COVID. So there’s no support there. That’s what we were able to glean. But we’re also able to glean that if you keep asking the same question of a minister, eventually they fold.

In short, “Well Done Speersy!”. Needless to say, Speersy agreed with PVO – and PK agreed with Speersy.  And this is what passes for political debate and discussion on one of the taxpayer funded public broadcaster’s main current affairs programs.


While on the issue of the Victorian lockdown did anyone notice this Twitter exchange between’s Samantha Maiden and Victorian Liberal MP Tim Smith?

The fact is that the Morrison government’s JobKeeper payment was presided over by the Australian Taxation Office.  Any businesses which qualified for assistance to help retain its workforce received JobKeeper. No State or Territory was favoured.

It seems that Comrade Maiden overlooked the fact that NSW’s population is 31 per cent of the Australian population compared with Victoria at 26 per cent. Consequently, NSW received more gross assistance than Victoria.   However, on a per capita basis, Victoria received more assistance under JobKeeper than any state. In her haste to make a political point critical of the Morrison government, the activist journalist Comrade Maiden overlooked this central fact. Can You Bear It?


Meet Sam Crosby – formerly head of the McKell Institute, a self-proclaimed progressive (read social democratic or left of centre) organisation – who is head of the St Vincent de Paul Society in Sydney. Your man Crosby was the (unsuccessful) Labor Party candidate for Reid in the 2019 Federal election – he appears regularly on Sky News.

On Sky News’ Paul Murray Live  on 31 May, Comrade Crosby was part of the discussion about one-time James Cook University academic Peter Ridd who got the sack for some reason or other which had something to do with the fact that he criticised some of his colleagues over their position on the Great Barrier Reef.  Put simply, many an eco-catastrophist academic reckons that the Great Barrier Reef is doomed due to climate change and all that.  But Dr Ridd reckons that the Reef is in relatively good shape over its massive size – and that predictions that the Reef is dying have been around for eons.

A reasonable academic disagreement, you might have thought.  But no. The High Court of Australia is about to hear Peter Ridd (funded by his supporters – who also happen to be taxpayers) v James Cook University (funded substantially by the Australian taxpayer). It is an appeal against the majority decision of the Full Federal Court to overturn a decision for Peter Ridd in the first instance which held that he had been wrongfully dismissed by James Cook University.

And what’s Comrade Crosby got to say about this? – well here it is:

Sam Crosby: …academics should have the freedom of speech, the freedom to publish what they want to say. But what the [James Cook] university is saying is… he’s [Peter Ridd’s] been fired because of his criticising his colleagues. Right? So if you look at it through that, you know, point of view – I’m a little bit more sympathetic to the university. I mean, Paul, if you decided to come out and start criticising Sky News, and all the colleagues here and saying they’re this, that and the other, sure you’ve got a freedom of speech to say that, of course you do. And I’ll defend that. But Sky News –

Rowan Dean: But Sam but we’re talking about a university. And he’s not criticising them for the colour of suits they’re wearing or the way their hair is cut or whatever. He’s criticising them [claiming] that their research is flawed –

Sam Crosby: No, sure…But I kind of think that’s, that’s from the university’s perspective, that’s kind of worse – right? There, he’s attacking them on their sort of most salient point of credibility. Their one value proposition that they go out to, you know, hundreds of thousands of researchers and students every single year and say, “come and study with us because we’re so good”. And he’s attacking them on that one, you know, that one thing, that’s gonna have a pretty significant impact on them. Hence why I think they took action against it.

How about that? Sam Crosby B.Ec, B.Soc.Sc, MBA reckons that universities are about being nice to each other – and not about the contest of ideas.  According to Comrade Crosby, it was wrong for Peter Ridd to criticise his fellow academics concerning the quality and accuracy of their ideas.  But isn’t that what universities are supposed to be about?  Namely, the contest of ideas. So what’s Comrade Crosby on about? Can You Bear It?


Wasn’t it unusual to see Ita Buttrose, the chair of the ABC, flogging the very latest update in the ABC’s Australia Talks National Survey series?  Unusual in that Ms Buttrose is the chair of the ABC.  She is not the managing director, who is also the ABC’s editor-in-chief. That role is held by David Anderson. Normally the ABC’s editor-in-chief comments about editorial matters.  And Australia Talks is an editorial matter. But there you go.

It’s not clear what a talented type like Ms Buttrose is doing in promoting Australia Talks which, after all, is just a glorified ABC audience survey. On ABC News Breakfast on 25 May 2021, the ABC chair said that Australia Talks National Survey tells us what we “need to know about…the Australian people”. This is just FAKE NEWS. Australia Talks assesses the views of Australians who are in contact with the ABC – that’s all. See below.

The ABC constantly declares that it is Australia’s most trusted news.  But this is absolute tosh. Look at it this way.  Each night, the ABC TV News comes in behind both Network 7 and Network 9 news and usually ahead of Network 10’s news.  For the ABC’s hype to stand up – it has to be accepted that an overwhelming majority of Australians prefer to watch TV news bulletins that they trust less than those of the ABC.  Australians are not that stupid.

And what about the quality of Australia Talks?  You be the judge.  Here are some of the questions which Australia Talks reckons tell us all we need to know about what “the Australian people” are thinking about such crucial issues as:

۰ I have a secret that I believe would end my relationship with my partner or family.

۰ I spend too much time online [If you are talking about the Australia Talks National Survey, the answer, surely, is Yes – MWD Editor]

۰ I would rather spend time with pets than people.

۰ It’s becoming more difficult to know which sources of information to trust.

۰ How often do you change your bed sheets?

۰ To what extent do you believe in the following?…Extraterrestrial life


And then there are the political, and oh-so-ABCish, questions:

۰ How much more would you personally be willing to spend each year to help prevent climate change?

۰ How well do you think Australia is doing at addressing climate change?

۰ The government should establish a Federal corruption watchdog.

۰ The gap in wealth between rich and poor Australians is too big.

۰ How much do you trust the following countries to act responsibly in the world? United States, China…

۰ The basic JobSeeker allowance paid to unemployed Australians is $620.80 a fortnight, or just over $44 a day. Do you think this amount should be lower, higher or is about right?

۰ Allegations of sexual assault are almost always true.

Respondents to the Australia Talks National Survey are asked whether they (i) strongly agree, (ii) somewhat agree, (iii) neutral, (iv) somewhat disagree, (v) strongly disagree or (vi) don’t know. Many of the questions cited above are leading questions – that is, they lead respondents to an answer.  As in “The government should establish a Federal corruption watch dog”. This is clearly a leading question. There are similar examples. Enough said.

Enthused by the Australia Talks National Survey’s methodology, Jackie (Dip Wellness, The Gunnedah Institute) has come up with some questions which Ita Buttrose (AC, OBE) might like to put into the next round of Australia Talks National Survey:

۰ ABC presenters Michael Rowland and Virginia Trioli are:

         – Great

         – Really Great

         – Super Cool

۰ The ABC is not a Conservative Free Zone because it:

        – employs conservative cleaners

        – has engaged a couple of conservatives as presenters on low-rating           Radio National programs at non-prime times.

        – both of the above.

۰ Fran (I’m an activist”) Kelly is:

        – activist enough

        – not quite activist enough

        – did anyone say Rosa Luxemburg?

۰ We miss Red Kerry (O’Brien) and Barrie Cassidy on the ABC because there aren’t enough former Labor Party staffers hosting major ABC TV programs these days.

Jackie has kindly provided a provisional result for this category.  It is: Agree Strongly 101 per cent (counting discontinued)

[Good one Jackie.  If the view of ABC viewers, listeners and readers reflected the thoughts of “the Australian people”(á la Ms Buttrose) then Australia would have had a Green/Left government for the past half century. – MWD Editor.]

A Note on Australia Talks Methodology

For those wondering how exactly the data presented in Australia Talks was gathered here is a brief explanation. Australia Talks is a joint project of the ABC, the University of Melbourne and Canadian data science firm Vox Pop Labs.

In the lead up to the 2019 Federal election, and other recent Australian elections, readers of the ABC News website could participate in an online poll called Vote Compass. Respondents were asked a series of questions related to public policy and then shown where their views fall relative to the other respondents. The 2019 version of this poll received around 2 million responses. At the end of the survey you could provide your email address if you were interested in participating in further surveys conducted by Vox Pop Labs.

In March 2021 around 60,000 Australians, chosen from among those who provided their email addresses to Vox Pop Labs during Vote Compass, answered a battery of questions. This is referred to as Australia Talks “national survey”.

Anyone visiting the ABC News website currently will be prompted to participate in Australia Talks. Those who do will answer some of the same questions asked in the national survey and then shown how their results compare to the results of the national survey respondents. This is referred to as the Australia Talks “online tool”.

The national survey results presented have been weighted based on the demographic and voting information provided by the respondents to produce a sample which matches census information and the results of the 2019 Federal election.

This weighting is meant to remove any bias in the results produced by the survey method. However, it is worth noting that since every respondent was recruited after participating in Vote Compass they share a few traits which cannot be weighted out. They all visited the ABC News website in the lead up to an election, they all chose to participate in Vote Compass and they all chose to opt in to participate in further surveys. The results may be weighted to contain the correct share of Coalition voters, but they are the sort of Coalition voters who frequent the ABC News website and participate in online polls.



Lotsa thanks to the avid Sydney reader who drew Media Watch Dog’s attention to the latest attempt by Peter (“I wore a red rag on my head until I had to wash both”) FitzSimons. In his “Fitz Files” column in the Sydney Morning Herald  last Saturday, the one-time Red Bandannaed One had this to say about the National Rugby League:

Seriously, you could set your watch by it. No sooner had the NSW Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions announced they would not continue with a third trial for charges of aggravated sexual assault levelled at St George Illawarra player Jack de Belin, than the calls came out criticising the NRL for the no-fault stand-down rule. The rule insists that all players charged with a serious crime that might bring a sentence of eleven years or more, must stand down. The thrust of the criticism was along the lines of: “See? He’s been found innocent, so that shows he never should have been stood down!”

Uh, no. One more time for the dummies. The no-fault stand-down rule, as the very name suggests, has a built-in contingency: that the player stood down is not found guilty. By standing the player down, the NRL is not saying “we think this player is guilty”. It is saying, “While the player is facing such grave charges, it is not right that he play in our competition”. And so, after a long process, the law has not been able to establish beyond reasonable doubt that de Belin is guilty. This is entirely different from establishing that he was innocent.

And your man Fitz reckons that his critics are “dummies”.  Extraordinary arrogance when you think about it – for someone who, apparently, has no understanding of the common law.

There is no court in Australia which has the capacity to find that someone is “innocent”. Rather, in Australia and other common law nations, there is a presumption of innocence.  Namely, everyone is presumed innocent unless and until they are found guilty.  In other words, no institution can find Jack de Belin, or anyone else, innocent.  However he has a presumption of innocence because he has never been found guilty – consequently he is not guilty.

Clearly your man Fitz, in his own terminology, is a real dummy when it comes to the law.



There was enormous interest in the inaugural segment of Prophecy Corner in last Friday’s Media Watch Dog which featured this prediction from one-time Labor Party staffer and current scribbler for The New Daily, Dennis Atkins:

Take note of it and get used to it. This is the [Coalition] script for election 2021 – and it will be an election later this year, most probably just a week after the NRL grand final. Put a ring around Saturday, October 9. There’s always an outside chance the election will be delayed if unforeseen events arise, but it’s been widely felt since last spring the Morrison government has been working to a plan for an election at the beginning of the last quarter of 2021… The grand finals are September 25 for Aussie Rules and October 3 for [Rugby] League, making any probable voting date beyond those weeks. That’s why October 9 is the day to mark down.

That’s pretty clear then. On 15 May 2021 your man Atkins told readers to mark down Saturday 9 October 2021 as the election day – since it had been “widely felt” since last Spring that the Prime Minister has been working on an election in the last quarter of 2021.

But wait. Thanks to the avid (locked-down) Melbourne reader who has drawn attention to an earlier prophecy by Comrade Atkins. Here’s his earlier prophecy about the date of the next election as told to readers of The New Daily on 24 April 2021:

Scott Morrison is still favourite to be re-elected when Australia goes to the polls, most probably in the fourth or fifth month of 2022. This poll was set for late this year but rolling political fumbles have pushed out that timetable.

Clearly the prophet Atkins has already outed himself as a False Prophet.  On 24 April 2021, he said that the next election will “most probably” take place in April 2022 or May 2022.  But on 15 May 2021, he said that us mere (non-prophetic) mortals should “mark down” 9 October 2021 as the date for the next election.

With form like that, it would seem that your man Atkins is destined for a return to the ABC Insiders panel soon – where a prerequisite for appearing as a political “expert” is to have got the result of the 2019 election hopelessly wrong or made some other false predictions.


Jackie’s (male) co-owner was home alone last Saturday at around Gin & Tonic time when he happened to check out ABC iView – in particular, the documentary Inconceivable.  It was shown on the ABC TV Compass program – but began its life as a product of the University of Melbourne’s Faculty of Fine Arts and Music.  The director is Jayde Harding.

It turned out to be a somewhat typical documentary for the ABC about the End of the World and all that. Watching it, Hendo and Jackie wept as they realised that, if the trio interviewed at some length in Inconceivable  are correct, then we are all doomed.  And soon. Possibly before 2050 – i.e. that soon.

Inconceivable told the story of five climate concerned residents of the soviet that is the Melbourne suburb of Reservoir.  For those unfamiliar with Hendo’s home town – Reservoir is north of Brunswick which is north of Fitzroy which is north of Carlton (where Melbourne University is located) which is north of the Melbourne CBD which is north of Southbank (just over the Yarra River where the ABC’s Melbourne headquarters is located).

Unfortunately, Hendo shed so many tears that he could not read his ink-stained notes in full – damaged by flood, as they were.  But this seems to have been the message of Violet and Christine and Cameron as they await the End of the World – as told to Compass viewers (if viewers there were).

  • Violet proclaims that the best way to protect children is not to bring them into the world.   She wants to have kids but only if we manage to fix “what’s going on” with global warming. She cries.  But Violet declares: “I feel like I work really hard in my activism because hopefully that will mean I have a place where I feel safe to have children”. [Perhaps she could relocate with her partner to China where the masses are now being encouraged to have families of three children.  Just a thought – MWD Editor.]
  • Christine asks: “What would two degrees of warming look like?  What would four degrees of warming look like?”  She reckons it “actually could mean famine and us actually not being able to have enough water or enough food” – like a famine or a war. Christine concedes that sometimes she “sounds like I’m paranoid or in a cult”.  Well, at least there’s nothing wrong with Christine’s self-perception.  Oh yes – Christine also believes “we’re gonna be invaded” and is planning “to start stockpiling”.  Christine doesn’t say what she will stockpile first. Sandals, perhaps?

The problem you see, is that Christine has what she terms “four carbon producing children”. It’s not clear if they produce anything else.  In any event, the family is moving to New Zealand “where they’re taking climate seriously”.   In short, she just can’t deal with being here (in Australia) any longer.  Apparently, no one has told Christine that Australia is reducing carbon dioxide emissions at a much faster rate than in the Land of the Long White (and Rapidly Heating) Cloud and Ever-Farting Cows.  Apparently Christine now listens to Radio National on her solar powered radio somewhere in Jacinda Ardern Land.

  • And then there is Cameron who opines that “it’s hard to plan for the future”. He asks: (i) “Are we talking about an end of civilisation? or (ii) are we talking about an end of species situation? or (iii) are we talking about ‘business as usual can continue?’” It appears to be that, after his daughter Elka finishes up at Reservoir High School, Cameron will buy Elka “a bit of land and a bit of property…so she can feed herself basically”. Cameron concedes that this sounds “batshit insane”. Which, when you think about it , is a bit unfair to bats – including Reservoir ones who seem more sane than some members of the Sandalista Set.

Cameron then declares that “we let not only ourselves down but we let the planet down and we let animals down” – including Reservoir bats, apparently.  He admits to being “frigging angry”. And then cries.

* * * * *

Jackie’s (male) co-owner would have reached for another Gin & Tonic after watching Inconceivable but realised that he could only have attained another if he still had some Gin and if he still had some Tonic.  However, since the End of the World was obviously nigh – it made sense to attack the wine cellar.  Meanwhile Jackie (Dip Wellness, The Gunnedah Institute) rejoiced that she is pupless and hence would not have to move to New Zealand – where, according to Inconceivable,  the World will End two hours earlier than in Reservoir due to Australian Eastern Standard Time.


Lotsa Media Watch Dog’s avid readers have asked Jackie’s (male) co-owner to “Take Their Names” with reference to the “DoBetterOnPalestine” petition which was issued as an “Open Letter from journalists, media workers, writers and commentators” on 14 May 2021.

In their Open Letter, the signatories called on the Australian media to avoid what they termed “both-siderism” in the debate over Israel.  Meaning that if, once again, the terrorist group Hamas indiscriminately fires thousands of rockets from Gaza into that part of Israel which has been part of the Jewish state since 1948 – then Australian journalists and media commentators should report Hamas’ side of this dispute – but not Israel’s.

So who are the signatories who oppose “both-siderism” and who wrote an Open Letter which did not once mention the fact that Hamas commenced the recent conflict when it fired rockets from Gaza aiming to kill as many Israeli citizens and residents as possible?

Here is a list of some of the better-known opponents of “both-siderism” when it comes to reporting the Hamas/Israel conflict – a familiar lot of mainly Green/Left types.

Jennine Khalik, Antony Loewenstein, Osman Faruqi, Sami Shah, Amy Remeikis, Greg Jericho, Ben Eltham, Tom Ballard, Paddy Manning, Bernard Keane, Rick Morton, Benjamin Law, Marieke Hardy, Jeff Sparrow, Yumi Stynes, First Dog on the Moon, Jon Kudelka, Mary Kostakidis, Louise Adler, Ben Butler, Josh Taylor, Scott Ludlam, Rob Stott, Maddison Connaughton, Dominic Kelly, Mike Carlton, Dan Ilic, Fiona Katauskas, Alison Croggon, Lee Tulloch, Paul Syvret, Scott Burchill, Bryan Dawe, Sara Dowse, Michael Bradley, Miriam Cosic, Antony (Tony) Walker, Ben Downie, Joanna Mendelssohn, Peter Logue, Fiona Wright, Matthew Sainsbury, David Brophy.


* * * * *

Until next time.

* * * * *