ISSUE – NO. 643

14 July 2023

* * * *

* * * *


Media Watch Dog turned on ABC TV’s News Breakfast this morning to hear this EXCLUSIVE about the governor of the Reserve Bank.

Michael Rowland: Chantelle, breaking news, as I mentioned. What more do we know?

Chantelle Al-Khouri: Well, Michael, as you mentioned, the National Cabinet is expected to meet this morning to decide the successor of Philip Lowe. We know an announcement by the federal treasurer, Jim Chalmers, is expected to follow that meeting, and that Jim Chalmers has been consulting on this decision for months. And that Cabinet is now opting for a change. We know that Philip Lowe’s term was set to end in September, and that’s after 7 years in the top job.

Michael Rowland: News Breakfast, the only show to watch…full credit to David Speers who actually broke the story.

Strange. Samantha Louise Maiden of posted at around 6.30 this morning that Philip Lowe’s position at the Reserve Bank of Australia would not be renewed.  And Laura Tingle suggested on 7.30 last night that Michele Bullock was the likely replacement.  Neither Ms Maiden nor La Tingle claimed an exclusive.

By the way, contrary to News Breakfast, the decision about the Reserve Bank governor was made by the Albanese government – not by what is termed the national cabinet which involves the states and territories.


As was reported in The Australian yesterday and has been covered by Ben Fordham’s 2GB Breakfast  program, the ABC has put up the white flag in the defamation case waged against it by Heston Russell.  In 2020 and 2021 the taxpayer funded public broadcaster claimed that the former Special Forces commando had shot an unarmed prisoner.

As documented today on the 2GB website, the ABC could not support the claim with evidence or establish any other defence.  As a result, the ABC will hand out another lump of taxpayers’ money as a consequence of unprofessionalism.  There will be more detailed analysis in the next issue of Media Watch Dog.


Media Watch Dog maintains that there is more debate in News Corp newspapers and on Sky News than occurs in the conservative-free zone that is the ABC.  So it was good to see that, on 10 July, The Australian  published an article by Judith Brett, the Emeritus Professor of Politics at La Trobe University, on the Voice.  Dr Brett (for a doctor she is) is the former co-editor – with Guy Rundle – of the left-wing Arena Magazine.  Her piece was in response to a column by Professor Geoffrey Blainey published in The Weekend Australian on 1 July.  Here’s how it commenced:

I have great respect for Geoffrey Blainey as a historian and fond memories of his insistence in lectures on the importance of undergraduates attending to their prose. But the jumbled list of arguments he put forward against voting Yes in the forthcoming referendum was not a fine mind at its finest. He wants us to get our facts in order, and he needs to as well….

How’s that for condescension?  Comrade Brett praises Geoffrey Blainey for his focus on history students attending to their prose in decades past.  But she maintains that his Weekend Australian column was jumbled and that he failed to get his facts in order.  Elsewhere, Brett referred to Blainey making a “ludicrous parallel”. Jumble here – ludicrous there. Otherwise, Brett has “great respect” for her former teacher. How about that?

So, what’s an example of non-jumbled history with its facts in order produced by a fine mind like Dr Brett which is devoid of ludicrous parallels? – MWD hears avid readers cry.

Well, try this.  In her book Robert Menzies’ Forgotten People, a work of psychobiography published in 1992, Brett wrote about Robert Menzies’ anti-communism.  Her psychobiographical understanding led her to the view that “much anti-communist rhetoric” can be traced to “the anal erotic imagery of the attack from behind”.  Really.

Consequently, Brett effectively dismissed the possibility that Menzies’ anti-communism might have been driven by his understanding that such communist totalitarian dictators as Lenin, Stalin and Mao had brought about the deaths of literally millions of individuals. To her, Menzies’ anti-communism can be explained because he was fearful of male rape.  And today Professor Brett reckons that Geoffrey Blainey draws “ludicrous parallels”.  Talk about a lack of self-awareness.  Can You Bear It?

[For a full account of Brett on Menzies, avid readers would be well advised to read the section “With Freuds Like These…” in Gerard Henderson’s Menzies Child: The Liberal Party of Australia (HarperCollins, 1998 pp 168-170).  MWD Editor.]


Just imagine for a moment that the parents of a 17-year old British teenager complained that the child had been paid a sum of £35,000 by the Archbishop of Canterbury or the editor of the Catholic newspaper in London, The Tablet, to provide sexually provocative photographs. Without question, this would result in an enormous controversy about the abuse of power – even though no criminal offence had occurred.

It would seem that a different standard applies when such a financial inducement is made by a prominent journalist at the BBC.

At 6.15 am yesterday, Hamish Macdonald – who was presenting the ABC Radio National Breakfast  program – interviewed the British commentator Alastair Campbell.  He was described as “host of The Rest is Politics  podcast; columnist; mental health campaigner”. It had just been revealed that leading BBC broadcaster Huw Edwards had been named – by his wife Vicky Flind – as the person involved.  The story had been broken by The Sun in London – a News Corp publication.

In a long interview, when asked about the controversy, your man Campbell did not proffer one word of criticism about Edwards’ unprofessional behaviour.  This is how the interview commenced:

Hamish Macdonald: Australians won’t have watched this anywhere near as closely as Brits have. It’s been wall to wall coverage for days. Can you help us understand what has unfolded?

Alastair Campbell: Oh my God, it’s complicated because I do think this is as much a story about our media and its ability to lose perspective very, very quickly when there is a story about the media. So, The Sun newspaper, one of the Murdoch papers, ran a story almost a week ago now, uh, unnamed BBC presenter that they accused of – you know, they said at the time they were talking about criminal activity, uh, involving a young man they said, and, uh, explicit – sexually explicit pictures. Um, since when, there’s been a kind of relentless kind of guessing game. Rishi Sunak, the Prime Minister, has piled in and Suella Braverman, the Home Secretary, has piled in. And the rest of the media has just been, sort of, you know, in meltdown….

How about that?  Alastair Campbell offered not one word of criticism or even disapproval about Mr Edwards – whose substantial salary is paid by a compulsory levy charged to viewers/listeners of the British public broadcaster.  Edwards’ behaviour with respect to the young man was rationalised with respect to his mental health problems.  Rather, Campbell’s criticism turned on “Murdoch and his newspapers that hate the BBC”.  Campbell put it this way:

Alastair Campbell: I have a very, very strong sense that an awful lot of people think this is as much a story about The Sun than it is about the BBC and Huw Edwards.

What a load of absolute tosh.  Some years ago, BBC News put a helicopter in the air when it received a tip from the Metropolitan Police (MET) that there was a raid on the home of Cliff Richard following allegations of child sexual abuse – which turned out to be false.  However, there is evidence that the BBC covered up the crimes of its high-profile presenter Jimmy Savile – who was a high-offending pedophile.  So the British public broadcaster seems to have one rule for the likes of Richard and another for its own like the late and unlamented Savile.

With respect to Huw Edwards – who presents the BBC’s 10 pm News – it’s a matter of nothing-to-see-here to the likes of Campbell.  It is as if it’s quite okay for a 61-year-old man to behave in this manner concerning a 17-year-old teenager.  By the way, neither Campbell nor Macdonald expressed any interest in the mental health of the 17-year-old. There have been additional complaints against Edwards since this controversy broke.

Towards the conclusion of the (10-minute) interview, Hamish Macdonald asked Campbell this question:

Hamish Macdonald: I know you’ve had, as you mentioned, many, uh, different arguments and fights with the Murdoch media. Is there any penalty for them if it does turn out that they got this wrong?

Alastair Campbell: No, not really….

Comrade Macdonald did not explain what The Sun had done that was “wrong” in reporting a story which is in the public interest. But it is unlikely that the Macdonald/Campbell duo would have shifted the blame if it was the Archbishop of Canterbury or the editor of The Tablet  who had engaged in such unprofessional behaviour. Can You Bear It?

[I note that Hamish Macdonald discussed the Huw Edwards case again on RN Breakfast this morning. This time he interviewed the former Guardian editor
Alan Rusbridger who ran much the same line as Comrade Campbell.  Perhaps you could cover this in the next issue. – MWD Editor.]


The Macdonald/Campbell interview took place on the morning of 13 July.  The previous evening, Campbell had been the recipient of a soft interview from Sarah Ferguson on the ABC TV’s 7.30 program. Your man Campbell, whose claim to fame was as a high-profile staffer to British Labour prime minister Tony Blair, was interviewed on the occasion of the release of his latest book But What Can I Do?

In fact, Campbell used the occasion to attack political conservatives.  Namely, former British prime minister Boris Johnson and his successor Rishi Sunak, plus Scott Morrison, plus Donald J. Trump – along with Australians Lynton Crosby and a man Campbell called “Levido” (are currently advising the Conservative Party in Britain).  The latter reference is to Isaac Levido – the Australian political strategist who headed the Conservatives’ campaign in the 2019 British general elections.  It is not clear how Campbell or Macdonald expected listeners (if listeners there were) to know this.

Early on in the interview, Comrade Ferguson embraced the fashionable left-wing position about “truth” which essentially entails that left-of-centre types speak the truth while right-of-centre types are in post-truth mode.  Let’s go to the transcript:

Sarah Ferguson:  Now, post-truth politics is a central part of the book that you’ve written and also a theme of the podcast, the very successful podcast that you have in the UK. Now in the modern world it can be said to have started with the big lies of Adolf Hitler and Joseph Goebbels, all the way to Trump and Putin. I just wonder how much easier it is now to perpetrate a big lie in the age of social media.

How about that?  To Comrade Ferguson, in the modern world the “big lie” commenced with the Nazi leaders Adolf Hitler and Joseph Goebbels in Germany – and was embraced some seven decades later by Donald J. Trump in the United States and Vladimir Putin in Russia.

Well, Hitler and Goebbels were into the big lie.  However, Comrade Ferguson seems to be completely unaware of the big lies and post-truth stances of such leading communist dictators as Vladimir Lenin, Josef Stalin, Mao Zedong and more besides. Which raises the question. Can You Bear It?


While on the topic of ahistorical rants, did anyone hear Liz Storer – who presents as someone who worked for an unnamed Coalition politician in Canberra and elsewhere – on Sky News’ The Great Debate on 10 July?

Ms Storer did (yet) another rant about Ukraine, Russia and the like, following former Australian prime minister Paul Keating’s criticism of the NATO decision (now discontinued) to establish an office in Tokyo.  Let’s go to the transcript:

Liz Storer: It was so refreshing to hear Keating say what he said today. I mean, there was banging quotes in this article, he absolutely rips this up. And I take your point about his motives, we know he’s a shill for China. But that aside, what he had to say was absolutely bang on. Last time NATO decided it would be a good idea to extend – well, the war is still raging in Ukraine. They tapped Ukraine on the shoulder, one of the most corrupt countries historically in present day in the world, and said, “Wanna join NATO?”. We all know that was the lever that poked the bear. Because you’ve got Putin who always said he wanted to re-establish the borders of the USSR. And we have the current war that is waging today. This is NATO’s war….

And now for some facts. NATO never asked Ukraine to join NATO.  It was Ukraine which requested membership – in view of its justified fear of a Russian invasion of all or part of the country.  There is a degree of corruption in Ukraine – but it is not one of the most corrupt nations in the world.

As to the USSR – the Soviet Union of recent memory.  Liz Storer seems to think it’s okay that Russian leader Vladimir Putin wants to re-establish the borders of the Soviet Union.  This would include Ukraine and Georgia plus other small nations which were dragooned into the Soviet Union by the Bolshevik leaders in Moscow in 1922.  It would also mean Russia acquiring the Baltic States – Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania – which were incorporated into the USSR following the Nazi-Soviet Pact of August 1939 as a result of which the Soviet Union also conquered Eastern Poland.

Liz Storer’s attitude to Eastern and Central Europe seems to be: “Ask Putin what he wants – and then give it to him”.  She then went into a Noam Chomsky-like left-wing rant about warmongers and capitalists – while continuing to use the poking-the-bear cliché to describe NATO’s attitude to Russia. Here’s how the exchange concluded:

James Macpherson: They’re [NATO] not saying we’re gonna go sign up every Asian nation as a member of NATO.

Liz Storer: No, it will poke the other bear – which would poke the other bear.

James Macpherson: So we should just be at the whims of China and Russia?

Liz Storer: No, because unlike the United States of America, China has absolutely no history of invading other states. So to come out and say, “we are doing this to prevent them from potentially doing it for the first time in their history”. It’s far-fetched, and Keating calling it as it is. You poked Russia, you got your war in Ukraine. Now you’re trying to poke China? He’s quite right in calling this [NATO Secretary-General, Jens] Stoltenberg fellow an idiot.

It would seem that Liz Storer is totally unaware of China’s war with Vietnam in 1979 – or with India in 1962.  How idiotic is that?  More importantly, Can You Bear It?


This week it was reported in the Daily Telegraph, The Advertiser, Daily Mail, Sky News Online, as well as discussed on The Bolt Report, that Greens Senator Mehreen Faruqi has received development approval regarding one of her investment properties:

As reported in The Advertiser.

Greens Deputy Leader Mehreen Faruqi plans to bulldoze up to 20 native trees – including a type that provides crucial wildlife habitat – to subdivide her Port Macquarie investment property and build three luxury townhouses, documents show.

This story has sparked some interest for multiple reasons. Senator Faruqi is currently campaigning on rental affordability and supporting a rent freeze. A spokesperson had no comment as to whether any of the new developments will contribute to affordable housing.

The bulldozing of native trees in koala habitat has also raised some eyebrows, as Mehreen Faruqi has previously spoken out against clearing and development in koala habitat.

You won’t find any coverage of this in the SMH/Age or the ABC, however. Sure, it is not major national news. But neither is much of what you can find on ABC News Online. Amongst an interview with a former member of boy band One Direction, a story about women not dyeing their grey hair and various musings on the Barbie movie, surely the ABC could find room to cover this story.

Can You Bear It?


As avid Media Watch Dog readers are aware, ABC TV News on Sundays is destined to go national.  It would appear, then, that avid Media Watch Dog  readers can look ahead to this kind of “news” which occurred on Sunday when presenter Gemma Veness introduced Alan Kohler’s economic commentary slot on 9 July:

Gemma Veness:  Many Australians coming off fixed-term loans are facing thousands of dollars in extra monthly repayments.  Wouldn’t it be great if those loans could have been fixed for, say, 30 years?  That’s what many Americans get.  Alan Kohler takes a look at why that is not an option here.

Alan Kohler: Last month and this month, the largest number of fixed-rate loans switch to variable rate, increasing the repayments on the average mortgage by about $2,000 a month. It’s called the mortgage cliff. So this might be a good time to ask how come Australians don’t have 30 year fixed-rate mortgages like Americans do? They know what the rate is gonna be for the entire term of the loan. So how come we don’t have that? Well, the answer can be found almost 100 years ago.

So there you have it – according to Comrade Kohler – who is the finance presenter on ABC News and writes a regular column for the left-wing New Daily online newspaper which is owned by Industry Super Holdings, a superannuation fund backed by trade unions.  The Thought of Kohler maintains that the reason why many  Australians will be jumping off the mortgage cliff can be blamed on the political conservative governments led by Joseph Lyons and Robert Menzies close to a century ago. Fair dinkum. Let’s go to the transcript:

Alan Kohler: By a quirk of fate, when the Great Depression arrived in 1930 Australia had a Labor government led by Jim Scullin and America had a Republican or conservative president, Herbert Hoover. Any government in power when unemployment goes to 30 per cent is going to be chucked out. And so they both were. So in 1932, in the depths of the Great Depression, Australia got the conservative Joe Lyons and America got the Democrat FDR –  Franklin Delano Roosevelt. In 1938, as part of his New Deal, FDR created the Federal National Mortgage Association, later nicknamed Fannie Mae, to buy mortgages from the bank so they could offer 30-year fixed-rate loans. Joe Lyons did not. He died in office in 1939 and was replaced by Bob Menzies, who was no more interested in New Deals, and 30-year fixed-rate mortgages, than Joe Lyons was. And when Menzies lost to Labor’s John Curtin in 1941, we were at war – and the moment had passed.

What a load of absolute tosh.  Here’s what’s wrong with the Kohler analysis:

  • It’s true that one reason for the Jim Scullin-led Labor government’s defeat at the December 1931 election turned on the impact of the Great Depression. But it was also influenced by the fact that the Labor Party split twice during the time of the Scullin government – concerning which Kohler made no mention.
  • Robert Menzies did not lose to John Curtin in 1941. Menzies stepped down in October 1941 and was replaced by Arthur Fadden. The Fadden government was defeated on the floor of Parliament when two Independent MPs, support from whom the Fadden government had depended, crossed the floor and voted with Labor on 7 October 1941. Soon after, Curtin was commissioned as prime minister by the Governor-General.
  • There was no election in 1941 – so Kohler’s claim that Menzies lost to Curtin in 1941 is just bunk. In September 1943, Curtin led Labor to a big victory – defeating the Opposition leader Fadden. Curtin died in office in 1945 – before the election scheduled for 1946. Menzies and Curtin never faced off in an election.

Comrade Kohler continued:

Alan Kohler: Fannie Mae is still there, later joined by Freddie Mac, and Ginnie Mae. And they provide banks with the liquidity and guarantees needed to lend at fixed rates for 30 years. And they are beloved institutions in the United States. But we don’t have them, thanks to Joe Lyons and Bob Menzies. And that’s why our fixed-rate loans max out at five years, and while we’ve got a mortgage cliff over which our economy is now driving, maybe we could do with a New Deal.

Gemma Veness: Alan Kohler with that report.

Clearly your man Kohler is a barracker for such left-of-centre leaders as F.D. Roosevelt and John Curtin.

It would seem that the taxpayer funded finance presenter is unaware of the fact that Australia and Britain recovered more quickly from the Great Depression than did the US during FDR’s presidency.  The US suffered a second depression in the 1930s – in 1938 – despite FDR’s New Deal.  Australia and Britain avoided this.

In fact, economic growth in both Australia and Britain in the 1930s was substantially higher than in the United States under FDR’s New Deal.

Also, Australia’s homeownership rates after the Second World War were significantly higher than that of the US – despite the legacy of the New Deal.

Fixed-rate mortgages are only beneficial to consumers of financial products if they are fixed – for whatever term – at rates lower than prevailing interest rates.  Even a left-of-centre economist should understand this.

And there’s one final point.  According to Comrade Kohler, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac “are beloved institutions in the United States”.  However, he did not tell ABC TV viewers (if viewers there were) that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac went bust in late 2008 – thus ushering in the Global Financial Crisis (GFC).  Both institutions were bailed out by the American taxpayer.  In the meantime, much of the northern hemisphere experienced a serious recession – which Australia avoided.

* * * * *

Alan Kohler reckons that Australia could do with a New Deal.  MWD reckons that ABC TV could do with a new finance presenter.

Alan Kohler: Media Fool of the Week.



On Wednesday 12 July, a report was released by “Net Zero Australia”, a group comprised of experts from the University of Melbourne, University of Brisbane and Princeton University – as well from the consultancy firms Nous and Evolved Energy Research. The report, titled “How to make net zero happen”, attempts to lay out how Australia can reach the goals of net zero domestic emissions by 2050 and net zero export emissions by 2060.

Chris Greig, a research scientist at Princeton who worked on the report, was quoted in The Australian saying that the transition to renewables required to meet the targets will cost Australia $1.2 to $1.5 trillion by 2030 and $7 to $9 trillion by 2060. Another of the report’s co-authors, Professor Robin Batterham from the University of Melbourne, is quoted comparing the net zero transition to the Marshall Plan or the Apollo Program in terms of cost and scope. The report estimates Australia will need around seven times as many people working in the energy sector to reach net zero.

Surely these shocking claims being made by an illustrious group of experts should have attracted widespread coverage in the press.

Well, the report earned no mention in the Nine newspapers. It was written up for The Guardian, though predictably the focus was on the report’s preference for wind and solar power over nuclear. The ABC News website contains no trace of the findings. 7:30 did air a report on Wednesday night about energy prices but it was focused on current high prices and accusations of price gouging.

Professor Batterham was interviewed on RN Breakfast on 12 July, but listeners were not exposed to the report’s most alarming findings – with the trillions of dollars of costs and massive increase in workforce required not mentioned. Like her Guardian comrades, presenter Patricia Karvelas seemed more interested in using the report to rubbish nuclear power (and the federal opposition, which is promoting considering nuclear as an option). Professor Batterham did not oblige, stating that while the study did not assume an increase in nuclear power production in Australia it “should be on the table for consideration”.

It would appear a report detailing the massive costs for Australia to reach net zero is of only limited interest in certain sections of the Australian media.


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 some years ago.  This is a print edition of the Bill Thompson initiative to report on the ABC TV Insiders program.  Mr Thompson remains in situ in Melbourne but Insiders has fled Melbourne and, consequently, will now be loosed from the troublesome Mr Thompson. [Maybe that’s why Insiders junked Melbourne – just a thought. – MWD Editor]


The right-of-centre Institute of Public Affairs has been cancelled by the ABC.  However, the left-of-centre Australia Institute is always welcome at the taxpayer funded public broadcaster.  As befits a Conservative Free Zone without a single conservative presenter, producer or editor for any of its prominent television, radio or online outlets.

And so it came as no surprise that David Speers led off the ABC TV Insiders program on  9 July with a poll commissioned by The Australia Institute.  Here’s presenter David (“Please call me Speersy”) Speers’ introduction:

David Speers: ….we can reveal this morning a new poll is suggesting a slight lift in support for the Indigenous Voice over the past month. The poll of more than a thousand people, conducted by the progressive think tank The Australia Institute during the week, shows support for the Voice increasing within the margin of error from 50 to 52 per cent. With 33 per cent saying “No” and 15 per cent unsure. It’s a much higher level of support than the national average of polls. And this poll also shows an overwhelming number of people, 82 per cent, now say they do know what the referendum is about. Only 11 per cent don’t know – including nearly one in four young voters. We’re gonna start with Robodebt….

Fancy that.  The Australia Institute – headed by Richard Denniss – is a left-wing think tank.  But likes to be called “progressive”. So Speersy introduced it as a “progressive think tank”.  No doubt this would have pleased Dr Denniss (for a doctor he is).

Media Watch Dog abides by the saying that it’s unwise to make predictions, especially about the future. Consequently, MWD will not prophesy the outcome of the Voice referendum, which will take place sometime between October and December.

However, it’s worth recording that the leftist multi-millionaire Peter FitzSimons – aka the Red Bandannaed One – was mighty excited by Speersy’s announcement. So much so that Comrade Fitz tweeted this:

To which Dr Kevin Bonham – who identifies as a polling analyst – had this to say about The Australia Institute’s polling:

Well, that’s telling them.  Later Dr Bonham (for a doctor he also is) put out a more considered analysis on his website – to the same effect.  Also, he said that “Dynata does not have a public track record of accurate election forecasts”.  Dynata is The Australia Institute’s pollster.

For the record, Bonham also criticised the Institute of Public Affairs’ pollster.  It’s just that ABC TV uses Australia Institute’s polls – but has banned the Institute of Public Affairs’ polls. How very ABC.


Many an avid Media Watch Dog reader just loves the Correspondence segment.  In view of this, it has been decided to supplement this hugely popular section with a segment where readers can have a whinge about this and that.


An avid Brisbane reader has decided to object to the following reference to non-dog dogs in last week’s issue – where it was written in the introduction to the First World Problems item about Comrade Jane Caro and her problem with her brand-new electric vehicle:

In this segment Media Watch Dog looks at First World Problems in a land partly populated by well-heeled non-dog dogs and well-off and highly educated members of the leftist inner-city Sandalista set with their fake concerns along with their fake canines. [Good critique – owners and ex-owners of Queensland Heelers should stand united against fashionable non-dog dogs and their pretentious owners – MWD Editor.]

Media Watch Dog had barely gone out on Friday 7 July when the following missive arrived from north of the Tweed River – written by the mysterious Dr M:

I must take issue on the matter of poodles.  My 15 year-old large miniature poodle is actually a dog.  Though he’s not a dog-dog.  Actually, given that his name is Felix, he ought to be a cat.  Perhaps he’s “the cat you have when you’re not having a cat”.  And, given that he’s 12 kilos, a person might say, if they must say anything about what version of poodle he is, that he is a “sub-standard” poodle.

In any case, whereas he hasn’t got any particular form of jewellery bling, he does have a collar by Hermes.  Truly. There was an old man in a coffee shop this morning, who asked me whether my dog would bite him.  I replied that my dog can’t even bite his own dinner.  A bit of a laugh ensued.

Best wishes to the co-owners of the late Jackie (Dip. etc.)

The (Male) Co-Owner of the late Jackie (Dip.Ed. The Gunnedah Institute) Comments:

Now here’s an apology.  Media Watch Dog  has nothing against large poodles – after all, they are – or were – a working dog in Germany in days gone by – or was it France?  MWD’s objection is to such non-dog dogs as Labradoodles and Cavoodles.  Why even the creator of the Labradoodles has declared that the majority of this breed “are either crazy or have a hereditary” problem.  What’s more, is there any point in having a canine which does not shed hair?  As to Cavoodles – well, they appear to be the mobile version of such wealth-flashing items as expensive watches (as depicted in the Australian Financial Review) and trophy spouses.

In other words, MWD stands by its campaign against non-dogs.  But real poodles are okay.  Here’s hoping this brings relief to proud poodle owners.



* * * * *

Until next time.

* * * * *