ISSUE – NO. 611

28 October 2022

* * * *

* * * *


It was yet another left-of-centre stack on Q+A  last night. Senator Katy Gallagher (the Minister for Finance) was on the panel along with Senator Jane Hume (the Shadow Minister for Finance).  The third politician was the Independent Dai Le – whom the ABC all but ignored during the May 2022 election until she defeated Labor’s Kristina Keneally and won the seat of Fowler in Sydney’s west.  But that’s where the balance ended.

The remainder of the panel was made up of left-of-centre types.  Namely, author and journalist George Megalogenis who is a long-time Coalition critic and Sonia Arakkal – the co-founder of Think Forward lobby group for international fairness. The biographical notes stated that “she has worked as a political staffer for state and federal parliamentarians” – but did not say which ones.  They are the Hon Ben Wyatt and the Hon Tim Watts – Labor MPs from Western Australia and Victoria respectively.

The most senior members of the panel were Senator Gallagher, Senator Hume and Ms Le.  But presenter Stan Grant, who criticised both Gallagher and Hume at times from the left-of-centre perspective, allowed Megalogenis to dominate the panel on occasions. One of his comments criticising the Coalition ran uninterrupted for 80 seconds.

Jane Hume did very well in view of the fact that she had to take on the Minister plus the two left-of-centre commentators on the panel along with, at times, the presenter.

At one stage Stan Grant encouraged the panel to join Senator Gallagher in laughing at Senator Hume.  Let’s go to the transcript when the discussion turned on Australia’s carbon emissions:

Jane Hume: Now, we believe in a net zero emissions world. We want to see emissions [Katy Gallagher laughing] reduced. You can laugh all you like, but we’ve committed to it. And not only have we committed to it, but when we were in government, that emissions reduction was – affordability was also at the heart of a low emissions policy. Now –

Stan Grant: [interjecting] George, you are looking –

Jane Hume: Hang on. Hang on.

Stan Grant: – very sceptical there [laughing].

Jane Hume: You can look as sceptical as you like, but –

Katy Gallagher: [interjecting] Yeah, we are.

Jane Hume: – what we’re seeing now is the rush to replace all existing baseline power – the reliable power, the cheaper power, the affordable power – with renewables, at a rate that is so fast that we’re –

Stan Grant: [interjecting] Ok –

Jane Hume: – seeing price shocks.

Stan Grant: – George.

George Megalogenis: Where do you want me to start? [laughing]

Katy Gallagher: Yeah, that is such rubbish.

George Megalogenis: So, we can’t – I mean – with the greatest respect –

Stan Grant: [interjecting] Start, first of all, on why –

George Megalogenis: – to Jane, with the greatest respect.

Stan Grant:  – we are seeing these increases now and could we have got there faster if we’d seen more action previously?

So, after interrupting Senator Hume, Stan Grant invited the laughing George Megalogenis to criticise the Coalition senator.  This is when he made his 80 second rant against the Coalition.  Your man Megalogenis even suggested that the Coalition was responsible for “the fire, the flood, the flood and the flood”.  This despite the fact that Australia produces just over one per cent of total global emissions.

When the author and journalist eventually came up for a breath, the following exchange took place:

Jane Hume: Hang on, you’ve gotta give, I’ve gotta –

George Megalogenis: [interjecting] No, no, no, sorry –

Jane Hume: – I need a break and I need a go. Because we did reduce emissions by 20 per cent at a time when the – at the time when the economy has already – had doubled in size. We were not –

Katy Gallagher: [interjecting] Nobody believes you.

Jane Hume: – just meeting our Paris targets, but we were beating our Paris targets. And we did commit to net zero by 2050 –

George Megalogenis: [interjecting] But I – I – I don’t want to get –

Jane Hume: But we did it in a –

George Megalogenis: – into a political exchange with you.

Jane Hume: – sensible way, in a measured way, that isn’t causing your power bills to go up the way they are now.

George Megalogenis: Just hold on. So, I don’t want to get in a political exchange, and I just – again, let’s just try and stick with – because we all know what happened in the last nine years.

How unprofessional can a left-of-centre Q+A panellist get?  And how can a supposedly impartial Q+A  presenter let this go?  Comrade Megalogenis told the Coalition senator to “hold on” since he did not want to get into a political exchange with her.  But the left-of-centre panellist had already laughed at Senator Hume, interrupted her on three occasions and bagged the Coalition in a manifestly partisan political manner.

As MWD has commented on many occasions – you wonder why Coalition politicians go on Q+A – where even good performers like Jane Hume are subjected to constant interruptions along with ridicule.  No wonder Q+A viewers are so few.  For starters, it seems clear that the program has lost many, many conservative (one-time) viewers. For obvious reasons.



What a stunning performance on ABC TV 7.30 last night when Sarah Ferguson interviewed Peter Dutton about his speech in reply to Tuesday’s budget.  Comrade Ferguson interrupted the Opposition leader on no fewer than 20 occasions in a 14 minute 30 second interview.  This was twice the number of times Sarah Ferguson interrupted Treasurer Jim Chalmers over the same period of time on Tuesday 25 October.

MWD’s fave interruption occurred early in the interview. Let’s go to the transcript:

Peter Dutton:  We had a record of investment into renewables.  We’ve got the highest uptake on a –

Sarah Ferguson: [interrupting] I’m sorry, I will interrupt. Forgive me because it’s important…

So there you have it.  Comrade Ferguson truly believes that her interruptions are oh-so-important. Quelle Surprise!  Later in the interview Mr Dutton managed to accuse Ms Ferguson of running “the Labor line” on nuclear energy.  Who would have thought such a thing of an ABC presenter?

[Perhaps this should have been run in your hugely popular Can You Bear It? segment. Just a thought.  MWD Editor.]

Can You Bear It?


As avid Media Watch Dog readers know well, the ABC is a Conservative Free Zone without one conservative presenter, producer or editor for any of its prominent television, radio or online outlets.  ABC senior management and senior staff deny this – but no one has been able to identify a prominent ABC conservative.

So, it is befitting that at the start of each week Phillip (“I was a teenage, or perhaps young adult, communist”) Adams interviews Laura (“The Morrison government was into ideological bastardry”) Tingle on his little wireless program “Late Night Live” on ABC Radio National Breakfast at the beginning of each week.

And so it came to pass that on Monday 24 October Comrade Adams spoke to La Tingle about politics on the eve of the October 2020 budget.  The discussion took place against a background in which many a comrade in The Guardian/ABC Axis had called for the abolition of the Stage 3 tax cuts scheduled to come into effect in 2024 – and barracked for an even faster transition to renewables, accompanied by the reduction in Australia’s reliance on fossil fuels, than the Albanese Government has promised.

Discussion turned on whether the Labor government would honour its election promise.  Laura Tingle said that the Albanese government would try to do so but drew a fine line between one set of promises and others.  Let’s go to the transcript:

Phillip Adams: There’s plenty of precedent, of course, for a Treasurer saying that they can’t afford the promises that have been made. Is that the path we’ll go down?

Laura Tingle: I don’t think so Phillip. I think the government will deliver on most of the promises it’s made. I mean, they’re – the Coalition’s – saying: “Oh, well, it [the Albanese government] promised that energy prices would fall by a couple of 100 bucks.”  Now, that’s, that’s sort of one of those promises that you can’t actually legislate or anything… it’s an aspiration. But I think in terms of any promises they’ve made about increased childcare assistance, and things like that, those promises will be met….

How about that?  Laura Tingle told the ABC’s Man-in-Black that Labor’s commitment to reduce power bills by $275 a year by 2030 is not a promise – but merely “an aspiration”.  By the time the budget came around the following day, it was evident that Labor would soon break this promise, er, aspiration.

Then the ABC TV 7.30’s  political correspondent described the Stage 3 tax cuts – which were legislated by the Coalition government and subsequently promised by Labor – as “just barking mad”.  A sophisticated analysis, don’t you think?  In any event, La Tingle believes that Labor will break this promise – and that’s okay, apparently.  For the record, Labor has not said that the promise will be broken.

La Tingle went on to suggest that the Coalition’s infrastructure promises were “dodgy” and added that “some of these projects are basically only adding to inflation because there aren’t enough people to build the infrastructure projects due, in part, to supply chain problems in the construction sector”.

Really. The 7.30’s political correspondent supports the 43 per cent cut to emissions by 2030 resulting from the construction of expansive wind and solar farms along with the building of transmission lines throughout the land to take renewable energy (including hydropower) to join the various electricity grids.  But La Tingle maintains that there’s not enough people available to support the infrastructure to build a few car parks promised by the Morrison government. Can You Bear It?

[No, not really – now that you ask.  I note that this session was followed by a discussion on contemporary British politics where the panel comprised Ian Dunt (columnist with the “I” newspaper) and Naomi Smith (chief executive of Best for Britain). Needless to say both comprehensively bagged the Conservative Party. No other view was heard.  How very ABC – MWD Editor.]


In the wake of the budget, on 27 October Patricia (“Call me PK”) Karvelas interviewed Mike Cannon-Brookes – he of what Paul Keating was wont to call the Hyphenated-Name-Set of Sydney’s Eastern suburbs.

It seems to have been one of those mornings when PK gives soft political interviews.  But then, her political talent that morning consisted of Jim Chalmers and Tony Burke – along with by Greens leader Adam Bandt, followed by M C-B.

Your man Cannon-Brookes certainly gave clean-energy a bit of a boost – assisted along by some soft questions from Comrade Karvelas.  Here’s how the interview commenced:

Patricia Karvelas: Have you been worrying about how you’ll pay your electricity bill next year when it goes up by 50 per cent. If you’re still in a state of shock over the news you’re probably not alone. The federal government is so worried about these big price rises it’s contemplating regulatory intervention in the market to force prices down.  The man you’re about to hear from, software billionaire and clean energy investor Mike Cannon-Brookes, argues it’s more evidence of the need for Australia to speed up its transition to renewables. Mike Cannon-Brookes, welcome to Breakfast.

Mike Cannon-Brookes: Hi PK, how are you doing?

Patricia Karvelas: Were you shocked when you saw the budget projections around the increase of the cost of energy bills over the next twelve months?

Talk about a soft question.  Mike Cannon-Brookes went into advocacy mode and plugged increasing renewables as an antidote to increasing energy prices.  PK did not ask M C-B how it is that Australia has never had more renewables in the energy system and yet has never had higher energy prices.  But it was not that kind of interview.

In fact, Comrade Karvelas gave the billionaire from Point Piper, who owns the most expensive house in Australia and has quite a substantial environmental footprint, a free kick to state what he wanted to say.  No other view was heard. Can You Bear It?


While on the topic of renewables and all that, did anyone see the article in the AFR Weekend on 22 October written by Mark Ludlow and Angela Macdonald-Smith titled “Modelling questions Vic grand plan”?  Here’s how it commenced:

The Victorian government is banking on “green hydrogen” gas generation to replace coal-fired power for crucial firming capacity when it is pushed out of the state’s grid by 2035. With the energy sector still reeling from the Andrews government’s plan to revive the State Electricity Commission to invest in clean energy projects, AFR Weekend can reveal that unproven hydrogen technology underpins its plan to reach 95 per cent renewable energy by mid-next decade.

The modelling prepared for the government also claims Victoria’s ambitious plan would deliver an extra $9.5 billion in gross state product and deliver an extra 59,214 jobs by mid-next decade. But this is based on Victorian offshore wind targets of 4 gigawatts by 2035 and 9 gigawatts by 2040 being achieved, as well as key transmission projects such as the Kerang Link interconnector (from the Snowy Mountains to Melbourne) and the Marinus Link interconnector to Tasmania being delivered on time over the next 13 years.

How about that? The modelling produced for the Andrews government says that Victoria will benefit to the tune of 59,214 jobs by 2035. Not 59,215 or even 59,213 jobs. But exactly 59,214 positions by 2035.  And many members of The Guardian/ABC Axis – like PK and her fellow comrade Murpharoo (aka Katharine Murphy) – present as followers of (environmental) modelling fashion. Can You Bear It?


The Guardian is an avowedly leftist newspaper. It was born in Manchester in 1821 and remains so today (based in London since 1959). The Guardian Australia (editor Lenore Taylor, political editor Katharine Murphy), which commenced in 2013, is a comradely Australian chip off the comradely British block.

So it is no surprise that The Guardian Australia has a weekly (Thursday – in fact) slot on ABC Radio National Breakfast.  Murpharoo is the go-to Guardian commentator. But when she is away, say, writing another essay for the leftist Black Inc company – MWD fave Amy Remeikis holds the fort.  Comrade Remeikis (The Guardian’s political reporter based in Canberra) is a Guardian wage slave – re which see MWD passim ad nauseam.

On 27 February, Murpharoo – believe it or not – used her Thursday appearance to criticise the fact that “Australians have experienced anaemic wage outcomes for years”.  Comrade Murpharoo told Comrade PK that “business will stand to lose because they’ve had a whip-hand for the best part of ten years” and maintained that wages need to increase “for the good of the economy and for the good of working families”.

Comrade Murphy then went on to deliver her predictable weekly rant against the Coalition.  During which she showed no shame in holding a senior position at The Guardian which, in the words of Nine’s “CBD” column, pays its employees notoriously low wages.  Can You Bear It?


As avid readers are well aware, a certain William (Bill) Thompson – a Melburnian who identifies as the ABC’s Southbank Correspondent – set up the “Outside Insiders” video segment in pre-pandemic times some years ago.  This is a print edition of the Bill Thompson initiative to report on the ABC TV Insiders program.


As Media Watch Dog  has pointed out previously, The Guardian/ABC Axis was on an equal record-breaking 83 per cent on Sunday 16 October.  A week later, it was down to 50 per cent.  All very comradely when it is remembered that The Guardian Australia is a niche avowedly left-wing online newspaper. And yet Guardian journalists appear regularly on the ABC. While many political conservatives have been cancelled by the taxpayer funded public broadcaster.

On 23 October, The Guardian reps on Insiders were Katharine (“Malcolm calls me Murpharoo”) Murphy and Mike Bowers (who presents the “Talking Pictures” segment) with presenter David (“Please call me Speersy”) Speers as the sole ABC representative.

It is a truth universally known (to borrow a phrase from the late Miss Austen) that Coalition politicians interviewed by Speersy on Insiders are more frequently interrupted than Labor politicians. Any taxpayer subsidised fact-checker reading this can compare the recent interviews with Treasurer Jim Chalmers (26 June) and Finance Minister Katy Gallagher (29 May) to those with Opposition Leader Peter Dutton and Shadow Treasurer Angus Taylor. Mr Chalmers and Senator Gallagher received soft interviews.

It was Mr Taylor’s turn on 23 October – he was interrupted by Speersy once every minute. As avid Media Watch Dog readers are aware, recently on ABC Radio Melbourne presenter Virginia Trioli pulled Comrades Speers’ name out of the taxpayer funded public broadcaster’s hat when asked to name a prominent conservative within the ABC.

Certainly, your man Speers does not present as a political conservative on ABC TV. Interviewing Angus Taylor, Speers initially ran the Labor Party’s line on the economy. Now, it’s perfectly understandable why Labor wants to attack the Coalition on economic matters. But ABC presenters are expected to be balanced.

Speers attempted to force Angus Taylor into stating that the Coalition government had performed poorly and had left a decade long structural deficit (Speers made no reference to the fact that Labor, when in opposition, had supported the Covid-19 spending). Speers also attempted to compare the Coalition’s (modest) proposed spending on carparks and regional grants with Labor’s massive promise to spend $2.2 billion on the outer suburban rail loop in Melbourne. Speers also opposed the Coalition’s legislated Stage 3 tax cuts and incorrectly declared that Taylor’s claim about the projected inflation rate in 2024, when the Stage 3 tax cuts are scheduled to take effect, was false.

Then, the Insiders presenter verballed Taylor by stating: “You’re happy for the gas companies to keep charging whatever they want.” Speers also asked Taylor whether he knew how much tax gas companies are currently paying – in spite of the fact that this information is not currently available.

And so it went on. If all these matters had been fired at Angus Taylor by Jim Chalmers in a debate, this would have been understandable. But David Speers is not paid to present as a Labor operative on a Sunday morning.

The “highlights” of Insiders on 23 October, in MWD’s judgment were:

  • The failure, once again, of David Speers and his executive producer Samuel Clark to raise the issue of the cost to consumers and businesses of Labor’s commitment to reduce Australia’s carbon emissions by 43 per cent by 2030. Also, Insiders panellists were not asked by Speersy about the difficulty of achieving the target. On Q&A on 20 October, Chris Bowen (Minister for Climate Change and Energy) gave some idea of the task ahead. Here it is:

Chris Bowen: …. we have 86 months between now and 2030…to get to 43 per cent. 43 per cent reduction would be the biggest economic transformation our country has seen since the war. To give you an idea of the sort of things we need to do to meet it. We need to put 60 million solar panels on roofs between now and 2030. That’s as much as we’ve done in the last 10 years, again, in the next eight. We need to put 40 wind turbines up a month. Obviously, that’s more than a wind turbine a day. This is a massive task.

MWD stands to be corrected – but it is of the view that the cost and difficulty of meeting the 43 per cent target – or even the Morrison government’s slightly lower target for 2030 has not been discussed at any length on what presents as Australia’s leading current affairs discussion program.  However, on 23 October Insiders’ viewers learnt of Nine’s Shane Wright’s trivial and somewhat inane comments on the colour of the 2022 Budget papers. Fancy that.

  • MWD just loved this comment by The Guardian Australia’s Murpharoo towards the end of the program:

Katharine Murphy: Well, it’s just a simple moral to the story, isn’t it? Like, the – the Tory party in Britain became a post-truth party with the whole debate around Brexit. Many, many lies were told. Once you start telling lies, you can’t stop. And we’ve seen that escalate and play out over this cycle which puts us in the shade, something I never thought I would say.

David Speers: [laughing] There you go.

Yes, there you go. And there you have it – according to Murpharoo.  The sandal-wearing leftists at The Guardian in London speak “the truth”.  Whereas the Conservative Party in Britain is into “post-truth” mode and just tells lies.   It’s as simple – and simplistic – as that. Rishi Sunak, Britain’s new prime minister who supported Brexit, is a congenital liar –  according to this view.  So much so that Murpharoo now believes that Britain is worse than Australia – and that’s very bad coming from a member of the Sandalista/Guardianista soviet.

* * * * *

Stand by for further episodes of MWD’s hugely popular “Outside Insiders” segment.

As avid readers are all-too-well aware, Media Watch Dog believes in the dictum that it’s unwise to make predictions. Especially about the future.

Nine’s Shane Wright has risen without trace (as the late Kitty Muggeridge once said about the late David Frost) to become the senior economics correspondent for The Age and Sydney Morning Herald – not having published anything of note apart from newspaper articles and columns plus the occasional essay. Even so, you would expect a person in such an elevated position to know about the international energy market.

It’s only a few years since your man Wright ridiculed anyone who said that coal had any future as a part of energy supply – even in such markets as India, China and Indonesia.  He declared on ABC TV Insiders  on 11 June 2017 that “coal is like candlesticks” and compared those who said that there is still a demand for Australian coal exports with members of the Candle Makers Union circa 1870 who (allegedly) argued the case for candles over electricity. Now read on.


While on the topic of Nine’s Shane Wright, did anyone read the report in Nine’s Australian Financial Review on 21 October by Michael Smith titled “Japan wants our coal, gas for decades”. It commenced as follows:

A top Japanese business leader and former head of Nippon Steel says Australian coal and gas will remain vital for Japan’s energy needs for decades, but fears the lack of new investment in fossil fuels threatens the country’s energy security. Akio Mimura, the chairman of the Japan Chamber of Commerce of Industry who has overseen major investments in Australia, said it was vital that Japan maintained secure supplies of energy sources with Australia at a time when his country’s power needs looked increasingly fragile.

“Japan is in a fragile situation at the moment, and its trust-based relationship with Australia is very important,” Mr Mimura told The Australian Financial Review  in Tokyo…. Mr Mimura said balance was needed in investment decisions as the world decarbonises, and Japan was worried thermal coal would run out if investment continued to decline. He said Australian coal and LNG would play a critical role in Japan’s energy needs during the transition.

How about that?  Akio Mimura says that Japan needs to import Australian coal and gas for what he said was “a long time”.  Clearly, unlike your man Wright, Mr Mimura does not believe that Japan can rely on, er, candle sticks to achieve secure energy.

Believe it or not, despite his claim that coal in the early 21st Century is the equivalent of candlesticks in the late 19th Century, Shane Wright holds the post of senior economic correspondent for The Age  and Sydney Morning Herald where he writes occasionally on energy matters.

Due to overwhelming popular demand, the Flann O’Brien Gong returns again this week. As avid MWD readers will be aware, this occasional segment is inspired by the Irish humourist Brian O’Nolan (1911-1966) – nom de plume Flann O’Brien – and, in particular, his critique of the sometimes incoherent poet Ezra Pound. By the way, your man O’Brien also had the good sense not to take seriously Eamon de Valera (1882-1975), the Fianna Fail politician and dreadful bore who was prime minister and later president of Ireland for far too long.

The Flann O’Brien Gong for Literary or Verbal Sludge is devoted to outing bad writing or incomprehensible prose or incoherent verbal expression or the use of pretentious words.


What a stunning performance by musician/comedian/actor/writer/composer Tim Minchin on the ABC Radio National Breakfast program. During an interview with Patricia Karvelas on 24 October, discussion turned to the controversy about corporate support for the arts and sporting events.  This followed the decision by Gina Rinehart to drop Hancock Resources’ $15 million over four years funding for Netball Australia after a member of the Australian Diamonds initially refused to play in an outfit which bore the name Hancock Resources and was supported by other team members.

This led PK (as she likes to be called) to ask your man Minchin: “Can we talk about how art is financed?”.  PK drew attention to the decision by mining/energy companies Chevron and Santos to end financial support for the Perth Festival and the Darwin Festival, respectively.  PK asked Comrade Minchin as to whether he thought that “we’re reaching a tipping point in these issues”.  Let’s go to the transcript:

Tim Minchin: Certainly, looks like we are. Um, and I – I think all movement towards not relying on fossil fuels is what we want, including not relying on them to sponsor our art. I – I’m a sort of, utilitarian, so, anytime – anytime we take actions that make us feel better – but where the causality of change is difficult to, kind of, interrogate or litigate, that – I – I get uncomfortable. But I – I think, probably, it’s sum total good. But I’m – the worst possible case is we make ourselves good by making sure we don’t go to arts stuff sponsored by Woodside, um, but all that actually happens is Woodside keeps doing what it’s doing. But they don’t give any money to the arts. So, you know –

Patricia Karvelas: [interjecting] It’s a conundrum.

Tim Minchin: It’s a conundrum. So, you need to really find where the causality is, and it’s a little bit grey. But I think, on the whole of course, we want to move on.

What a load of verbal sludge.  A conundrum, indeed. Comrade Minchin appears to hold a modern day Saint Augustine position – as in “Lord make me pure on fossil fuels, but not quite yet.”  At least this would be consistent with the short to medium continuation of Minchin’s giant environmental footprint on this land – as he continues to produce fossil fuel powered musical, film and theatre productions and to make lotsa use of microphones and electrical instruments as he flies around the world in carbon dioxide emitting airplanes.

Then PK raised the issue of your man Minchin’s fave Australian Football League team the Fremantle Dockers.  Comrade Karvelas pointed out that “a group of high profile supporters” (it included author Tim Winton and former Labor premier Carmen Lawrence) had signed an open letter calling on Fremantle to end its partnership with Woodside Energy.

Whereupon the musician/comedian/actor/writer/composer threw the switch to incoherence.  His position seemed to be that if the likes of Woodside “quickly transition to sustainable energy” then it was worth rejecting Woodside moolah.  But if Woodside remained a mining company, then the Fremantle Dockers should keep the money because rejecting it would have no short-term or long-term purpose. Minchin continued:

Notice when we’re being splenative [laughing] to use a Shakespearean word on morning radio [when discussing feelings]. And – and always litigate your own processes. But [laughing] my – I don’t want people to think I don’t – I don’t want people to – we all want the same thing. We want fossil fuels to go away. Um, so what is the best way to that? If stopping corporate sponsorship of sport and art is a really effective way to put pressure on fossil fuel corporations to transition, then, yeah, I’m all up for it.

So that’s all clear then – in a Tim Minchin verbal sludge kind of way.  Tim Minchin wants fossil fuels to go away – except when he wants them to stay.

Here is the view of Jackie (Dip. Wellness, The Gunnedah Institute):

Literary Criticism
By Flann O’Brien
of Ezra Pound

My grasp of what he wrote and meant
Was only five or six %
The rest was only words and sound —
My reference is to Ezra £

Inspired by your man O’Brien, this is Jackie’s literary effort for today:

Literary Criticism
By Jackie
of Tim Minchin

My grasp of what he said or meant
Was only four or five per cent
His view on mining’s just a whim
The reference is to Comrade Tim

A well-deserved award, to be sure.  As I recall, Tim Minchin also won this (prestigious) gong on 18 June 2021 for a rant on ABC TV’s One Plus One show (aka “Tosh Plus Tosh”) where he spoke at (incomprehensible) length about, yes, identity.  See here.


Until next time